We, members of Indigenous Peoples of Asia and the Pacific, Indigenous rights defenders, and representatives of Indigenous Peoples Organizations, having engaged in the ongoing review of the Accountability Mechanism (AM) Policy (2012) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) through the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG) present the following preliminary recommendations for the Policy review.
Firstly, we appreciate the dedicated consultations undertaken with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives for the Policy review through the IPAG, including our virtual sessions with the AM Policy Review secretariat as well as the in-person consultation with the joint Board and Management Working Group held on 27 June 2025 at the ADB Headquarters in Manila. The following recommendations are based on the discussions during the sessions and the consultation:
1. Awareness-raising efforts on ADB safeguards and accountability mechanism should commence from the earliest stages of project conception and planning, ensuring they are conducted in Indigenous languages, where possible, and with full cultural sensitivity. The revised AM Policy should include proactive awareness raising function for the AM.
More importantly, the ADB management and the borrower/client should be liable to ensure that the project affected communities know about ADB financing, the applicable Safeguards and the AM as an avenue for voicing concerns. That can be undertaken such as by installing public signages in local languages at construction sites and across the impact area of the project. Further, they should effectively engage Indigenous Peoples’ communities and their representatives since the design of the project itself.
2. Requirement of prior good faith effort (GFE) is among the biggest hindrances to accessing the AM. Addressing the complaint to the ADB management at national or regional levels and the project implementing agency before it can be escalated to the AM often poses risks to the communities and their leaders/defenders. That exposes them to direct or indirect reprisals, including harassment and pressure, when their identities become known. That also usually causes delays in the communities’ grievances being addressed independently and effectively.
The GFE requirement should be removed. Affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities or others must retain the right to file complaints directly with the AM. We agree that there is merit in strengthening project level and management level grievance mechanisms. However, our experiences show that project level grievance mechanisms have been far from effective while ADB management often are also very close to the project implementing agency or the borrower/client to ensure independence in them handling complaints. So, the AM should NOT be a mechanism of last resort. The affected communities or persons should be able to file complaints to the AM whenever they feel appropriate.
3. The two functions of the AM should be retained and strengthened. Currently, they suffer from a structural flaw in sequencing, whereby complainants can opt for compliance review after problem solving (dispute resolution) but the reverse is not allowed. This limits the flexibility and overall effectiveness of the AM. The revised AM Policy should address this flaw so that affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities or others can opt to first establish non-compliance of ADB policies and then engage in dispute resolution after the truth about wrongdoing has been established. This would be in line with principles of justice of Indigenous Peoples, whereby acknowledgement of wrongdoing should happen first. The complainants should be able to which function they wish to opt for at whichever point of the complaint process.
4. Limited powers of the AM deters Indigenous Peoples’ communities from filing complaints. Often, Indigenous Peoples’ communities affected by an ADB-assisted project seek suspension of the project itself. However, the AM lacks sufficient authority to recommend suspension of financing even temporarily and even when it finds the project non-compliant of ADB Safeguards/policies. Projects are allowed to continue during dispute resolution or compliance review, which escalate harms. On the other hand, complaint processes are dragged for years.
The revised Policy should thus firstly provide the AM authority to recommend suspension of financing, at least temporarily, to prevent further harms from a project during dispute resolution or compliance review. Such suspension is particularly important when there are reprisals against the complainants or communities’ leaders/defenders.
Secondly, the AM should also be provided the authority to recommend remedy for the affected communities from the project implementing agency or the borrower/client as well as the ADB. This would also bring the AM and the ADB in line with the evolving standards of other multilateral development banks as well as align with the right to remedy of affected communities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Thirdly, the revised Policy should also give the AM authority for taking up complaints suo moto based on credible reports of impacts from ADB-assisted projects. Such self-initiation power would particularly be important for the AM as most developing member countries of the ADB where its assisted projects are implemented have closed or shrinking civic space. So, it is often difficult or risky for affected Indigenous or other communities to file complaints.
Further, problem solving function of the AM should be strengthened to give the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) powers to require parties to take necessary actions for dispute resolution within a defined timeframe. Repeated failures to respect such timeframe by the project implementing agency or the borrower/client should also be grounds for suspension of project financing. Or, if the complainants are dragging the process, the OSPF should be able to decide to end the process. However, while we see the merit to limit the timeframe of a dispute resolution process, the complainants should be able to decide if they wish to end the dispute resolution.
Similarly, during the dispute resolution, the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities should be free to decide on their representation. Their representatives can be from their communities in any number or from their supporting defenders and NGOs. To address the power imbalance between Indigenous communities and the project implementing agency or the borrower/client, the OSPF should allow for the complainants from the Indigenous or other communities to decide on their representation.
Finally, the AM should also be provided advisory function to provide advice on policies/policy reforms and technical aspects of projects.
5. Under the revised Policy, the AM should be required, in its processes, to respect the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the project affected Indigenous communities, particularly for complaints related to land and resource rights of Indigenous Peoples. Adequate time and information must be provided for consultation within the communities before setting agenda, timing/location of meetings; hiring of consultants and facilitators; and in determining the outcomes of the meetings. Imposing meeting times and predetermined agendas without consultation marginalizes their participation and weakens trust in the process. For this, the AM processes should follow community or FPIC protocols of Indigenous communities where they exist.
Further, the AM processes must be culturally appropriate and gender responsive. They must respect or follow customary laws and practices of Indigenous Peoples or their customary justice institutions where they exist. They must support equitable participation with Indigenous communities to ensure participation of vulnerable members.
6. AM processes should be further simplified it is more accessible and effective. Many Indigenous communities in remote areas may face barriers such as limited access to technical support or lack of experience in preparing formal written complaints, particularly in the absence of supporting NGOs. So, they should be able to file complaints verbally or in other forms and through various channels. The current system is overly complex, creating barriers for communities to submit grievances independently without supporting NGOs.
7. The revised AM Policy should provide for stronger coordination with other IAMs when multiple IAMs of different multilateral development bank are involved to address complaints in case of co-financed projects. Such coordination should prevent duplicative processes for the complainants while following the highest standards of procedures among the IAMs.
8. The revised AM Policy must provide the AM to recommend responsible exit when the ADB withdraws assistance from a project. This should particularly be ensured to avoid risk of reprisals against complainants or communities’ leaders/defenders, or to prevent implementation of the project based on outcomes from the earlier ADB assistance without respect for the rights of the affected Indigenous and other communities.
