kainumayan paper on sd 303

1 |Social Development 303 Paper

The De-envelopment of the Aytas of Banawen and the Recreation of Kainumayan:

Strategies for Indigenous People’s Self-determined Development

SD 303 Paper

Submitted to:

Dr. Emmanuel Luna

Submitted by:

Angelito B. Meneses

April 4, 2012


The De-envelopment of the Aytas of Banawen and the Recreation of Kainumayan1:

Strategies for Indigenous People’s Self-determined Development

By Angelito B. Meneses

I. Of Development and Kainumayan

Development is undeniably a foreign concept for indigenous peoples (Bamba,2010). In fact the

word development to some indigenous people like to the Pali means disorderliness or confusion

(Sivaraksa, 1992). To many indigenous cultural communities, development is synonymous to the

destruction of nature-the very source of all life. Through development was how the Aytas of Banawen

lost their cherished Kainumayan.

Benny Capuno of the Central Luzon Ayta Association recounted their situation: We the Aytas are

really people of the forest. We live in the mountainous areas of Central Luzon with Mt. Pinatubo at the

center. The loss of our forest habitat is making our lives very precarious. Extensive logging is eating away

our forest home. Loggers have been able to trick us out of our heritage by invoking laws and legalities

that are foreign concept to us Aytas who live in the forest as our home and the very source and

sustenance of our life as a people. Without trees that provide us with fruits and the birds that give us

meat, we are nothing as a people.

In spite of the indigenous people’s articulation of the kind of life they valued, they had become

constant target of various development initiatives by the outsiders. To successfully advance these

developments, labels such as uncivilized, illiterate, underdeveloped and traditional were attached to the

indigenous people. Traditional in the parlance of modernization model implies a mindless replication of

cultural patterns generation after generation simply because “this is the way we’ve always done it” or

because the ancestors taught us to do it this way” (Perry, 1996), thus it serves as a good rationale to

prescribe dose of modernization projects among the impoverished indigenous people.

But it is known that development is essentially a dominating process where destinies of peoples are

shaped according to a Eurocentric perception of the world (Corpus,2010). Some old notions of unilinear

progress are implicit in conventional economic models that portray indigenous peoples as

underdeveloped essentially means that people are poor (Perry,1996).Thus, the mission of development 1 Kainumayan is an Ayta Zambal term which simply means abundance of creation. Interestingly, it is also equivalent

to the New Heaven and New Earth described in the bible. When I asked them to describe it, they said that it is a state in the past where resources were bountiful and everyone lives in harmony with nature.


effort is to improve the lot of the indigenous people. But this so called development interventions had

greatly undermined the culture and distinct identity of the indigenous people. Corpus (2010) tersely

pointed this out:

Clearly, development was aimed at making self-governing and self-reliant indigenous

communities into dependent entities subsumed into global market economy and nation-state.

In addition to the trauma caused by infrastructure development, they also suffered from

conversion of their territories, which became agricultural mono-crop plantations of rubber,

coffee, cocoa, bananas, pineapple, sugar cane and eucalyptus or into mining enclaves and

ranches. From being subsistence farmers, hunters and gatherers, fishers or pastoralist,

indigenous peoples were reduced to seasonal farmworkers or laborers at best, or slaves at

worst.

The term development has acquired a negative connotation for indigenous peoples even if this is

called sustainable, because their histories are replete with traumatic experiences with development

projects, policies and programs. In fact, mainstream development is regarded as one of the root causes

of their problems (Corpus 2010). In the name of development the lands of the indigenous people are

taken over, their homes destroyed and nature is raped and ripped. For the Aytas, Kainumayan was

dramatically destroyed in the guise of good intentions of but self-serving development for the intruders.

The recounting of Capuno (1996) for instance clearly depicted how the Aytas were put into the inferior

level of knowledge when it comes to development by those who are in government:

When persons from DENR came supposedly to revitalize the forest, they planted trees such as

gmelina, ipil-ipil, and auricoliformis for which have no use for us Aytas because these trees bear

no fruits that people or birds can eat…During the Marcos era, Imelda Marcos had a project

which enjoined us to plant ipil-ipil trees. When we realized that the trees were useless, we

decided to burn the trees down and plant bananas instead.

