國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
62 chair position will be determined, as well as the frequency of meetings and the items on the agenda.
In the course of establishing the committee, Berkes noted that the Forestry Bureau and Rukai communities would likely face several challenges, including questions of budget, altering the current mode of thinking among Forestry Bureau representatives and Rukai community members, implementing maps of traditional territories due to movement over the years,
organization because other government agencies may also be involved, and legal issues resulting from the incompatibility of the existing legal framework with the goals of co-management.58 While “after nearly two decades of field research and interviews with elders, 96,114 hectares of Rukai lands have been identified, about 77 percent of which are currently controlled by the Forestry Bureau under the Cabinet-level Council of Agriculture,” further challenges will arise in asserting Rukai claims to these lands due to centuries of migration and relocation, both forced and self-determined (Taiwan Today 2017). However, as voiced by the Rukai assembly leader,
“the assembly’s primary goal will be to help facilitate the establishment of a joint management mechanism for these areas,” which it seems will best take place through the formation of a co-management committee with the Taiwan Forestry Bureau (Taiwan Today 2017). I will elaborate on the intended operations of this committee in the following section.
III. Intended Operations of the Committee
In continuing the process of co-management between the Forestry Bureau and the Rukai indigenous peoples of Taiwan, it seems that one of the most reasonable, and in other
co-management cases effective, ways of sharing power is to do so through a co-co-management committee. Ideally, this committee would consist of representatives from both the Forestry Bureau and the local Rukai communities. The committee itself, through discussions about establishment, would need to determine the ways in which members would be elected.
Additionally, as advocated by Berkes, the committee would benefit from having a chair, whose position would rotate regularly, for instance every three years. It is also imperative, according to Berkes, that the co-management committee meet regularly and establish a working agenda for each meeting. In the earlier stages of the committee, he posits that the committee might meet
58 Information collected as a result of the author’s participation in the Walking Workshop 2017.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
63 more frequently due to the number of issues yet to be resolved. Over time, however, as more and more disputes are resolved between the Forestry Bureau and local Rukai communities, the committee might meet less frequently. Also important to remember, states Berkes, is that with regard to the agenda for the committee, representatives from both the Forestry Bureau and the Rukai communities may submit issues of interest. In the early stages, it may be beneficial for the co-management committee to limit its agenda to four to five items, particularly items of a smaller nature to allow a greater likelihood for success in resolving these issues. As the committee becomes more practiced in resolving smaller disputes, it may then be more apt to resolving larger ongoing conflicts among the interested parties.
Figure 11- Rukai Community Council leader speaks at Adiri village, Walking Workshop 2017 In terms of those parties whose interests would be represented by the committee, it seems that the central actors should include the Rukai Community Council, though it may be a while before it is legally recognized, and the Taiwan Forestry Bureau. Should issues arise that concern other agencies, such as the Transportation Department, representatives from that agency could then be called upon to participate in the committee’s discussions. In this way, the committee would represent the interests of all interested parties (Berkes 2017).
While the co-management committee would not work to enact legislation, as that is the responsibility of the central government, it would deliberate and develop suggestions and recommendations in response to conflicts and concerns regarding the management and use of forested lands, including those outlined in the following section. The committee would ideally then propose these recommendations and solutions to the central government authorities, who could at that point decide whether or not to implement these suggestions. While the final
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
64 decision-making power regarding implementation would ultimately rest with the central
government, the Forestry Bureau and Rukai indigenous peoples would also share in very real decision-making power in the outset and drafting of proposals and policies. Additionally, due to the expense and difficulty of monitoring and managing such large expanses of land and forests, the co-management committee would allow for the shared responsibility for these duties between the Forestry Bureau and the local Rukai communities, who could utilize their traditional
ecological knowledge and the expertise of former hunters to protect and balance the local ecosystems.59
Unlike other currently existing co-management committees in Taiwan, including the Taroko National Park co-management committee, the committee between the Forestry Bureau and Rukai communities would not operate on a consultative basis, but as a functioning agency with real, shared decision-making power. Ultimately, as Berkes describes, co-management of Rukai traditional forested areas should serve the following purposes:
1. Allocation of tasks enabling each partner to do what it does best 2. Exchange of resources allowing partners to complete their tasks 3. Better enforcement to increase efficiency on the ground
