How did you come to choose your research topic? 

During my Master in Development Studies, I took part in an applied research project (ARP) in partnership with the Bruno Manser Fonds, a Swiss NGO involved in the defence of indigenous peoples’ rights and the protection of the rainforest in Malaysian Borneo. This research consisted in examining the incorporation of local communities into the design and early implementation of an upcoming development and conservation project, the Upper Baram Forest Area (UBFA) park, and making recommendations for their participation in and ownership of the project. Along with my research partner, Jessica Merriman, I got to conduct a month-long fieldwork in Borneo among people of the Penan and Kenyah ethnic groups. In the process of interviewing people from the communities to be affected by the park, we became aware of strong discrepancies between the UBFA project on paper and the complex reality on the ground. These concerns led me to explore interactions between indigenous peoples and other actors (state, corporations, NGOs), both in this specific case and historically, particularly in light of the modes of knowledge production which inform public policies and development programmes.

Can you describe your thesis questions and the methodology you used to approach those questions?

My research questions were the following:

• How have different modes of knowledge production and governmentality interacted with indigenous peoples of the Baram area historically and in the context of the UBFA?
• Which discourses and modes of knowledge have been at play in the creation of the project?
• How have different understandings of key concepts of the project been negotiated between different actors in that process?
• How can anthropology inform conservation and development projects such as this one?

In answering these questions, I considered ethnographic data gathered during fieldwork, led with a participant observation approach among indigenous residents of the area as well as NGO workers involved in its design. This data was reinterpreted in light of historical and theoretical inputs and complemented with a discourse analysis of the UBFA project proposal and additional interviews with NGO workers.

What are your major findings? Did any of them surprise you?

I believe the major findings are well summarised in this paragraph, drawn from the conclusion of my paper: “The UBFA design and early implementation processes have excluded the concerned peoples from meaningful acknowledgement and participation, while converting their aspirations and knowledge into symbolic and economic capital forming the basis of the project’s rhetoric and aesthetics. The latter provides the funding and executing agencies with a smoothened image in the face of international criticism regarding conservation and indigenous rights, allowing them to defuse demands for substantive change and threats of collective action. In sum, and in line with historical trends, indigenous peoples of the Ulu Baram are subjected to cognitive extractivism through which they are physically and semantically dispossessed from the land/forest.”

What I found most surprising throughout this research was the extent to which the development project essentialised all indigenous people into a unitary actor. The project proposal repeatedly referred to “the communities” as though people from different villages and ethnic groups had the same values, customs or expectations. In creating this image of a static timeless Other, one that is supposedly intrinsically sustainable, development actors legitimise their project. In reality, we found stark differences between and among these communities, with some (mostly Penan) fitting the image of authenticity and ancestral connection to the forest posited by the project, while others (mostly Kenyah) wished to be included in development, even if it required the exploitation of forests. This experience crystallised my conviction of the need for in-depth consultation processes and for the incorporation of anthropological insights into development projects, in order to genuinely adapt them to the needs of so-called beneficiaries.

What are you doing now?

I am entering my third year at the International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH), which takes place each year in March, here in Geneva. This festival provides a forum for discussion around the most pressing issues of our time, through the prism of film and visual storytelling. Around 40 films are presented at each edition, both documentaries and fiction, and various panel discussions take place which gather activists, journalists, NGOs, experts, filmmakers… I work as a cultural mediator and bring about activities such as screenings, workshops and discussions in schools, hospitals, prisons, housing centres for migrants, etc.

Do not hesitate to contact me  if you have any questions about my research or about my current position at the FIFDH.

*    *    *

Development Actors and their Indigenous Other: Knowledge Production and Negotiation in the Upper Baram (Malaysia) was published thanks to the financial support of the Vahabzadeh Foundation. It reproduces Agathe Le Vaslot’s master dissertation in Development Studies (supervisor: Umut Yıldırım), which won the 2023 Geneva-Asia Association Prize.

How to cite:
Le Vaslot, Agathe. Development Actors and Their Indigenous Other: Knowledge Production and Negotiation in the Upper Baram (Malaysia). Graduate Institute ePaper 52. Geneva: Graduate Institute Publications, 2024. https://books.openedition.org/iheid/12393.

Banner picture: part of a photograph by Agathe Le Vaslot.
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.