The Kainumayan concept of a bountiful life for the Aytas of Banawen was lost because of

development aggression. Development aggression refers to the imposition of so called development

projects and policies without the free, prior and informed consent of those affected, under the rubric of

modernization and nation-building (Corpus,2010). In addition, the change of psyche and values can also

be attributed to development aggression because comes along with it is the values of the global

development model. According to Bennagen, in practically all of the traditional territories of indigenous

peoples, pressures on them and their land have come from migrant settlers, infrastructure projects,

local and transnational corporations. Many have suffered from displacement arising from counter-


interagency operations. Christianization has also undermined belief systems contributory to

environmental protection and biodiversity conservation (Bennagen, 1996). The spread of Christianity

often took a back seat to the appropriation of precious metals, but it was a significant factor throughout

the Spanish colonial period. In many respects, the two motivations were hardly separable. Despite

conflicts between the clergy and other Spanish interests, Christianity in many ways served to rationalize

and facilitate the pursuit of wealth (Perry, 1996).

But indigenous people are not passive victims of development aggressions. They have altered their

strategies to pursue their own interest in the midst of the incursion of mainstream development

models. They have spoken up. Let us listen to Ferdinand Mangili, an Ibaloy leader:

San Roque dam is one of the biggest dams in Asia but we cannot say we own it or that it will

benefit our people, it is a project owned by the consortium Marubeni, Kansai and Sithe

Energies. If the dam is operated and this goes on for many years, they are the ones who will

profit greatly from it. They will enjoy all the gains promised by government. We Ibaloy will get

nothing (from the subtitle of the documentary film “Agno”).

Another dam, called the Chico Hydroelectric Dam project, was to be built in the Cordillera region in

the mid 1970s, but the Igorots resisted this time and won the battle, succeeding in cancelling it even if

the Philippines was then under martial rule. It was during this time that many indigenous students

became activists and started to build an indigenous people’s movement in the cordillera region. They

challenged the development model imposed on them, especially when President Marcos stated that the

minority had to “sacrifice for the sake of development of majority” (Corpus, 2010).

As argued by the indigenous people themselves, Bennagen (1996) contends that the key to the

understanding why these destructive forces continue is because of the adherence of the State to the so-

called Regalian Doctrine imposed by Spanish colonialism and which is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine

Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 2): “all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and

other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timbers, wildlife, flora and fauna,

and other natural resources are owned by the state.

This doctrine in a way has stripped off the legal status of the indigenous people to be the rightful

stewards of everything found in their ancestral domain. States inevitably have governmental structures.

Some sort of political mechanism mediates and exercise power, regulates access to resources, imposes a

degree of order, and so on (Perry, 1996). The State in the performance of its duties may opt to favor the

investors who are going to exploit the resources within the land and territories of indigenous

communities over a nurturing development framework practiced by the indigenous people. The State


has a long history of being conduit of development or modernization that sacrificed the minority -

indigenous people in favor of the majority-lowlanders.

Kainumayan is in full contrast to a development that concerns the future. It is a de-envelopment

process or a development purge that would lead to regaining the glory of the past. Self-determined

development as de-envelopment is a process of getting out from the envelope or any forms of

enclosures like development that impoverished, oppressed, exploit, manipulate, control and dominate

(Meneses, 2012). It reflects the aspirations of indigenous peoples with regard to development in the

traditional sense. It places its strongest emphasis on the cultural dimensions of development, and on

appropriate mechanisms for ensuring indigenous participation at all levels in the determination of

development priorities (Plant, 1998).

II. Development with Culture and Identity: Review of Literature

The long traditions of indigenous self-government have been interrupted, limited or denied by

colonial or post-colonial states (UNDP,2008). In the conferences and assemblies, the indigenous peoples

worldwide have started to get together. They have said enough of the atrocities of development

brought to them. They said stop. They said it so loud, so often and so well that they started to stop the

whole world calling them uncivilized, illiterate, underdeveloped and traditional. At present they have

taken control of their own labels, including development with culture and identity.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, states in its third article that

Indigenous peoples have the right of self determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine

their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Self-determined development for indigenous peoples is not a grand paradigmatic, generic

alternative to mainstream development. It is simply part of the indigenous people’s assertion of their

right of self-determination and to remain as diverse and distinct cultures and communities. It captures

the essence of their struggles since colonization to define their own development within the framework

of their inherent rights and in consonance with the relationship they have with nature. It is an attempt

to protect whatever remains of their indigenous cultural, economic, and political systems and values

which they want to sustain (Corpus, 2010).