9. ADB should seriously look into the cases of reprisals resulting from raising concerns on ADB funded projects. The Accountability Mechanism should provide a safe and effective avenue for receiving the reporting and timely addressing of such cases of reprisals. Handling cases of reprisals emanating from ADB funded projects should be addressed even in post project scenarios.
We hope for your positive consideration to above initial recommendations from the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group and its associated organizations for the AM Policy review so that the AM under the revised Policy can be truly community centered. We expect that these recommendations will be reflected in the revised draft of the AM Policy. Upon receiving the revised draft, we will come back with further comments during the forthcoming Phase 2 of the review. We finally call on that the Phase 2 of the review also involves additional dedicated consultations with Indigenous Peoples as part of a broad, public and meaningful consultative process, and that a Board-led process is continued in the drafting of the revised AM policy, which also effectively involves the AM itself as the offices in the AM have been the channels for Indigenous Peoples to raise concerns with the ABD-assisted projects.
Sincerely,
Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group Including on behalf of its following members Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP) Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI) Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera (CDPC), Philippines Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ), Nepal Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), Philippines Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS), Malaysia Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) ANGSANA, Indonesia Lembaga Bentang Alam Hijau (LemBAH), Indonesia
Cambodia’s rich cultural tapestry is woven with a diverse array of Indigenous communities, each possessing unique traditions and practices that have been passed down through generations. These time-honored customs, often referred to as Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs), play a vital role in governing various aspects of community life, from land management and resource allocation to social relations and conflict resolution.
Definition and Scope
Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs) are a set of traditional laws, norms, and practices that have been developed and passed down through generations within Indigenous communities. These rules govern various aspects of community life, including land use, resource management, social relations, and dispute resolution. [1]
ICRs differ from formal legal systems in several key ways. First, they are typically unwritten and based on oral traditions, customs, and beliefs. Second, they are often more flexible and adaptable than formal laws, allowing for greater community participation and consensus-building in decision-making. Third, they are often enforced through community-based mechanisms, such as mediation, negotiation, and traditional rituals, rather than through formal legal institutions.[2] In many ways, ICRs reflect the values and beliefs of Indigenous communities. They often emphasize the importance of collective well-being, environmental sustainability, and respect for elders and ancestors. [3]They may also incorporate spiritual and religious beliefs, as well as traditional knowledge about the natural world. [4]
In Cambodia, ICRs play a significant role in the lives of many Indigenous communities, particularly in rural areas. These rules govern land use, resource management, and social relations, and they are often intertwined with traditional cultural practices and beliefs. However, ICRs in Cambodia also face challenges, such as encroachment by the formal legal system and competing interests from external actors. Despite these challenges, ICRs continue to be an important source of law and governance for many Indigenous communities in Cambodia. They provide a framework for community-based decision-making, conflict resolution, and resource management, and they help to preserve traditional cultural values and practices. As Cambodia continues to develop, it is important to recognize the value of ICRs and to find ways to integrate them into the formal legal system in a way that respects the rights and interests of Indigenous communities [5].
Cultural Significance
Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs) play a vital role in shaping and maintaining the identity and cohesion of Indigenous communities in Cambodia. These rules, passed down through generations, provide a framework for social interaction, resource management, and dispute resolution, all of which contribute to a strong sense of community belonging.
One-way ICRs contribute to identity is by defining who belongs to the community and how members should behave. These rules often outline specific roles and responsibilities for different members of the community, such as elders, chiefs, and young people. By adhering to these roles, individuals contribute to the overall functioning of the community and reinforce their sense of belonging.
ICRs also contribute to community cohesion by promoting social harmony and resolving conflicts peacefully. Many Indigenous communities in Cambodia have traditional mechanisms for resolving disputes, such as mediation and negotiation, which are often guided by ICRs. These mechanisms help to maintain social order and prevent conflicts from escalating, thereby strengthening community bonds.
Furthermore, ICRs play a crucial role in the transmission of cultural knowledge and practices across generations. These rules are often embedded in stories, songs, and rituals that are passed down from elders to young people. By participating in these activities, young people learn about their community’s history, values, and traditions, thereby ensuring the continuity of their cultural heritage.[6]
In conclusion, ICRs are an essential component of Indigenous identity and cohesion in Cambodia. These rules provide a framework for social interaction, resource management, and dispute resolution, all of which contribute to a strong sense of community belonging. Additionally, ICRs play a vital role in the transmission of cultural knowledge and practices across generations, ensuring the continuity of Indigenous cultures in Cambodia.
Comparative Analysis
Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs) have much to offer modern legal systems, particularly in terms of environmental sustainability, community participation, and dispute resolution.
One key lesson from ICRs is their emphasis on environmental sustainability. Many Indigenous communities have developed intricate systems of resource management that ensure the long-term health of their ecosystems. For example, some Indigenous communities in Cambodia have traditional practices for managing forests and fisheries that promote biodiversity and prevent overexploitation. These practices could inform modern environmental laws and policies, which often focus on short-term economic gains at the expense of long-term ecological sustainability. [7]
Another valuable aspect of ICRs is their emphasis on community participation. Many ICRs are developed and enforced through collective decision-making processes that involve all members of the community. This approach ensures that everyone has a voice in the rules that govern them and promotes a sense of ownership and responsibility. Modern legal systems could benefit from greater community participation in the development and implementation of laws, particularly those that affect local communities.
Finally, ICRs often provide effective mechanisms for resolving disputes. Many Indigenous communities have traditional practices for mediation, negotiation, and reconciliation that can resolve conflicts peacefully and fairly. These practices can be more efficient and less costly than formal legal proceedings, and they can also help to maintain social harmony within the community. Modern legal systems could benefit from exploring alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, to reduce the burden on courts and promote more efficient and equitable justice. [8]
In Cambodia, the integration of ICRs into the formal legal system has been a complex and ongoing process. However, there have been some positive developments, such as the recognition of customary land tenure rights in the 2001 Land Law. This recognition has helped to secure land rights for many Indigenous communities and has promoted greater respect for their traditional practices.
Looking ahead, it is important to continue to find ways to integrate the valuable lessons of ICRs into modern legal systems. This could involve greater recognition of traditional knowledge and practices, increased community participation in legal decision-making, and the development of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms. By learning from Indigenous approaches to governance and law, we can create more just, equitable, and sustainable legal systems for all.
Contemporary Issues
Indigenous communities in Cambodia, like many around the world, face a complex set of challenges in upholding their customary laws. These laws, often deeply intertwined with spiritual beliefs and ancestral traditions, govern land rights, resource management, and social structures. [9]However, the encroachment of modern development, legal systems, and cultural shifts poses significant threats to their continued relevance.
