國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
44 recreation zone, and other resource management institutions. Rules and regulations governing aforesaid policies, projects, and activities shall be duly prescribed by the concerned Central Competent Authorities in collaboration with the Central Competent Indigenous Affairs Authority (Indigenous Peoples Basic Law 2005).
Although this Article states that FPIC must be obtained before establishing a national park on sites affecting indigenous peoples’ traditional territories and Taroko National Park was
established nearly two decades prior to the Law’s passage, Article 22 still applies. In this case, however, a co-management committee governing the affected areas within Taroko National Park was created after the Park’s establishment in 1986, which I will discuss in the following section.
II. Coming to the Co-Management Committee
Taroko National Park was initially established in 1986, but the Taroko National Park co-management committee was not formed until more than two decades later. It was not until the 2005 Basic Law on Indigenous Peoples was passed that Article 22 stipulated the need for Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) when developing a national park in what were historically indigenous-owned lands, as discussed in the previous section (Indigenous Peoples Basic Law 2005). As I stated previously, however, this article also applies in cases like Taroko, where the National Park was established prior to the passage of the 2005 Basic Law. Therefore, the Taroko National Park co-management committee came into being shortly after the law was passed in 2005. This law, enforced by the Ministry of the Interior, states that the Taroko National Park Bureau is required to co-manage traditional lands with Taroko indigenous peoples.5
When the Taroko National Park co-management committee was initially formed approximately 10 years ago, it was created as something of a “slogan” organization to
demonstrate that the Park was in accordance with the 2005 Basic Law.6 When the Basic Law was passed, it required all national parks in Taiwan to establish co-management mechanisms with the local indigenous peoples whose traditional territories were contained within the
5 This information was collected as a result of an interview conducted by the author over the telephone with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
6 This information was collected as a result of an in-person interview conducted by the author in Chinese with Tian Guifang on May 21, 2017. Translation assistance was given by anonymous interviewee, Yulin Zheng, and any errors in translation or interpretation are entirely my own.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
45 boundaries of the park. In the case of the Taroko National Park, those peoples were the local Taroko communities. Some co-management committees in other countries have been formed as a result of any combination of factors, including demands from local indigenous communities, legal requirements on behalf of the state, and regional and international pressure to adopt human rights legislation. The Taroko National Park co-management committee, however, was founded solely based on the legal requirements contained in the 2005 Basic Law.7 Therefore, from the start, the committee was intended to serve the needs of the government and appear to engage the local community. During the committee’s earlier years, many of the committee members were Taroko peoples and were recognized by their respective communities as such.8 In more recent years, however, many of the Taroko committee members are closely linked with the county governments, thus lending more authority to the counties and even less to the local
communities.9 After speaking with some present and past committee members, it seems that some feel as though they had been tricked into participating on the committee because it had been presented as a true form of co-management.10 Others feel that while the committee may not represent real co-management at present, the best way to enact change is to do so from within and engage the younger Taroko peoples to participate in the co-management committee themselves.11
Figure 7- Author’s interview with Tian Guifang in Taroko, May 21, 2017
7 Interview conducted by the author with Tian Guifang on May 21, 2017.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 This information was collected as a result of an in-person interview conducted by the author in Chinese and English with Teyra Yudaw on May 21, 2017. Translation assistance was given by anonymous interviewee, Yulin Zheng, and any errors in translation or interpretation are entirely my own.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
46 Presently, the Taroko National Park co-management committee is composed of 21
members.12 The distribution of these members is as follows: three representatives from the Taroko Gorge National Park Bureau, three representatives from the county government, four scholars who specialize in the National Park, and eleven indigenous representatives. In terms of the eleven indigenous committee members, it appears that one is a member of the county
indigenous council, each indigenous township office has a representative, and one is the leader of the whole township of indigenous peoples.13 The eleven indigenous representatives as a whole are chosen by their respective township offices, which unfortunately often results in a
communication gap between the Taroko indigenous communities in each township and the co-management committee itself. This is largely because those indigenous representatives are often selected through bribery and favoritism within the township offices.14 Thus, because of the socio-economic gap that is typical between the selected representatives and the local Taroko indigenous communities, some Taroko people, especially hunters, feel that the committee does not do much by way of helping or protecting their traditional rights.15 When asked whether there might be a better way to select committee members, another interviewee said that because it is early on in the co-management process and the county government owns so many resources, it might be best that the government help in the selection process for now. Over time, however, she thinks that a volunteer system might be more effective in representing the public opinion of Taroko peoples.16
When the Taroko National Park co-management committee was first established, the primary goal was to show the Taiwanese legislature and the rest of the world that the park did, in fact, engage in co-management with local Taroko peoples. For the first couple years of its existence, the committee, which is largely run by the National Park Bureau, received 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 NTD each year from the Bureau to fund traditional culture activities and
demonstrations at community centers in and near Taroko National Park.17 In addition to providing funding for Taroko activities, the co-management committee intended to bridge the
12 Telephone interview by the author with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
13 Ibid.
14 This information has come about as a result of interviews conducted by the author, the first in person with Yulin Zheng on April 21, 2017, and the second by telephone with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
15 Telephone interview conducted by the author with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
16 Interview conducted by the author with Yulin Zheng on April 21, 2017.
17 Interview conducted by the author with Tian Guifang on May 21, 2017.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
47 communication gap between the local communities surrounding Taroko National Park and the National Park Bureau authorities. Unfortunately, time has revealed that the goals that the committee set at its start have far from been accomplished.