Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat,
Please find the transcription of an oral knowledge contribution from Atama Katama, Dusun People, Borneo; shared on his behalf and upon his request.
Best, FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Response to HLPE E-Consultation from an Indigenous Sovereignty perspective
Transcription of oral knowledge contribution from Atama Katama, Dusun People, Borneo.
I would like to begin this response by opening and invoking Tumbang Anoi 2019 Protocol (herein “the Protocol”), which demands the recognition and protection of the Dayak People of the whole of Borneo island, comprising around 10 million people. And through the Dusun Adat system. The Dusun People are the Indigenous Peoples of north Borneo, the Sabah territory of south Malaysia from which I come. The Protocol 2019 is a foundational document for Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and governance in Borneo. These principles are non-negotiable and are critical for addressing the contradictions within the HLPE-FSN framework and the key questions that have been posed to Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous youth.
The Protocol dictates that the Adat Law, which is customary law of the Indigenous Peoples in Borneo, is the “living law”. Not only is it a source of peace and order, but it is also practiced daily as a legitimate foundation for justice and governance in Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei - the three member states of Borneo island. Its principles extend beyond Borneo and offers solutions to Indigenous challenges across Southeast Asia, because the Dayak People are part of a larger group of Indigenous Peoples across Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The Protocol and the Adat Law include food sovereignty, cultural heritage, and the protection, defence and resilience of food and knowledge systems - which are highly relevant to UN concerns around climate change and environment.
Tumbang Anoi, Adat Law and Colonialism in Borneo.
The Dusun People of Malaysia and the Dayak People of Indonesia have memories of colonial practices that have disrupted and violated Indigenous Peoples’ lives. These acts weaken our customary law sovereignty and have created the foundation for ongoing marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples. The recent Tumbang Anoi was a process of truth and reconciliation held in 2019 in the territory of Kalimantan, Indonesia. During an international seminar, our leaders from the Malaysian state and from the Brunei state of Borneo gathered together to develop a treaty for peace building - just as their ancestors had done 125 years earlier. The purpose of this action in 2019 was to reclaim lost autonomy and demand the recognition for Dayak and Dusun rights, and our governance and cultural systems within modern legal and political frameworks. The seminar was held on 22-24 July 2019, commemorating the original peace conference held in 1894, when 1000 Dayak leaders gathered to make peace and to end intertribal conflict, such as headhunting and slavery. The 1894 meeting also established the unified Adat legal framework, where 96 items of customary law were created for peacemaking across the Borneo territories - which are described as the rivers, the mountains, the jungles, the coasts, and the manua (the traditional name for country). In 2019, 125 years later, the international seminar was held to reaffirm the importance of Dayak cultural diplomacy, collectively as Dayak Peoples, demanding cultural autonomy. We emphasise the recognition of these customary laws, known as the Adat, which are still practiced, are dynamic, and remain integral to justice and cultural preservation today.
These customary laws and protocols are set against a backdrop of colonialism in Borneo, and the impacts of colonialism on the Dayaks and Dusuns. In Indonesia, the Dutch colonial regime sought to pacify and exploit the Dayaks for resource exploitation. It suppressed all customary law by imposing colonial systems of law, in doing so weakening the Indigenous governance. The regime exploited natural resources and alienated Indigenous communities from their land through forced labour and land concessions. A large population of the Dayak went deeper into the jungle. The jungle would be encroached by colonisers with intentions to capture or attack and displace the Dayak Peoples who did not want to be part of the colonial regime and civilisation. The Dayak Peoples were labelled as uncivilised and their Dayak identity and autonomy was undermined. The Dutch colonial regime held the territory of the modern day Indonesia for many hundred years.
In the context of my people, the Dusun People of Sabah, Malaysia: Malaysia was under British colonial rule through the chartered company established in 1884. It colonised our lands and territories for profit, prioritising western monoculture systems of rubber and tobacco plantation and for the extractive timber industry. The colonial rule ignored the traditional governance systems, and began displacing our communities through force, violating our Indigenous land tenure systems. Our traditional Dusun governance systems were suppressed by colonial British law and Christianity was used to erode practices and spiritual beliefs. My ancestors were subjugated to exploitation and assimilation and were forced out of their sacred traditional beings, as people of the forest. Farmlands became commodified through the actions of the British chartered company.
Our position is clear. In Borneo, we see that the colonial tactics are still evident today - through strategies of divide and rule, the suppression of our Adat, and through the assimilation of traditional food and knowledge systems through various means of modern violence including land and cultural marginalisation.
With this context, I now respond to the HLPE guiding questions for the e-consultation from an Indigenous Peoples sovereignty perspective.:
- Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated?
We Indigenous Peoples of Borneo reject the guiding principles listed here. They fail to recognise Indigenous Peoples’ legal authority - in our case, the Adat - and instead appear to view them as supplementary to the state and international legislative authorities that the guiding principles appear to prioritise. The sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples is over all our territories and all of our knowledge systems. The Tumbang Anoi protocol demands the integration of Indigenous laws and justice systems as part of the state and international governance.
2. Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?