One major issue is the conflict between customary land tenure and state-recognized land ownership. While the Cambodian Constitution acknowledges customary land rights, their implementation remains inconsistent and often favors state-sanctioned land concessions, leading to the displacement and dispossession of Indigenous communities. This is particularly acute in resource-rich areas where logging, mining, and agribusiness interests compete for land. [10]
Furthermore, the younger generation of Indigenous peoples in Cambodia often faces a cultural dilemma. While they may value their heritage, they are also drawn to the perceived opportunities and lifestyles of the dominant society. This can lead to a decline in fluency in traditional languages, a weakening of intergenerational knowledge transmission, and a gradual erosion of customary practices.
However, there are also signs of resistance and revitalization. Many young Indigenous Cambodians are actively seeking to reclaim their cultural identity and reassert their rights. They are engaging in education initiatives, cultural performances, and community-based organizations to preserve their languages, traditions, and knowledge systems. Some are even advocating for legal reforms that would better recognize and protect their customary rights.
One notable example is the emergence of Indigenous youth leaders who are using social media platforms to raise awareness about their struggles and mobilize support for their cause. They are also leveraging technology to document and share their cultural heritage, ensuring its preservation for future generations. [11]
In conclusion, the challenges facing Indigenous communities in Cambodia regarding their customary laws are multifaceted and deeply rooted in historical and contemporary power dynamics. While the erosion of traditional practices poses a significant threat, the resilience and agency of younger generations offer hope for the continued relevance and evolution of these vital cultural systems.
Kui elders and youth discuss and gather inputs into the draft Land Law. Photo by Rim Sarem/CIPA
Social Justice and Reconciliation
Understanding Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs) can be a powerful tool in promoting social justice and reconciliation in Cambodia. These rules, deeply rooted in the cultural and social fabric of Indigenous communities, offer valuable insights into traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, land management practices, and social structures. By acknowledging and respecting ICRs, efforts towards social justice and reconciliation can be more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable.
One key way ICRs can contribute to social justice is by addressing land rights issues. In Cambodia, indigenous communities often face land disputes and dispossession due to conflicting claims between customary land tenure and state-recognized land ownership. [12]Recognizing and upholding ICRs related to land ownership and use can help secure land rights for Indigenous communities, ensuring their access to resources and livelihoods. This can prevent land-related conflicts and promote social stability. [13]
Furthermore, ICRs can offer valuable insights into traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. These mechanisms, often based on consensus-building, mediation, and restorative justice principles, can provide alternative approaches to resolving disputes within and between communities. By incorporating these mechanisms into formal legal systems, efforts towards reconciliation can be more inclusive and culturally sensitive, fostering a sense of ownership and participation among Indigenous communities.
However, it is important to acknowledge the complexities and challenges involved in integrating ICRs into broader social justice and reconciliation efforts. These rules are often dynamic and evolving, and their interpretation and application can vary across different communities. Therefore, a nuanced and context-specific approach is crucial to ensure that the integration of ICRs is meaningful and effective.
In conclusion, understanding and respecting Indigenous Customary Rules can be a significant step towards achieving social justice and reconciliation in Cambodia. By acknowledging the value of these rules in addressing land rights issues and promoting culturally appropriate conflict resolution mechanisms, efforts towards a more inclusive and equitable society can be strengthened. However, it is essential to approach this process with sensitivity, flexibility, and a commitment to ongoing dialogue and collaboration with indigenous communities.
Personal Reflection
My understanding of Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs) has evolved significantly through my research and exploration of the topic. Initially, I viewed ICRs as a static set of traditional practices and beliefs. However, I have come to understand that ICRs are dynamic systems that evolve over time in response to changing social, economic, and environmental contexts. They are not merely relics of the past but living bodies of knowledge that continue to shape the lives of Indigenous peoples today.
Furthermore, I have learned that ICRs are not monolithic but rather diverse and multifaceted, reflecting the unique histories, cultures, and experiences of different Indigenous communities. They encompass a wide range of topics, including land tenure, resource management, social organization, conflict resolution, and spiritual practices. ICRs often provide valuable insights into sustainable resource management, environmental protection, and social justice.
As for the responsibilities of non-Indigenous individuals and societies in respecting and supporting ICRs, I believe they are significant. Non-Indigenous individuals and societies have a duty to recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to their cultures, traditions, and lands. This includes respecting ICRs as legitimate and valid systems of law and governance. Non-Indigenous individuals and societies should also strive to understand and appreciate the values and principles underlying ICRs, and to engage in respectful and equitable dialogue with Indigenous peoples on matters of mutual concern.
In the specific case of Cambodia, the challenges and opportunities for respecting and supporting ICRs are particularly complex. Cambodia has a rich and diverse Indigenous heritage, with numerous ethnic groups, each with its own unique customs and traditions. However, many ICRs have been eroded or marginalized as a result of historical injustices, such as forced displacement, land dispossession, and cultural assimilation.
In recent years, there have been efforts to revitalize and strengthen ICRs in Cambodia. These efforts include documenting and codifying ICRs, integrating them into national legal frameworks, and supporting Indigenous-led initiatives for cultural preservation and self-determination. However, more needs to be done to ensure that ICRs are fully respected and upheld in Cambodia. This requires a commitment from the government, civil society, and the international community to address the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Indigenous peoples in the country.
In conclusion, my understanding of ICRs has deepened considerably through my research and exploration of the topic. I now recognize ICRs as dynamic, diverse, and valuable systems of knowledge and governance. Non-Indigenous individuals and societies have a crucial role to play in respecting and supporting ICRs, both globally and in specific contexts like Cambodia. By working together with Indigenous peoples, we can create a more just and equitable world where ICRs are fully recognized, respected, and upheld.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Indigenous Customary Rules (ICRs) hold immense importance in contemporary society. They offer valuable insights into sustainable resource management, environmental protection, and social justice. By recognizing and respecting ICRs, we can learn from the wisdom and experience of Indigenous peoples and build a more just and equitable future. [14]
In the Cambodian context, the revitalization and strengthening of ICRs are crucial for addressing historical injustices and promoting social and environmental sustainability. By supporting Indigenous-led initiatives for cultural preservation and self-determination and by integrating ICRs into national legal frameworks, Cambodia can create a more inclusive and equitable society where the rights and voices of Indigenous peoples are fully respected. [15]
Furthermore, promoting awareness and understanding of ICRs among the broader public is essential. Education programs, cultural exchanges, and media campaigns can help to dispel misconceptions about ICRs and foster greater appreciation for the valuable contributions of Indigenous peoples. By working together with Indigenous communities, we can create a future where ICRs are not only preserved but also integrated into modern governance and development strategies. This will not only benefit Indigenous peoples but also contribute to a more just, sustainable, and equitable future for all.
