國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3 Throughout this thesis, I aim to answer this primary research question: how do local Taiwanese indigenous peoples engage in co-management agreements with the state government of Taiwan? Before doing so, I will explain the motivation behind my research and provide a brief historical overview of the colonization and democratization of Taiwan and Canada, as well as the emergence of the national parks systems and forest management mechanisms in each state.
Additionally, I will highlight some critical milestones in the emergence of an international indigenous rights regime that have helped to shape the recognition of indigenous rights in Taiwan. I will examine other cases of indigenous-state co-management and adapt Ortiga’s six criteria for recognition of indigenous land rights to be applied to the systems of forest co-management in both Taiwanese case studies (Ortiga 2004). In identifying the degrees to which each co-management agreement meets the criteria within this framework, I will discuss the effective and ineffective components of each agreement. Finally, I will discuss Canadian indigenous-state co-management as a potential model for Taiwan. This analysis will thus allow me to make informed suggestions for future forest and national park co-management agreements in Taiwan.
II. Research Motivation
When I began my studies at the National Chengchi University in the fall of 2015, I intended to improve my understanding of the complexities of Taiwan’s history to apply to a study in cross-strait relations. During my first semester at NCCU, I enrolled in a course on the socialization and mobilization of Taiwanese indigenous peoples. I also took a course focused on the ethnic and cultural structure of Taiwan. Through these courses, I gained exposure to
Taiwan’s colorful and diverse indigenous population. I grew increasingly frustrated as I learned about the historic oppression that indigenous peoples had faced over centuries of colonization.
In particular, the loss of land rights struck a chord with me on a moral level. I viewed the repeated seizure of indigenous land as theft on the part of the colonial governments, and thus believed it to be inherently wrong. As I befriended Taiwanese students of indigenous descent, I became progressively more aware of the past injustices committed against indigenous peoples. I also began to better understand the continued socioeconomic and political inequalities in
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4 government representation and legislature, all of which began to take on a more personal
meaning for me.
I am originally from the United States, which, like Taiwan, has a long colonial history throughout which Native Americans have also faced centuries of oppression, degradation, and displacement by colonial settlers. As a result, I recognize the striking similarities between the plight of indigenous peoples in Taiwan and North America, namely the United States and Canada. Considering the recent change in administration in the United States, indigenous rights issues appear to be as serious as ever, and the past several centuries have yet to yield a cohesive and equitable framework for indigenous-state negotiations. I understand that the legacies of colonization not only include political marginalization, but also diminished rights to traditional lands and territories. I see this as an urgent issue that needs to be discussed.
On a different note, I grew up as a woman in a patriarchal society, and while I have not faced the same degree of prejudice or marginalization as is faced by those of other minority groups, especially women in minority groups, I can still strongly empathize with the inequalities faced by peoples who are seen as being “less.” Despite arguments that some may make to the contrary, to this day, women are still fighting for equal status and pay in America, which touts itself as being one of the most progressive democracies in the world. Similarly, I am frustrated that democratic governments like those in the United States, Taiwan, and even Canada fail to recognize the stark inequalities and prejudices that are faced by minority groups. I am incredibly frustrated that the original inhabitants of these states, namely indigenous peoples, do not have access and rights to their traditional lands and territories. Thus, I aim to contribute to the literature on indigenous-state co-management by analyzing two cases of such in Taiwan. In my discussion, I aim to incorporate Canada, a state which many scholars point to as having a more progressive co-management approach and framework, as a potential model for co-management.