Our position is that Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems are not for mainstreaming or appropriation. The Tumbang Anoi Protocol 2019 reinforces that these food systems are tied to cultural autonomy and territorial rights. They are sacred and are meant to sustain our communities as the true rights-holders - and not to be exploited for any global benefit.
3. What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?
The FPIC is often weaponised as a bureaucratic formality against Indigenous Peoples - while actual decisions bypass the individual and community consent. When FPIC is used in international debates and forum, this demonstrates that there is an ability to bypass Indigenous Peoples’ individual and community consent. We have our traditional customary law and seeking FPIC must respect these customary laws and governance systems, and not merely involve NGOs that claim to be and/or represent Indigenous Peoples.
The ABS mechanism can result in the conversion Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and resources into a commodity - which directly violates the customary and spiritual principles and obligations of our Peoples and livelihoods. The Protocol insists that these challenges can only be resolved by centering the customary law itself, and by redefining sovereignty beyond the states framework.
4. How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?
Recognising Adat jurisdiction or customary law jurisdictions protects against the external commercialisation of any food and knowledge systems. The protocol calls for political and legal recognition of our customary judges, our customary judging spaces or courts (held by customary chiefs of the law house) in any dispute or resolution intended for the protection of Indigenous Peoples.
5. How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?
Oral traditions are a sacred trust. Decisions and processes relating to how any documentation or recording of oral traditions are used must be led by Indigenous Peoples themselves, under the framework of customary laws and protocols. This follows the Tumbang Anoi protocol, which emphasises the living, customary law. We want to avoid external interference or external ownership of our oral traditions. In the recent in-person meeting of the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (who also provide a response to this e-consultation), I raised a concern that in Borneo, we have been visited many times by actors from academia in the western world have come to record and document sacred chanting, mantras and other oral traditions. Such documentation has never been returned. Yale University has taken the traditional chants of Indigenous Peoples in the northern part of Sabah, Malaysia, publishing three books as a result, with none of these books ever returned to the descendants of those Shamans who shared their knowledge with Yale for the purpose of Yale’s research. I want to emphasise that the recording of our oral traditions cannot be done in such a way.
6. What dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, could be addressed?
We know that Indigenous governance is rooted in customary law or Adat. The Protocol stipulates 94 customary laws. Among these laws are the provisions made to empower the position of customary courts and empower customary leaders as primary decision makers of the tribe. This also recognises Adat law as equal to state law in Malaysia. Under the constitution of Malaysia, the Indigenous Peoples of Sarak have a traditional customary court that is guaranteed under the Malaysian court/justice system. So in terms of agency in governance issues, we already have this in place. We demand that all governance be rooted in customary laws.
7. Are there important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list?
Our collective Dayak identity is shared by around 750 distinctive groups, who live according to our customary practices. Here, the Protocol has become a template for cultural diplomacy between tribes from the rivers, mountains, plains and forest. This protocol is a template for the modern affairs of Indigenous Peoples. Such protocols are found among many Indigenous Peoples from all the seven socio-cultural regions. Where they exist, they must become integrated within state and global frameworks.
8. Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account?
Our relevant references are our living oral histories, and recognition for our traditional justice and customary systems found in our communities. They are not necessarily found in official records, but these knowledges and customary systems are produced by Peoples, and by the Adat court system, mediated by customary judges.
Two key references that can be included in the report are the 2019 Tubang Anoi Protocol, and the 1894 Tubang Anoi Peace Agreement - which was a peace accord drafted in Central Kalimantan 125 years earlier in the village of Tubang Anoi. Similar, relevant references are available from many Indigenous Peoples across the world.
9. What best practices, ethical standards, and strategies for addressing climate change should be highlighted in the report?
We want to emphasise that our ecological governance is based on our customary law or Adat Law. Food practices such as rotational farming and fisheries help to protect sacred sites, and have been proven to be climate resilient strategies. However, we are concerned that these practices are made a commodity by global systems that want to adopt the traditional practices.
10. Which best practices or strategies to promote cross-cultural understanding should be highlighted in the report?
For Dayak and Dusun Peoples, our practices have demonstrated that true cross-cultural understandings come from recognising the Indigenous laws as equal to state or international legal systems. Cultural diplomacy today must rest upon and prioritise mutual respect and Indigenous sovereignty.
11. Are the previous legal documents such as Prior and Informed Consent, enough in light of this evolution of thinking about Indigenous People’s knowledge, or do they need to be revised?
This is related to the response to question 3 - and I reemphasise that these legal documents are still insufficient. Our Protocol demands recognition and institutionalisation of the traditional justice and governance systems as binding legal entities, with and through modern laws. We demand the replacement of extractive frameworks with mechanisms based living law and customary justice. Under systems of customary laws, perpetrators of law are held accountable for their actions, whereas abusers of FPIC and ABS are rarely, if ever sanctioned. In its current form, FPIC and ABS will never be accountable to its abuse against Indigenous Peoples. We therefore need to place and prioritise our customary frameworks of living law and justice above them, as binding legal entities, in order to regulate and facilitate a true process of FPIC and ABS.
To conclude, we are not simply asking for inclusion in global frameworks, but demanding that our sovereignty, our laws and our systems be recognised as equal and binding.
Anne Brunel