Tessa, Bertrand, and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya. “Technologies for climate change adaptation: Emerging lessons from developing countries supported by UNDP.” Journal of International Affairs (2010): 17-31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2438518
Tsuji SRJ, Zuk AM, Solomon A, Edwards-Wheesk R, Ahmed F, Tsuji LJS. What Is Wellbeing, and What Is Important for Wellbeing? Indigenous Voices from across Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Aug 26;20(17):6656. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20176656. PMID: 37681798; PMCID: PMC10487260. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10487260/
[4]Tsuji SRJ, Zuk AM, Solomon A, Edwards-Wheesk R, Ahmed F, Tsuji LJS. What Is Wellbeing, and What Is Important for Wellbeing? Indigenous Voices from across Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Aug 26;20(17):6656. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20176656. PMID: 37681798; PMCID: PMC10487260. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10487260/
[7]Tessa, Bertrand, and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya. “Technologies for climate change adaptation: Emerging lessons from developing countries supported by UNDP.” Journal of International Affairs (2010): 17-31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2438518
[14] Tessa, Bertrand, and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya. “Technologies for climate change adaptation: Emerging lessons from developing countries supported by UNDP.” Journal of International Affairs (2010): 17-31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2438518
In a groundbreaking move, Cambodia has become the first country in Southeast Asia to produce a comprehensiveNational Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia. This pioneering document marks a significant step forward in understanding and addressing the unique challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples in the Kingdom.
During the official launch of the report on December 12, Chea Chantum, Deputy Secretary of State of the Ministry of Planning, emphasized its significance. “This national report on Indigenous peoples is part of Cambodia’s history,” he stated, underscoring the report’s importance as a milestone in the nation’s development.
The 69-year-old elder representative of Indigenous women, Dam Chanthy, echoed this statement, regarding the report as a historic achievement for Cambodia. She mentioned that this is the first time an Asian country has produced such a comprehensive and detailed report on Indigenous Peoples, showing critical contexts of education, socio-economic conditions, anddemographics.
This report aims to bridge existing data gaps and provide a foundation for evidence-based policy-making tailored to the needs of Indigenous communities, addressing challenges in accessing public services, protecting land and natural resources, and promoting culturally appropriate development initiatives.
The national report on the demographic and socio-economic status of IPs in Cambodia will be instrumental in guiding the implementation of the National Policy for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, raising awareness, and informing future research.
Yun Mane, Executive Director of the Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Organization, emphasized the report’s alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly the principle of “leaving no one behind.” She noted that the 2030 Agenda aims to address global social, economic, and political disparities faced by Indigenous Peoples. This report, she said, is a testament to Cambodia’s commitment to these goals and represents a historic achievement for the nation.
She continues, “I am very proud of this achievement and have always considered this report a historic achievement for our nation. It is one of many achievements of the government and partner organizations that have strengthened support for a clearer and better understanding of Indigenous peoples in Cambodia.”
This report not only provides critical data on the status of Indigenous Peoples but also highlights the government’s commitment and struggle to promote the cultures and livelihoods of the Indigenous communities in Cambodia.
Among its key findings, the report reveals disproportionately high poverty rates, limited access to healthcare, and lower educational attainment among Indigenous communities. These findings underscore the urgent need for more equitable and inclusive development policies that address the specific needs of these marginalized groups.
The groundbreaking National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia represents a significant step forward in understanding and addressing the challenges faced by Indigenous communities. However, there are several areas for improvement to ensure the report’s accuracy, accessibility, and relevance to both Indigenous communities and the broader public.
Firstly, while the report provides valuable insights into the education, socio-economic conditions, and demographics of Indigenous Peoples, it lacks detailed information on the challenges they face in protecting their land and natural resources. Conducting on-the-ground research is crucial to ensure that the data accurately reflects the realities of Indigenous communities. If the report includes these challenges, it would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the barriers Indigenous peoples face. This would not only improve the report’s credibility but also inform more targeted and effective policy interventions.
Secondly, this report is useful for the public and stakeholders to better understand the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, and it is helpful to design their development initiatives for the needs of these communities. However, as highlighted by the Swiss Representative, more work is needed to ensure that policies are inclusive and responsive to the unique dynamics of Indigenous communities.
Thirdly, conducting the research requires more effort, time, and funds to support the research process. Recently, some development partners have paid less attention to support for producing the data on Indigenous peoples. “We must ensure that Indigenous peoples are not left behind and not pushed behind,” Sanda UNFPA Representative emphasized during the launching of the report on 12 December 2024.
Lastly, the report paper still looks like an academic paper, so local communities and Indigenous communities with low literacy would find it difficult to understand and unable to read the report. To address this, the Ministry of Planning and relevant stakeholders could design a simplified version of the report to share with the Indigenous communities in the coming months. By doing so, the report can become a tool for empowerment, enabling Indigenous Peoples to actively participate in discussions and decisions that affect their lives.
The National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia is the result of a collaborative effort that began with a pivotal national reflection workshop held in Siem Reap Province in 2017. Organized by the Department of Ethnic Minority Development, the workshop aimed to address the lack of comprehensive data on Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, which had long hindered the development of targeted national policies and plans.
H.E. Bin Troachhey presides over the Report Launching Cereymony in Phnom Penh, Photo by Tong Len
During the workshop, Secretary State Poch Bunnak, Ministry of Planning, highlighted clear data on Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia and emphasized the critical need for accurate and detailed data, as it is essential for designing inclusive and effective national development plans that address the unique challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples.
The first edition of the report was published and launched in 2021 by the General Secretariat for Population and Development (GSPD), the Ministry of Planning, in collaboration with the Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Alliance (CIPA) and the Inter-Institutions Working Group on Indigenous Data and Report. The groundbreaking report marked a significant milestone in Cambodia’s efforts to recognize and support its Indigenous communities. Building on this foundation, the second edition of the report was launched and updated in 2024, incorporating updated data from national censuses and surveys. The report updated in 2024 provides a more comprehensive and detailed overview of the demographic and socio-economic status of Indigenous Peoples, serving as a tool for targeted planning, policy-making, and initiatives for the protection, conservation, and development of Indigenous communities in Cambodia.