However, there are questions being raised about how self-determined is self-determined. For

instance, the question whether an Ayta who decides to wear a pair of branded jeans or to use whitening

cream on his volition can be qualified to be self-determination? And cannot be isolated or marginalized


as a member of indigenous community? The concept of self-determined development simply considers

the indigenous people as collective, rather than individuals, with distinct and unique cultures and world

views to determine their collective needs and aspirations for the future that is different from those of

the mainstream population.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) gives legal recognition to the claims of communities to

their ancestral land that they have occupied from time immemorial. It is supposed to restore the legal

status of the indigenous people as first inhabitants and rightful stewards of everything found in their

ancestral domains.

The re-establishment of mutually agreed upon relations between the state and indigenous peoples

in which the people or community determines its own future in accordance with its own processes is the

key principle in the UN, some of the concepts related to are important to mention:

Lands and territories have material, cultural and spiritual dimensions for indigenous peoples.

They are required for their survival and economic sustainability and are intrinsically linked to the

identity and existence of a people. Indigenous peoples call for inalienable and collective

ownership of their lands and territories.

Natural Resources - indigenous peoples’ natural resources are vital and integral components of

their lands and territories. The concept includes the entire environment: surface and sub-

surface, waters, forests, ice and air. Indigenous peoples have been guardians of these natural

environments and play a key role, through their traditions, in respectfully maintaining them for

future generations.

Environmental- many indigenous peoples are highly dependent on their lands and natural

resources and any changes to the ecosystem may impact on their way of life and survival.

Environmental degradation contributes to continued poverty in indigenous communities due to

their strong reliance on the environment for their livelihoods.

Indigenous Knowledge System- Indigenous peoples have, over the course of generations

developed rich sets of knowledge about the natural world, health, technologies and techniques,

rites and rituals and other cultural expressions.

Justice System- indigenous peoples are stigmatized by mainstream cultures and justice systems

and discriminated against or treated in discriminatory, derogatory manners by police, military

and dominant justice systems. Indigenous peoples, however, have longstanding internal systems

of justice sometimes focused on rehabilitation or compensation rather than punishment. Such

systems, if combined with the national justice system, can offer appropriate justice in


communities where access to justice is limited or as a means of reducing high levels of

incarceration. In some countries the state recognizes traditional indigenous have courts and

laws.

Self‐Determined Development could only be materialized if it is rooted and emerged from the

indigenous peoples themselves. It is an initiative undertaken by, from, and for the indigenous peoples

themselves. Outsiders could support by offering alternatives, shared experiences or facilities (Bamba,

2010).

III. Community Development Approach as Strategy in Recreating Kainumayan

The community development approach as a major strategy in recreating Kainumayan involves three

areas which according to Luna (1997) include community education, community organizing and community

resource management.

Community education engages the indigenous people to clarify their traditional values and also

enhances their skills necessary for them to act and respond to their situation (Luna, 1997). More importantly,

community education serves as a potent venue for raising critical awareness or conscientization (Luna,1997

where the indigenous people critically analyze their situation and de-internalize the oppressions brought

about by the mainstream development values and to take action to reclaim their self-determination.

Community organizing is done primarily through community integration on the part of the support

institutions or individuals in solidarity with the issues of indigenous people. The organizing process should be

geared towards the development of genuine indigenous people’s organization (Manalili, 1992).

Community resource management enhances the indigenous people’s capability to manage their own

affairs and their socio-economic development (Manalili, 1992) in a manner that does not over-exploit

the resources found within their ancestral domains. It is anchored on the value system on consulting the

spirits, working with nature and sharing with others (Bennagen, 1997).

In addition to the three areas of community development as proposed by Luna (1997), three more

areas should be considered to add to the flavor of self-determined development, they are culture,

spirituality and identity.

Culture is the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to

act imaginatively and creatively. Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation

in life (Meneses, 2012). The spirituality is manifested in various rituals performed to maintain human

beings’ connection with nature and other beings. By performing rituals regularly, human beings tell,

teach and remind themselves about their interconnectedness and interdependencies with the nature. It

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol


also serves as a medium to enhance their capacity and understanding about “the way of the

nature”(Bamba, 2010). Identity is a self-ascription belonging to a group with others who similarly

identify themselves, who affirm or are committed together to a set of values, practices and meanings

(Bell, 1997).