4. Conflict resolution by codifying rights and responsibilities
5. Reducing transaction costs through better data collection, monitoring, enforcement, and conflict resolution
6. Risk-sharing in the decision-making process (Carlsson and Berkes 2005).
Finally, the most important components in a successful co-management regime are mutual trust and mutual respect. While these are things that cannot be established overnight, especially given the long and somewhat tumultuous history of the relationship between the Forestry Bureau and the Rukai peoples, by opening up dialogue between the two parties, this process has already begun.60 Should this process continue, as is the goal, the committee would over time be able to help resolve the conflicts described in the following section.
IV. Current Concerns and Conflicts
59 Information collected as a result of the author’s participation in the Walking Workshop 2017.
60 Ibid.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
65 Both the Taiwan Forestry Bureau and the individual Rukai community share various concerns about the management and use of forested lands in Rukai traditional territories. Across the various communities, the most common of these concerns include hunting rights, the ability to collect and use salvage timber and non-timber forest resources, promotion of ecotourism and sustainable development, recognition of traditional knowledge, afforestation issues, and the aftermath of relocation and resettlement. The Forestry Bureau, which shares the intention of protecting the environment and forest for continued enjoyment by the whole state of Taiwan, has voiced other concerns about the protection of land and animals and the rebuilding of
communities in the aftermath of typhoons and natural disasters. One especially important shared concern between the Forestry Bureau and the local Rukai communities is the communication gap between the communities and the Forestry Bureau itself. Both parties have expressed frustration at the poor communication at present, which has made discussions about resource use and
management difficult as the wishes of either party are often misrepresented or misinterpreted. In this chapter, I will expand upon the concerns of both parties, as well as ongoing conflicts in Rukai forested lands.
Rukai Community Concerns
Because many of the Rukai traditional territories are located in forested, mountainous areas, most Rukai villages share similar concerns regarding the use of their traditional lands.
The most prominent of these concerns include hunting rights and regulations, which due to the Wildlife Conservation Act and the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act, have been severely limited, as well as the ability to collect salvage (fallen) timber. Many Rukai
communities are also concerned with their ability to promote sustainable ecotourism in their villages, and hope to gain the support of the Forestry Bureau in doing so. Additionally, Rukai villages are frustrated by the lasting ramifications of their forced relocation, both by colonial governments and natural disasters, namely the 2009 Typhoon Morakot. Following their
resettlement, several villages have been prohibited from returning to their traditional lands due to the government’s concern about the safety of the land, as well as the Forestry Bureau’s
controlled afforestation efforts, which oftentimes involve planting the wrong type of tree
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
66 (xiangsishu) for the land. This negligence then leads to continued land instability and more land/rockslides, a point of apprehension for numerous Rukai villages.
While many of the Rukai villages visited during the walking workshop voiced shared concerns regarding the use of traditional Rukai lands, several communities have particular concerns affecting those specific villages. In Kundagavane, a community located in Gaoxiong County, the village is especially concerned with illegal logging being carried out by gangsters.