The National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia represents a transformative step toward greater recognition, empowerment, and inclusion of Indigenous communities in the country’s development agenda. “Together, we can lift these communities, honor their heritage, and strengthen Cambodia’s socio-economic fabric,”Mr. Reto GRÜNINGER, Director of Cooperation, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC in Cambodia, aptly stated. This statement underscores the importance of collective action in ensuring that Indigenous Peoples are not left behind in Cambodia’s journey toward sustainable development.
Deputy Secretary of State Chea Chantum of the Ministry of Planning also stressed the ongoing need for support, noting, “Even if Cambodia leaves poverty by 2030, donors and development partners must not abandon Indigenous Peoples.” This call to action highlights the necessity of concerted commitment from all stakeholders to address the unique challenges, including poverty, limited access to healthcare and education, and the protection of land and natural resources.
The National Report on the Demographic and Socio-Economic Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia represents a transformative step towards greater recognition, empowerment, and inclusion of Indigenous communities in the country’s development agenda and sustainable development goals. By continuing to prioritize the inclusion and empowerment of Indigenous Peoples, Cambodia can set a powerful example for other nations in the region and beyond, fostering a more equitable and inclusive society for all.
Co-written by: Blen Romam & Rim Sarem, Indigenous Youth Writing Project (IYWP)
The report lays bare the juxtaposition of progress and inequity. Literacy rates among Indigenous peoples have climbed, school enrollment has surged, and more households now enjoy access to electricity. But when the data is peeled back, it reveals a reality as complex as it is troubling.
Photo by Tong Len
The Youthful Face of Indigenous Cambodia
Indigenous communities are young. Their median age of 21 years is a stark contrast to Cambodia’s median of 26. This could be their strength, a reservoir of energy to drive change. Yet, early marriages for girls, limited educational attainment, and high fertility rates stifle their potential. In rural areas, over half of Indigenous women marry before age 19, locking them into cycles of early motherhood and economic dependence.
The young workforce holds promise, but opportunities are scarce. The labor force participation rate is high—an impressive 85.2%—yet most of these jobs are in agriculture, where livelihoods are precarious. For women, unpaid labor dominates, painting a grim picture of economic inequity.
A Health and Hygiene Crisis
Health data further illuminate the struggles. Indigenous children and adults face higher rates of illness than their Cambodian counterparts, with poor access to healthcare exacerbating these conditions. Hygiene is a glaring issue—over half of Indigenous households lack toilets, a figure that dwarfs the national average. Water remains another frontier of inequality, with just 10% of Indigenous households accessing piped water.
These statistics aren’t just numbers; they are daily struggles. They are parents trekking miles for clean water, children falling ill from preventable diseases, and entire communities trapped in cycles of poor health.
The Land They Call Home
Land, central to the identity and survival of Indigenous peoples, tells its own story. Despite legal protections under Cambodia’s constitution and land laws, only 42 communities have achieved collective land registration. Many remain vulnerable to land grabs and exploitation; their ancestral lands are often viewed as commodities rather than heritage.
Without secure land rights, these communities are at the mercy of external forces. Forests are cleared, rivers polluted, and traditions uprooted. It’s a fight not just for land but for survival.
A Narrowing Gap in Education
Education offers a glimmer of hope. Literacy rates have nearly doubled since 2013, with school attendance among indigenous children reaching 75.4%. But while the numbers are better, they are still far from enough.
Dropout rates remain high, and Indigenous youth often attend grades below their age level. For many, education feels out of reach—rural schools are poorly equipped, and Indigenous languages are not integrated into the curriculum. Education, meant to be an equalizer, risks becoming another avenue for exclusion.
What Can Be Done?
The data is clear: Indigenous peoples are making progress, but they are doing so against the tide. Their lives are improving, but at a pace that leaves them far behind the national average. How can Cambodia close this gap?
Invest in Education
Education is the foundation. Schools in Indigenous areas need better resources, teachers trained in inclusive methods, and curricula that respect indigenous cultures. Vocational training and scholarships should target Indigenous youth, giving them tools to thrive in a modern economy.
Strengthen Land Rights
Land ownership isn’t just about property—it’s about dignity, identity, and survival. Cambodia must expedite the registration of collective land titles and enforce protections against illegal land grabs. Indigenous voices must be at the table, shaping policies that affect their ancestral homes.
Improve Healthcare and Hygiene
The healthcare system must expand its reach into Indigenous communities. Mobile clinics, public health campaigns, and investments in sanitation infrastructure can transform lives. Clean water and toilets aren’t luxuries—they are necessities.
Empower Indigenous Economies
Indigenous livelihoods need diversification. Beyond agriculture, initiatives in eco-tourism, sustainable crafts, and renewable energy could open new avenues for income. Microfinance tailored to Indigenous entrepreneurs, especially women, can drive economic resilience.
A Shared Responsibility
Indigenous peoples contribute immensely to Cambodia’s cultural and environmental wealth. They are guardians of forests, keepers of traditions, and stewards of biodiversity. Yet their future remains uncertain, and their voices are often unheard.
As the report launches, it’s a call not just to policymakers but to all Cambodians. Protecting indigenous rights isn’t charity—it’s justice. It’s about ensuring that every citizen, regardless of ethnicity or geography, has a seat at the table of progress.
Cambodia is at a pivotal juncture. Will it continue to marginalize its Indigenous communities, or will it embrace them as equals in the nation’s journey forward? The answer lies not just in reports or recommendations but in actions. Let the launch of this report be more than a ceremony—let it be the start of lasting change.
This article explains how democracy exists and shapes Indigenous communities. The democratic practices of the Indigenous peoples are virtually unknown. And even Indigenous peoples themselves hardly realized that their traditional rule is in fact real democracy, which has shaped their communities for centuries based on their practices, culture, and context.
Rule by the people is the literal meaning of democracy, a term derived from the Greek word dēmokratia, which was used to describe the political structures of various Greek city-states, most notably Athens, during the 5th century BCE [around 2,500 years ago]. The etymology of democracy combines dēmos, meaning “people,” and kratos, meaning “rule.”
Scholars have traditionally believed that democracy refers to rule by the people, specifically through elected representatives, which originated around 2.5 millennia ago in Greece before spreading to Europe, [throughout the world] and the United States. From a general perspective, many people may consider that most European countries and the United States have shaped democracy and spread its concept across the world.
Kui elders, youth and women discuss the Inputs for the Amendment to Land Law and Environment and Natural Resources Code
For many centuries, the Indigenous communities have practiced what can be termed “traditional democracy” in various aspects of daily life. This form of governance enables them to address internal conflicts, protect their natural resources, and foster community cohesion. It is through this lens that we recognize the unique characteristics of Indigenous traditional rule in the past, which can be summarized through several key aspects.