This community development approach is essentially coincided with the UN Development Group

Guidelines on Indigenous People’s Issues (2008) when they wrote:

Mainstreaming and integrating indigenous peoples’ issues in development implies that

principles of cultural diversity and its corollary, intercultural dialogue have to be integrated in

all development policies and programmes. This concept is reflected in Recommendation 12 of

the Programme of Action of the Second Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, which states

that “culture should be integrated as a prerequisite for any development project design in

order to build development with identity, respecting people’s way of life and building

sustainable human development”. It also implies the effective participation of indigenous

peoples and their representatives, including indigenous women, throughout programming

cycles and strategic planning processes, as well as consciously and proactively undertaking all

efforts to ensure that their rights are respected, promoted and strengthened thanks to the

programming and project activities.

Figure 1 presents the interlocking strategies of community development approach and indigenous

people’s self-determined development.

Community

Education

Community

Organizing

Self-Determined Development

Community Resource

Management

Identity

Ancestral

Culture

Spirituality

Ancestral


IV. Illustrative Case: The Aytas of Sitio Banawen

Recounting Kainumayan

Sitio Banawen is located in Barangay Maloma, San Felipe, Zambales. The village is situated along

the meandering Maloma River. The water on the river was then so rapid but so clean that it was fit for

drinking. The slope was a forested area with the tree girths bigger than a man’s waist. The maloma River

abounded in freshwater resources such as dalag, tilapia, bunog, igat and palos, crustaceans described to

be similar to sugpo. Accordingly, one hour of gathering could produce more than a kilo of the freshwater

species.

The forested area above Banawen was a good game area. Deer, wild boars, bees, wild chicken,

lizards and colorful birds abound for hunting. Wild fruits such as bignay, wild mangoes and cashew could

be gathered around the forested areas. Indigenous root crops such as “buga”, “baluwegan”, ube and

“durian” (Deoscorea Family) were available for gathering during non-harvest seasons.

Most of the Aytas of Banawen were lowland rice farmers. Water from the Maloma River irrigated their

filed whole year round that two cropping were viable.

The Aytas usually depended on the rice they grow for cash. To augment their cash flow, they also

market gabi. Non-timber forest products such as nito, buho, bikal, rattan, banana flowers and cogon

were also marketed.

The Aytas have strong sense of kinship. Family households of sons and daughters usually

surrounded the house of the father and mother. Thus a household clump distanced within a stone’s

throw away from each other usually belongs to a single clan. Each clan has a common eating place

usually that of the father. Every household brought all their cooked food in the house to partake it with

everyone. Oftentimes, a kinship maintains a communal farm from where their daily foods were taken.

Development Context

In 1991, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was not only a natural phenomenon but to Aytas it was Apo

Namalyari’s wrath on the development projects. The fact that it is sacred made them wonder why the

government allowed “digging” or hydro-thermal exploration on its slopes by the Philippine National Oil

Company (PNOC). They believed that Apo Namalyari got deranged by all the noise created by the drilling

machines. The exploration was terminated after two years because of insufficient moisture that would


generate enough vapors for a viable hydrothermal project. It was then that the geological data of

Philvocs indicated an impending eruption, a fact that the Aytas attributed to the wrath of Apo Namalyari

to those who desecrated his mountain.

Banawen was literally buried by lahar. The once picturesque of Kainumayan has totally vanished.

The ravines were filled up that the village site became riverbeds. Only tops of gigantic trees were visible

on top of the ashen field. Their crops, houses and even animals were gone, buried deep under by the

Pinatubo’s wrath.

Journey back to Banawen

The Banawen Aytas were scattered to different relocation centers. Most of them went to Loob –

Bunga, Behawo, Bucao and Dampay resettlements in Botolan. Some went farther to resettlement areas

in New Cabalan, Olongapo. The sight of hundreds of people bundled together in temporary shelters

indicated that basic supplies were never adequate for everyone. The Aytas are usually shy when with

non-Ayta-lowlanders that deprived them to collect relief goods such as mats and kitchen utensil. As

foods were mostly from donations, most Aytas developed dependence and indolence. They were fed

with noodles, sardines and dried fish which were not apropos to their palate.

After staying in the resettlement for less than a year, the Aytas were faced with the uncertainty of

being an orphan and growing restlessness among them, Ka Andres Mendigorin, thought that maybe

going back to the situation that Aytas used to be is the solution. He started surveying former Ayta lands

to till and to come home to. A village in Behawo, Botolan was the first prospect. He brought his clan of

eight families but later found out that the soil was still not properly aerated and not suitable for growing

crops. The unfeasibility of the plan to settle in Behawo made decide to go back to their original place in

Banawen.