At present, because of the lack of cooperation and collaboration between the Rukai village and the Forestry Bureau, it has proven very difficult to monitor this logging and enforce punishment for such. This issue appears to be a shared concern by the community and Forestry Bureau alike, as the logging has a negative impact on the overall ecosystem of the forest.61 It seems that enforcement of restrictions against illegal logging might be more effective if they involve cooperation from the local community of Kundagavane. In Oponoho, the Rukai village’s local artist is frustrated by the limits the Forestry Bureau has placed on the amount of magnetic rock ha can gather from the riverbed. Additionally, community members face difficulty in collecting the salvage timber they are allotted due to lack of equipment to do so.62
A third community with unique concerns is that of Teldreka, where the local homestay owners have begun their own initiatives to protect butterfly habitats.63 In Teldreka, several community members became frustrated with the state government’s lack of budget and concern regarding the protection of migratory butterfly habitats. Additionally, approximately 70 percent of the lands to which the butterflies return is privately owned, which has proven particularly problematic in promoting protection of these lands. These concerned community members want to negotiate with the land owners about renting or sharing the land with conservationists, but in order to do so, they need to support of the central government. The butterfly conservationists have voiced their hopes to team up with the Forestry Bureau in order to better protect the butterflies and their habitats, but in the meantime, several community members have collaborated to establish a local homestay and butterfly exhibition as a way of promoting ecotourism to raise money and awareness about this ecological issue.64
61 Information collected as a result of the author’s participation in the Walking Workshop 2017.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
67 In Wutai Township, various Rukai community members have articulated their
frustrations with the current application for forest resource use. This application, which appears to be a mystery even to those officials whose job it is to carry out, requires Rukai people to show proof of continued land use in order to claim control over a given forested area. Unfortunately, however, few Rukai people actually have written title to the land, nor do they have a way of proving their historic and continued use of said land because of the difficulty of using satellite imagery to show agroforestry, which occurs beneath the trees in the forest.65 Additionally, while the Forestry Bureau has allotted this Rukai community access to 50 percent of the claimed traditional lands, there seem to be no standards for the quality of the land or resources therein contained. This community also raised concerns about the need to update the protected animals list, as many villagers have noted an imbalance in the local ecosystem. This imbalance is exemplified by the 35,000 muntjacs (small mountain deer) living in Rukai territories, compared to the approximately 13,000 total Rukai peoples.66 Like the community of Taromak, Wutai Township was equally concerned with the limitations on water collection.
In Labuwan (Dawu), local community members discussed the potential dangers of the commercialization of local plants and the potential strain that would place on the ecosystem.67 Similar to other communities, including Changzi Baihe, Labuwan villagers are worried about the psychological depression in elders resulting from the forced relocation and restoration after the 2009 typhoon. Rukai community members in Changzi Baihe are also concerned with the lack of arable land for cultivation and the issues resulting from climate change and decreasing
population in the village.
65 Information collected as a result of the author’s participation in the Walking Workshop 2017.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
68 Figure 12- Rukai women welcome participants to Rinari village, Walking Workshop 2017
Finally, in Rinari, Rukai village members share concerns about rediscovering traditional knowledge and having the ability to visit their traditional village. Meanwhile, community members in Taromak, located in Taidong County, are also concerned with water collection, and strongly desire the ability to self-monitor and self-manage their traditional forested lands.68 To further illustrate the individual concerns in each village, I have included a table detailing such below:
Community Primary Issues
1. Kundagavane • Hunting rights/regulations
• Salvage timber (application)
• Illegal logging
2. Oponoho • Hunting rights/regulations
• Salvage timber
• Non-timber forest resource collection
• Ecotourism
3. Teldreka • Protection of butterfly habitat
• Afforestation (wrong trees)
• Government conservation budget 4. Adiri (Ali) • Forced relocation (ability to return) 5. Wutai Township • Rukai Community Council
• Proof of continuous land use
• Salvage timber (regulations)
• Collection of non-timber forest resources
• Agroforestry
• Forestry Bureau allotment of land
• Hunting rights/regulations
• Need to update protected animals list
68 Information collected as a result of the author’s participation in the Walking Workshop 2017.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
69
• Conversion of traditional land to protected land
• Water collection
6. Labuwan • Commercialization of local plants
• Hunting rights/regulations
• Post-typhoon relocation (depression) 7. Changzi Baihe • Post-typhoon relocation (depression)
• Lack of farmland/land for cultivation
• Climate change issues
• Decreasing population
• Hunting rights/regulations
8. Rinari • Rediscovering traditional knowledge
• Ability to visit old community
• Salvage timber (harvesting regulations) 9. Taromak • Water collection
• Use of traditional territory/land (scale)
• Ecotourism
• Hunting rights/regulations
• Self-monitoring/self-management
• Traditional knowledge Table 1- Rukai Villages and Corresponding Concerns 2017
While the Rukai communities and the Forestry Bureau appear to share similar interests in protecting the environment and maintaining a balanced ecosystem, the Forestry Bureau has voiced its own concerns regarding the use and shared management of forested lands, which are detailed in the following sub-section.