I intend to provide suggestions for increased involvement of indigenous peoples by the
Taiwanese state government in the national park and forest co-management process, and ideally affect positive future change.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5 III. Literature Review
III.a. Historical Background
While Taiwan and Canada are strikingly different with regard to geography, climate, and location, the two states share a surprising number of similarities. The histories of both Taiwan and Canada have been characterized by over four centuries of colonization, which has largely contributed to the basis of state relations in each today. While Canadian indigenous-state relations are largely based on treaty federalism, Taiwanese indigenous-indigenous-state relations are more so conducted in a top-down manner resulting from centuries of oppression and denied recognition of rights. Additionally, while both Taiwan and Canada have different agencies governing the planning and management of national parks and forests, the emergence and evolution of these structures have taken relatively different paths. This is especially apparent in the differing ways in which Taiwanese and Canadian national parks and forestry bureaus
incorporate indigenous peoples into the decision-making processes of each. Because of the seemingly similar, yet apparently quite different processes by which modern indigenous-state negotiations and land management structures have emerged, I believe it will be very interesting and informative to compare these two states in my analysis.
Taiwan
Taiwan’s colonial history dates back nearly 400 years. Prior to the initial colonization of the island, “Taiwan was the location of Proto-Austronesian” and was primarily inhabited by Austronesian-speaking indigenous peoples (Bellwood 2009). Those indigenous peoples remaining in Taiwan today are referred to as 原住民族 (yuan zhu min zu), and prior to colonization, they enjoyed relative autonomy over the island for several thousand years.
Taiwanese indigenous autonomy on the island came to an end in 1624, however, with the arrival of the Dutch East India Company (VOC), which “established a base in southwestern Taiwan” to expand its trade with China and Japan (Brown 2004). Under Dutch colonial rule, which lasted just under four decades, the colonial settlers and Taiwanese indigenous peoples primarily interacted through trade, and the aborigines retained a great deal of autonomy over
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6 many of their traditional territories. The Dutch colonial rule ended in 1661 with the start of the Zheng regime, which lasted until 1683. The Zheng period of colonization was primarily characterized by the exploitation of Taiwanese indigenous peoples as a cheap source of forced labor, often resulting in state seizure of traditional indigenous lands (Brown 2004). Following the Zheng regime, the Qing government took control of Taiwan. Qing rule on the island lasted from 1683 to 1895 and was marked by Qing suppression of indigenous uprisings, a continuation of the forced labor system, and further losses of indigenous land rights (Brown 2004). In 1873, near the end of Qing rule, the government established the first forestry agency in Taiwan, which dissolved shortly thereafter as Taiwan was ceded to Japan just two years later (Forestry Bureau 2016).
Japanese colonization of Taiwan began following the defeat of Chinese forces in the Sino-Japanese war in 1895. It goes without saying that “the Japanese occupation had an impact on what became of indigenous culture and society” (Faure 2009). This is especially owing to the fact that the pacification and assimilation policies pursued by the Japanese colonists were “based on the colonial purposes of protection, assimilation, and recognition” and were justified as being for the good of the indigenous peoples (Mona 2007). Additionally, because the Japanese
colonial government focused on “developing Taiwan’s infrastructure, production, and population,” much of the land that had remained under indigenous control to that point was seized by the government for development (Brown 2004). With regard to the forested lands of Taiwan, forestry matters fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of Agricultural Production, which reported to the Japanese Governor General’s Office (Forestry Bureau 2016). Given the nature of Japanese policies in suppressing aboriginal uprisings and enforcing assimilationist policies, it is reasonable to conclude that the Office of Agricultural Production did not consult with Taiwanese indigenous peoples concerning the development of their traditional forest lands.
Japanese colonial rule in Taiwan came to an end in 1945, when the island was given over to Chinese rule following the Japanese defeat in World War II. When Taiwan was initially ceded to Chinese rule, matters of forest conservation and development were assigned to the Office of Forestry Administration under the Department of Agriculture and Forestry (Forestry Bureau 2016). At this time, Taiwan was also divided into ten forestry administration zones (Forestry Bureau 2016). Two years later, in 1947, Chiang Kai-Shek and his Nationalist Party (KMT) troops fled to Taiwan and occupied the island for the next 40 years under rule of Martial
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7 Law. During this period of colonization, not only did Taiwanese indigenous peoples experience extensive political marginalization, but the government also “continued a modified version of the Japanese household registration system as a means of monitoring the population” (Brown 2004).