Four families headed by Ka Andres trekked back to Banawen and started testing the soils of their

farms. They requested an initial 50 hectares from DENR as an initial claim pending the processes for

actual identification of the ancestral domain claim. They started planting rice as well as other staples

such as bananas. Rice planted on lahar weathered but bananas grew robustly on the ashen soil. They

had seen a glimmer of hope when they reaped the first harvest and got inspired to rename their

organization SABA (Samahan ng mga Ayta sa Banawen) reminiscent of the banana which symbolized the

success of the group in conquering the seemingly inhabitable land (saba is an Ilocano word for banana).


The Role of support institutions in self-determined development

When word spread that tilling the ashen field is feasible and that the Aytas of Banawen are

moving on fast to reclaim their original land, more families decided to leave the resettlement areas and

went back to Banawen.

The Kapatiran-Kaunlaran Foundation Inc. together with Sentro Para sa Ganap na Pamayanan and

the College of Social Work and Community Development of the University of the Philippines joined

together to assist the Aytas of Banawen. The entry into the scene was when these institutions were

invited to conduct a leadership seminar for the local leaders. They started working towards the

empowerment of the Aytas of Banawen. They provided technical support and assisted in building

community capabilities through training while giving them daily sustenance through the food-for-work.

KKFI also networked with other NGO’s that were interested in helping the Aytas. KKFI also assisted SABA

in drafting a proposal for agro-forestry project that was submitted to Andres Soriano Foundation for

funding. An adult literacy and numeracy program was launched to increase literacy among the Aytas.

Organizational management seminars were also conducted to fully develop the leadership potentials of

the Aytas.

KKFI and other institutions firmly believe that the Aytas should advocate true development

themselves that is development rooted in their culture and identity. The support institutions took the

stance of partners not patron of SABA. Since the start, the term partnership was emphasized to

insinuate their commitment in enhancing the community capabilities and self-reliance.

Self-determined Development Strategies

With the assistance of KKFI and SENTRO, biodiversity conservation was conceptualized as a project

to towards sustainable habitation and livelihood. It was focused on four major strategies of the Aytas:

1. Pursuance of their ancestral domain claim;

2. Expansion of the community’s resource base;

3. Rehabilitation, protection and conservation of the ecosystem; and

4. Strengthening and development of the community capabilities which include training of local

“expert” on agriculture and forestry.


These strategies were translated into program of activities which include:

a. Cropland ecosystem development

The cropland ecosystem development was focused on establishing a sustainable food

source for the Aytas of Banawen. It was done through infusing technology with the indigenous

agricultural knowledge of the Aytas. Agricultural innovations used were in adaptation to the

geological changes about by the eruption. Planting of fruit-bearing trees were done on deeper

trenches for the plant to reach the original top soil while the dried grasses were mulched around

its base to reduce evaporation.

b. Forest Ecology Protection

The forest means livelihood for the Aytas. It is where they get their needs to live.

Understanding the importance of the forest, the Aytas initiated the gathering of the wildings

from the surviving trees along the rivers. Seedling bags were purchased and five micro-nurseries

were established for seedlings before planting them on the slopes. Highly valuable and endemic

species were specifically selected for the reforestation. To protect the remaining forested areas

of Banawen, SABA applied for the deputation of their own forest guards. The deputized forest

guards led community members in securing the remnant forests specially within the ancestral

domain claim. Conservation efforts were also extended to indigenous medicinal plants known to

Aytas. Plants known for medicinal properties were pooled in a portion of one of the tilled fields.

The women group largely supported the effort. Medicinal plant expert were invited to infuse

know-how on medicinal plant preparations.

c. Ancestral Domain Claim

From the 50 hectare originally requested from DENR, the ancestral domain claim was

increased to 2,000 hectares upon the support of UNDP-GEF-SGP. This was after the community-

initiated effort to establish the delineation of their ancestral land according to their landmarks.

With the accomplishment of the Banawen Aytas, the cognizance of the ancestral right was

heightened among the indigenous people of Zambales. As a result, several Ayta organizations

converged as federation to sway the government on awarding their own ancestral domain

throughout Zambales.


d. Capability building

Seminars and focused group discussions were used to enhance the community capabilities

and skills in four major areas namely: organizational development, cropland ecosystem, forest

protection and conservation and herbal plant protection.