Firstly, the traditional communication style of Indigenous peoples fosters strong relationships within the community. In many villages, individuals know one another by name, creating an atmosphere of friendliness and support for each other. “In my village, everyone is like family; we share food, and stories, and support each other in times of need,” Jarai elder Souen Chavan. Such bonds reflect a deep spiritual democracy that permeates their interactions, and strong spiritual respect and support for each other without discrimination.
Secondly, Indigenous communities often turn to mediation for various issues in the community. Mediators, who usually are esteemed elders known as “Mekontreanh” with extensive knowledge and experience, facilitate discussions among community members and the mediator who pays careful attention to solve the conflict following Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
It should be pointed out that Indigenous community members know their roles and duties in the community. Their representatives always respond to the community’s collective interests, and he or she plays an important role in leading the whole community with grace and happiness.
Ros Lim, Kui elder from Bankeunphall village, Preah Vihear province
This method builds peace and respect, as Kui elder Ros Lim stated. “We listen to and respect each other and seek understanding, with compromises that create happiness in our community.” The mediation process resolves conflicts and enhances community members’ relationships, Lim explained, adding that if this traditional system is to be preserved, it is good to compromise without hate. Mediation encompasses many steps, he said, such as consulting, educating, and also respecting all the people involved.
Indigenous governance structures are built on community representation and collective decision-making, Lim explained. When conflicts arise, the elders and mediators engage the entire community to hear all sides and reach a collective judgment, he said. With this procedure, both parties leave the discussion with a sense of peace and a commitment to maintaining relationships.
“Indigenous democracy means a system of governance rooted in our traditions, where decisions are made collectively, respecting the voices of elders,” saidSam At Rachana who is a Bunong Indigenous woman. “For example, in our community, elders lead discussions on important issues like land management, marriage and beliefs, ensuring the protection of our forests and resources for future generations.”
Thirdly, Indigenous cultural traditions such as weddings exemplify democratic practices through collective participation. For instance, in the Bunong community, discussions involving the groom’s and bride’s parents with the participation of elders and neighbours are an integral part of the wedding. The ceremony is a time for all to come together, share food, dance, and celebrate love. This communal involvement reinforces the values of cooperation and unity, demonstrating democracy in action.
Fourth, agricultural practices, such as rotational farming, highlight the commitment of Indigenous communities to environmental stewardship and civic engagement. For example, Indigenous villagers in Cambodia cooperate during the planting and harvesting seasons, illustrating their interconnectedness.
In practicing rotational farming, villagers help each other grow crops during the planting season, and always support each other in collecting the crops.Collective participation in agriculture is considered one of the great practices of civic engagement that is made inclusive of the Indigenous community.
Finally, in the Indigenous community, most villages have collective houses that serve as communal spaces and community buildings. It is crucial for enhancing solidarity, preserving cultural traditions, and creating a good environment for people. In the past, the Jarai people had long houses as their traditional homes for the whole family to live in the same house.
Moreover, the Indigenous community has a community hall for community meetings, ceremonies, cultural and other events. This shows that communities make time to come together. This house or hall also demonstrates that the Indigenous community has an actual space to practice democracy.
The Mondulkiri’s Cultural Festival collectively led and organized the indigenous peoples
Indigenous traditional rule can be considered democracy, a vibrant and enduring system of governance that has flourished within Indigenous communities for centuries. While conventional Western notions of democracy often emphasize electoral processes, the Indigenous approach focuses on collective decision-making, cultural traditions, and community involvement.
Indigenous democracy is not merely an element but a vital aspect of the communities’ global democratic discourse, deserving recognition and respect. The Indigenous traditional rule is one of transparency and accountability that has maintained the community’s peace and happiness in the past. Therefore, today’s Indigenous generations and stakeholders should prioritize continuing to study to learn from this and promote the Indigenous rule to ensure the preservation and uniqueness of this democracy in the future.
The article is co-written by:
Blen Romam is an Indigenous Jarai from Ratanakiri Province. He is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Social Sciences of International Relations at the University of Cambodia.
Rim Sarem is an Indigenous Kui from Kampong Thom. He earned a bachelor’s degree in English Literature, majoring in Educational Management and Teaching, and completed the Young Southeast Asia Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Professional Fellowship Program in the United States.
We, members of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), have engaged in the ongoing Safeguards Policy Review of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) since last year with good faith. We note the positive changes made in the revised ESF, including integration of ESS7 across other ESSs and requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of affected Indigenous Peoples for certain circumstances in ADB-financed projects. However, we, including the following Indigenous Peoples Organizations, reiterate the following demands for revisions/additions in the revised ESF, and particularly the revised ESS7, in line with the commentary we submitted on 6 May 2024 and the standards in the policies of other multilateral development banks or institutions:
1. On scope of application of ESS7 (paragraphs 5-9), we reiterate that the revised ESS7 should explicitly mention that the host country’s applicable laws should not be a limitation for recognition of Indigenous Peoples. That is because most countries in Asia still do not officially recognize Indigenous Peoples in line with international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention 169.
a. We thus call on for addition as follows :
The application of the ESS7 will not be limited by the absence of legal recognition or identification of Indigenous Peoples by a state. It will also not be limited by the legal status of titling of Indigenous lands, resources and territories. (see paragraph 19, Green Climate Fund (GCF) Indigenous Peoples Policy)
b. In paragraph 7 (i) of the ESS7, while self-identification is a criteria for recognition of Indigenous Peoples, it also refers to recognition of this identity by “others”. It should be revised to state that recognition of Indigenous Peoples by “others” only refers to “other Indigenous Peoples”.
c. Further, paragraph 9 of the revised ESS7 should be revised to state that “Following a determination by ADB based on para 7 and 8, …”. That is because paragraph 8 also refers to recognition of Indigenous Peoples. (see paragraphs 8-10 of World Bank’s ESS7)
2. On requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), we reiterate that the revised ESF should integrate the requirement to obtain Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Indigenous Peoples throughout the revised ESF. ADB should require that meaningful consultation is carried out with Indigenous Peoples present in the proposed project-affected area to obtain their FPIC for the proposed ADB-financed project, including for any significant changes to the project, and the outcome of the process clearly documented – not only when project causes certain impacts. This is in line with our rights to self-determination, to our lands, territories and resources and to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising our right to development, among others, as guaranteed in the UNDRIP. Thereby, States are to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (Art. 19, UNDRIP).