Forestry Bureau Concerns
With regard to the environment and the local ecosystems, the Forestry Bureau seems to share similar concerns as those of the various Rukai communities. Forestry Bureau
representatives have expressed their interest in protecting the land and forest resources for the continued use and enjoyment by future generations in Taiwan. Thus, while Rukai communities wish to self-monitor in protecting the local environment, the Forestry Bureau is apprehensive, and perhaps dubious, about the dependability of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge in protecting the environment. The Forestry Bureau thus tends to concern itself with the notion of protecting the forests for the entire state of Taiwan as a whole.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
70 In addition to ecological interests, the Forestry Bureau is concerned with the rebuilding and relocation of villages post-typhoon. Because the 2009 Typhoon Morakot caused landslides that destroyed the roads leading to several Rukai indigenous villages, the Forestry Bureau has pursued afforestation policies to replant trees in those areas that have been affected by land degradation, as well as those historically affected by logging and timber collection. There have been questions raised as to the effectiveness of the Forestry Bureau’s afforestation practices, however, as the newly planted trees appear to have done little in mitigating land and rockslides.
Perhaps what appears to be one of the Forestry Bureau’s greatest concerns is that about sharing power with local Rukai communities. As has appeared in several different discussions between Forestry Bureau representatives and local community leaders, the Forestry Bureau is very apprehensive about delegating real decision-making power to the local Rukai communities.
This fear may be rooted in a lack of understanding, as it seems that neither the Forestry Bureau nor local community members really understand what shared decision-making power looks like.
However, as Berkes has explained in several forums, the central government would still retain the final say in terms of whether or not to enact policies brought forth by the co-management committee.69 The committee itself would serve to draft proposals and suggestions for policy implementation and conflict resolution, but if the central government were to find the
suggestions out of line or of poor judgement, it could refrain from implementing them.
Furthermore, the local Rukai community leaders have repeatedly affirmed their eagerness to accept responsibility for the management of their traditional forested lands and to monitor and protect the resources contained therein. Nonetheless, the delegation of decision-making power to a non-government agency remains a large concern for the Forestry Bureau.
Ongoing Conflicts
As mentioned previously, there are numerous ongoing conflicts between the Taiwan Forestry Bureau and the local Rukai communities. Oftentimes, these conflicts stem from poor communication and misunderstood or misrepresented ideas on behalf of either party. One particularly contentious issue is that of the application system for requesting permission to use forest resources. At present, the Forestry Bureau requires Rukai communities to file an
69 Information collected as a result of the author’s participation in the Walking Workshop 2017.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
71 application to use salvage timber and other non-timber forest resources.70 Many Rukai
community leaders have expressed that the application is very long, complicated, and difficult for them and their community members to understand. Additionally, Forestry Bureau
representatives themselves have admitted that the application process is complex and the application form is not easy to comprehend without extensive training.71 Not only is the
application process tedious and confusing, but the application must also be submitted indirectly to the Forestry Bureau through the District Council, which is composed of township
representatives who are often disconnected from their localities and do not fully comprehend the concerns and wishes of the Rukai people in their respective villages. This lack of understanding further muddles the application process and contributes to the communication gap between the Forestry Bureau and local communities. Community leaders have proposed using the newly established Rukai Community Council as the intermediary agency between the villages and the Forestry Bureau, however central law requires that the agency be officially legally recognized, thus disqualifying the Community Council at this point. There are hopes that the Rukai
representatives who are often disconnected from their localities and do not fully comprehend the concerns and wishes of the Rukai people in their respective villages. This lack of understanding further muddles the application process and contributes to the communication gap between the Forestry Bureau and local communities. Community leaders have proposed using the newly established Rukai Community Council as the intermediary agency between the villages and the Forestry Bureau, however central law requires that the agency be officially legally recognized, thus disqualifying the Community Council at this point. There are hopes that the Rukai