V. Hindsight and Reflections

Reflecting on the experience of the Aytas of Banawen, self-determined development is consistent

with the principles and approach of community development. Self-determined development means that

any development should be defined by the indigenous people or in the event that there are support

institutions, development should be defined together with them. The process must start from where the

indigenous people are and build on what they have and on what they already know. Most importantly,

self-determined development is assisting the indigenous people in their continuing capability building,

empowerment and self-reliance. Self-determined development for the indigenous people must have a

common pace and a collective vision of destination.

Outsiders must recognize that indigenous people is a nation with peculiar culture, spirituality and

identity different from the mainstream population which is governed by the state. Because of this, the

aim of development should never be geared towards converting them to believe what the lowlanders

believe or transforming them to live exactly like the dominant population live. It was seriously

articulated by the indigenous people that one of the causes of their impoverishment as people living

with nature is itself the development that is being brought in to them. They are not fighting against

development they just wanted to chart their own path to development that is in keeping with their

culture, spirituality and identity. We, outsiders including the state, as we find ourselves in solidarity with

their causes should journey with them in their own common journey, common pace and common

destination. Sensibility on where to position ourselves is what is required of us. There are moments that

we lead when we journey with them because the road is narrow and the indigenous people are not yet

confident to proceed; the time to walk side by side when the road is wider; and the juncture to let them

carry on the journey by themselves towards their collective vision of destination, and at the end they

will say “we did it ourselves”. This is the truest meaning of self-determined development where the

indigenous people become active participants experiencing liberative praxis.


Figure 2 illustrates the applicability of the community development approach to indigenous people’s

self-determined development based on the experience of the Aytas of Banawen in recreating

Kainumayan:

Kainumayan is the vision of development of the Aytas of Banawen. It is a vision of recreating the

past, since the past was a picturesque of abundance. For them the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was a way

Apo Namalyari reminded them not to abandon their sacred relationship with nature. They have

journeyed back to Banawen- a symbolic return to regain the past and the establishment of a new

Kainumayan with the present social development context.

They have experienced de-envelopment- both a process of passing through a “pasch” and de-

colonization from the grip of global development model. The word pasch is understood to be the

process by which one passes from a negative situation, in the case of the Aytas of Banawen from

aggression and exploitation to a positive situation like taking control of their path to their proposed

development. Through this de-envelopment process, the Aytas have transformed themselves from

Collectivity

Naturality

Subsistence

Customary laws

Symbols

Functional Literacy

Capability Building

Skills Development

Biodiversity Conservation

Ancestral Domain

Management

Forest Ecology

Protection

Cropland

ecosystem

development

Integration on the part of

organizer (Support

institutions)

Formation of SABA

Leadership skills

Indigenous

Education

Indigenous

Organizing

Self-Determined Development

Indigenous Resource

Management

Identity

Ancestral

Culture

Spirituality

Ancestral

Orientation in life

Relationship with nature

Belief systems

Myths

Morality

Own label

Commitment to a

set of values,

practices and

meanings


passive victims of development into active molders (Manalili, 1992) of their own development where

they are absolutely decisive and practically involved in the whole development endeavors.

References

Adams, Bell and Griffin. eds. (1997). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. Routledge, New York.

Bamba, J. (2010). Self-determined Development: Lessons from Kalimantan Credit Union Movement.

Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines. Bennagen and Fernan. eds.(1996). Consulting the Spirits, Working with Nature, Sharing with Others:

Indigenous Resource Management in the Philippines. Sentro Para sa Ganap na Pamayanan. Corpus,V. (2010). Indigenous People’s Self-determined Development: Challenges and Trajectories.

Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines. Kapatiran-Kaunlaran Foundation Inc. Annual Reports (1997-2001) Kapatiran Newsletter. (January – June 2008). Inspiring Hope: Partnering with Communities. Vol. 29. No.

Kapatiran- Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc. Kapatiran Newletter.(July – December 2008). Triumphs of Communities: Wellspring of Hope. Vol. 29. No.

Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc.

Luna, E. (1997). Rethinking Community Development. CSWCD Development Journal. CSWCD, UP,

Diliman. Manalili, A. (1992) Community Organizing for People’s Empowerment. Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation

Inc. Manila. Meneses, J. (2012) Common Walk: Modules for Community Development Training. Plant, R. (1998). Indigenous Peoples and Poverty Reduction: A Case Study of Guatemala. Perry, R. (1996). From Time Immemorial: Indigenous Peoples and State Systems. University of Texas

Press, Austin. Sivaraksa, S. (1992). Seeds of Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society. Parallax Press. Barkeley,

California. United Nations Development Group Guidelines on Indigenous People. (2008).

kainumayan paper on sd 303

Documents