While FPIC is an iterative process that should be obtained or maintained throughout the project life cycle, it should particularly be obtained for the project preparation or design itself and during the E&S assessment. FPIC includes the rights of Indigenous Peoples to provide consent or conditional consent, or withhold consent for a project, and also withdraw consent during the project. When ADB is unable to ascertain that such consent has been obtained from the project-affected Indigenous Peoples, ADB should not proceed further with the project or with the aspects of the project that are relevant to those Indigenous Peoples whose FPIC cannot be ascertained.
Accordingly, we call for the following revisions throughout the revised ESF:
a. In paragraph 58 of the revised Environmental and Social Policy (paragraph 54), ADB should “require a borrower/client to undertake a process of meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in accordance with ESS7 and to document the outcome” when Indigenous Peoples are present in, or have a collective attachment to, a proposed project-affected area.
b. Under revised ESS1 paragraph 32, ADB should require borrower/client that the E&S assessment and the involved stakeholder engagement includes conduct of meaningful consultation with the Indigenous Peoples in the project-affected area to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for the project as described in ESS7.
c. Objective “e” of the revised ESS7 should be amended to state as “ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for projects affecting them and specifically in the three circumstances described in this ESS7”
d. In paragraph 10 of the revised ESS7, it should be amended to state that the borrower will ensure that Indigenous Peoples present in, or with collective attachment to the project area are meaningfully consulted in accordance with ESS10 to obtain their FPIC in the project design and the determination of the project implementation arrangements. When ADB is unable to ascertain that such consent has been obtained from the project-affected Indigenous Peoples, ADB will not proceed further with the project or with the aspects of the project that are relevant to those Indigenous Peoples whose FPIC cannot be ascertained.
Other multilateral development banks and institutions have also been moving towards stronger standards on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including FPIC. See, for example, below some positive provisions in those standards:
European Investment Bank (EIB) Standard 7
44. The FPIC process is required where a project:
• Affects the lands, territories or resources that Indigenous Peoples customarily own, occupy or otherwise use; or
• Relocates them from land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation; or
• Affects or exploits their cultural resources, whether tangible or intangible, or their ways of life.
45. When the FPIC process is required, the Bank shall not be able to proceed with the financing of these activities unless the promoter is able to ascertain and document that the consent of Indigenous Peoples was obtained through an adequate FPIC process. The promoter shall carry out an FPIC process even if the right to FPIC has not been legally and formally recognised in the country or region where the project activities are located.
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) ESPS 7
Participation and Consent
Para 13. The Borrower will undertake an engagement process with the Project-Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples as required in ESPS 1 and ESPS 10. This engagement process includes stakeholder analysis and engagement planning, disclosure of information, consultation, and participation, in a culturally appropriate manner. In addition, this process will:
Involve Indigenous Peoples’ representative bodies and organizations (e.g., councils of elders or village councils), as well as members of the Project-Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples.
Provide sufficient time for Indigenous Peoples’ decision-making processes.
Include indigenous consultation protocols when they exist.
3. On Impact Assessment for Indigenous Peoples, we reiterate the recommendation provided earlier that such impact assessments should be separate or standalone and should aid in identifying cultural, spiritual and other relations of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and resources. Such requirements also featured in prior iterations of ADB Safeguards. However, there are substantial cross-references to other ESS that complicate the process. The IED review, for instance, concluded that “[r]esults from the safeguard requirement on indigenous peoples, driven by the lack of robust SIAs, were less than satisfactory and limited.” This is a clear acknowledgement of the deficiencies in impact assessment and that these deficiencies then caused additional downstream problems (e.g., “community support cannot be established by the client without a SIA to assess the likely impacts on IPs”).
Therefore, firstly, the revised ESS7, under paragraph 11, should mandatorily require conduct of a robust and separate assessment of social, cultural and economic risks and impacts on Indigenous Peoples – or a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) – in absence of which ADB-financed projects in an area, where Indigenous Peoples are present, should not proceed. This should also resonate in the bank’s gender-related safeguards i.e. conduct of robust and separate assessment of risks and impacts for indigenous women. Secondly, it is critically important that the identified flaws in compliance and results in the case of Indigenous Peoples are fully understood and addressed if they are to be avoided in the future. Again, we consider that such reviews are best undertaken in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and that the flaws identified above amplify the need to require and ensure Indigenous Peoples’ effective participation in the design, conduct and review of environmental and social impact assessments. These assessments also need to include specific consideration and review of the rights of Indigenous Peoples as guaranteed by international laws, and not only as they may be reflected in national laws.
4. Further, below are couple of key recommendations that we recall on to be addressed:
Under revised ESS1 paragraph 48, in relation to ADB financing for projects in fragile and conflict-affected situations, projects should be a no-go in identified fragile and conflict affected situations unless E&S risks and impacts are fully accounted and analyzed and a risk management plan is in place. Projects should not be approved where identified that the project will further increase fragility and conflict in the proposed project area.
In terms of compensation and benefits, under revised ESS5 paragraphs 43-45, we reiterate that the borrower/client must offer affected persons an informed choice of either compensation in kind (land-for-land, house-for-house, shop-for-shop) or monetary compensation at full replacement cost. The borrower/client should respect the choice of the affected persons. (See EIB Standard 6, Para 25)
We hope for your positive consideration to above minimum asks from Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group and its associated organizations as you deliberate and adopt the revised ESF. This will enable us to continue our good faith engagement with the ADB.
Sincerely,
Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group
Including on behalf of its following members
Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE)
Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP)
Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI)
Asia Indigenous Women’s Network (AIWN)
Asia Pacific Indigenous Women and Girls with Disabilities Network
Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Organization (CIPO)
Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera (CDPC)
Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ)
Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN)
National Indigenous Disabled Women Association Nepal (NIDWAN)
The Cambodian Ministry of Environment has blocked Indigenous communities from receiving ownership over thousands of hectares of customary farmlands and culturally significant forests in the Keo Seima REDD+ project zone.
The Wildlife Conservation Society, which works with the ministry to administer the project, did not disclose these land disputes caused by the project’s activities to standard setter Verra, and its auditors failed to identify these issues.
Indigenous peoples in the REDD+ project face arrests, imprisonment, crop destruction and property confiscation as a result of unclear boundaries and insufficient land allocated to their communities.
This reporting project received support from the Pulitzer Center’s Rainforest Journalism Fund.
This is the first article in our two-part series on Indigenous land rights and the Keo Seima REDD+ project. This series was co-written by a Cambodian journalist whose name is being withheld due to security concerns. Read part two here.
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals consist of 17 targets that were set in 2015 as successors of the Millennium Development Goals. They represent an ambitious call to action for global partnership and apply to all U.N. members, with the aim of creating a just world, protecting the planet, ending poverty, and ensuring prosperity for all by 2030. The hope is that individual countries take ownership of these goals and establish policies at the national level to achieve them.
At the halfway point of the 2030 deadline, the United Nations admits that progress on the SDGs has been slow. More than 50 percent of the targets have seen weak or insufficient progress, while progress on a further 30 percent has stalled completely or gone into reverse. The U.N. says that efforts have been interrupted and undermined by a combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has affected global supply chains and has driven up food and gas prices, according to the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023.
Notably, the report also emphasized that the world’s indigenous communities in particular are among those who bear the brunt of many of these setbacks and failures to address the targets.
An analysis conducted by Dominic O’Sullivan, a professor at Charles Sturt University in Australia, which centers the perspective of indigenous peoples, found that the SDGs compromise the notion of indigenous self-determination and ignore the cultural and political context of indigenous communities. O’Sullivan’s book, “Indigeneity, Culture, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals” went so far as to call for the goals to be revised to more closely follow the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Indigenous peoples continue to be the poorest among the poor, even as poverty and extreme poverty in the Asia and Pacific regions have substantially declined. This demonstrates that indigenous peoples receive less attention and the goals themselves are broad and ambiguous, which hinders the public, policymakers, and government from identifying needs and gaps, keeping track of indigenous development progress, and delivering services that are appropriate to their cultural context, livelihoods, and traditional governance systems.
Speaking on what is missing from the SDGs, O’Sullivan has argued “I critique how effectively the SDGs contribute to indigenous people being among those who are ‘not left behind’ and suggest ways in which the SDGs and their indicators could be revised to support self-determination.” He further argues that UNDRIP provides a framework for revising the goals.
Therefore, the SDGs must be revised to add a separate standalone goal for indigenous peoples, one that is appropriate to their cultural practices, livelihoods, and governance systems. Otherwise, the 2030 goals will not be achieved.
Indigenous peoples, communities, and nations are those that have historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial society, have their own development strategies for their own territories, and consider themselves distinct from other sectors of society. These communities hold a non-dominant position in society and are determined to preserve and develop their ancestral territories, cultural patterns, ethnic identity, and governance systems and to be able pass these assets on to future generations. The phrase “indigenous peoples” is used differently in individual countries according to the context, ranging from “hill tribes” and “indigenous nationalities” to “indigenous communities,” “ethnic minorities,” “natives,” and more. These people often have unique development needs compared with other groups.
There are 476 million indigenous peoples living in 90 countries across the world and belonging to more than 5,000 different groups. Asia represents more than 70 percent of indigenous peoples, followed by Africa with 16 percent, Latin America with 11 percent, and Canada and the United States with 6 percent.
To make the SDGs more relevant to the unique contexts of indigenous communities, perhaps it would be useful to consider what indigenous people-specific SDG targets might look like.
First, a target that addresses indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior, and informed consent and public participation is vital not just to protect indigenous ways of life, but also to protect the world’s biodiversity.
The majority of indigenous peoples depend on natural resources and land for their livelihoods, which include hunting, fishing, shifting cultivation, and the harvesting of non-timber forest products. These practices are important factors for maintaining their culture and promoting sustainable development. Multiple studies have shown that these ancestral practices and governance systems have enabled indigenous communities to enhance and to protect the world’s environment and biodiversity.
Currently, nearly 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity is being protected by indigenous peoples, an undeniable testament to their ecological knowledge and spiritual relationship with their lands, forests, and natural resources.
However, around the world indigenous culture, traditional forest stewardship, and governance systems are all at risk, as their rights have not been strongly protected by their respective national governments, as well as their historic exclusion from the development decision-making processes in their territories.
Research by the International Labour Organization on the rights of indigenous peoples in Asia found that prior consultation and public participation regarding development projects that affect them are the cornerstones of UNDRIP and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, and incorporating these rights as targets of an indigenous-specific SDG would enable them to protect their land, forests, and traditional systems and so continue to protect the environment.
Second, when it comes to enabling the environment and sustainable development in indigenous territories, it is also undeniable that we must have an SDG target which specifically recognizes indigenous rights to self-determination, which means allowing indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities for political, social, and economic development that might affect their beliefs, customs, culture, and traditional livelihoods.
Finally, while there is a much-needed specific SDG for women’s political representation, no specific target exists for indigenous peoples and their rights to be fully and equally represented by their national governments. Without full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life, indigenous peoples around the world will continue to be excluded from the policy processes that determine their futures.
Incorporating indigenous peoples more directly in the SDGs would also facilitate and encourage the collection of better data, both quantitative and qualitative, which can contribute to addressing the concerns of indigenous peoples by assessing their actual needs. Official data collection on indigenous peoples is not widely available at either the national or global levels. Adding to collective knowledge about indigenous communities is crucial in that it enhances the ability to monitor the development progress of these communities on the part of the public, civil society, and national governments, and especially allows policymakers who are interested in indigenous issues to be able to identify gaps for development policies.
Rithy Bun is a young research fellow at Future Forum who has many years of experience working with Indigenous communities.
The report provides an overview of the Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, detailing their population, challenges, and ongoing issues with land rights and conservation.
The report provides an overview of the Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia, detailing their population, challenges, and ongoing issues with land rights and conservation. It highlights the struggles faced by Indigenous communities in securing their ancestral lands, facing land grabs, discrimination, forced displacement, and environmental exploitation. The lack of legal protections and increasing privatization of natural resources exacerbate the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples, leading to growing debts and poverty within these communities. The report can be found at The Indigenous World 2024: Cambodia – IWGIA – International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
The Report in A Nutshell
Indigenous Peoples in Cambodia face challenges such as land grabs, discrimination, forced displacement, and environmental exploitation. They struggle to secure their ancestral lands, and the lack of legal protections exacerbates their vulnerability. Additionally, the lengthy process of obtaining Collective Land Titles leaves Indigenous communities exposed to land encroachment.
The government’s rejection of recommendations from Indigenous Peoples’ organizations impacts the rights and autonomy of Indigenous communities by disregarding the principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). This exclusion prevents Indigenous decision-makers from having a say in the future of their ancestral land, leading to further marginalization and discrimination.
Some ongoing struggles and conflicts faced by Indigenous communities in Cambodia include:
– Land encroachment and illegal sale of communal land, leading to disputes and forced displacement.
– Criminalization of traditional land management practices, such as rotational farming.
– Discrimination and exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from decision-making processes regarding their ancestral land.
These challenges have sparked protests and resistance from Indigenous communities, as they continue to demand their rights and fight to protect their cultures and traditions.