When the island came under KMT rule, the Taiwanese provincial government dissolved the Office of Forestry Administration and reorganized it as the Forestry Administrative Division, which retained control over the production and supply of lumber and afforestation affairs (Forestry Bureau 2016). At this point, the responsibility for forest management was transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. It should be noted that during the KMT Martial Law period, none of the aforementioned departments or bureaus consulted with or integrated local indigenous communities into their forest management practices. Later, in 1960, the Forestry Administration Division was reorganized once more and was renamed the Forestry Bureau (Forestry Bureau 2016).
In 1968, the KMT established a reserved land system as a way of legally registering indigenous territory in Taiwan. Despite the original intent of the system to reserve land for use by indigenous peoples, “legal loopholes actually gave the Taiwanese government as well as Han Chinese individuals and corporations access to indigenous land” (Simon 2014). Shortly after the KMT instituted the reserve land system, the government passed the first National Parks Law in 1972 and revised the Forestry Law (Edmonds 1996). By 1984, five national parks had been established, including Kenting, Yushan, Yangmingshan, Taroko, and Shei-pa National Parks (Edmonds 1996). These parks were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior’s National Parks Department and accounted for over 8.5 percent of Taiwan’s total land (Edmonds 1996). In the creation of the parks system and the establishment of the aforementioned parks, not only did the government neglect to consult with local indigenous communities about the parks’ creation, but many indigenous peoples were actually displaced from their traditional lands in the process. In essence, the failure of the Taiwanese government to effectively incorporate indigenous peoples into the land planning and policy-making process during KMT rule marks yet another period in Taiwanese colonial history during which indigenous peoples were completely subordinate to the state government.
Since the end of KMT Martial Law in 1987, Taiwan has undergone three decades of democratization. In doing so, the government has opened a small space for the involvement of indigenous peoples in the political landscape and legislature. In 1989, the Forestry Bureau
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8 changed from being an “enterprise organization” to a “civil service agency,” allowing for greater community engagement in matters of forest development and protection (Forestry Bureau 2016).
Several years later, in 1994, according to the usage policies of the Taiwan Agricultural and Forestry Bureau, 20 nature reserves were converted to national forest lands (Edmonds 1996).
Additionally, national parks were classified into five zones: 1) ecological protection, 2) significant scenic, 3) historical and cultural preservation, 4) recreational, and 5) general
protection (Edmonds 1996). Regarding forest lands in Taiwan, in 1999 the Forestry Bureau was relegated under the central government as the Forestry Bureau of the Council of Agriculture, under the authority of the Executive Yuan (Forestry Bureau 2016). While the Bureau has been responsible for forestry matters for the past 60 plus years, it falls under the authority of the Forestry Administration, which reports to the Taiwan Provincial Government, and through such to the Executive Yuan (Edmonds 1996). In cases where forested land is within the delineated borders of a national park, however, ultimate control over said piece of forest lies with the national park and the Construction and Planning Administration under the Ministry of the Interior (Edmonds 1996).
For many years, both the National Parks division and the Forestry Bureau have failed to actively engage local indigenous communities in the planning, development, and protection of traditional lands delineated as forests and parks. In more recent years, the Forestry Bureau has promoted balancing “traditional forestry work against the needs of nature conservation,” but the active incorporation of indigenous peoples into this process has remained unclear (Edmonds 1996). At the same time, the Taiwan Forestry Act, which was initially passed in September of 1932 and has since been revised and amended a number of times, most recently in May of 2015, states in Article 38-1 that “for national forest located within the traditional territory of aboriginal peoples, the central government agency shall make it a priority to advise aboriginal peoples community development associations, legal entities, or individuals with reforestation and forest protection” (Forestry Act 2015). While this article does address the possibility of national forests falling within traditional aboriginal lands, it does not propose a way to engage indigenous communities in the planning stages so much as it stipulates that the central government agency must provide guidance regarding these conservation efforts. This concept of top-down,
government-imposed environmental protection and management is reflective of the general Taiwanese government approach to land planning and forest management. Because the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9 government has yet to establish a model for indigenous-state relations in which negotiations between the two can take place on an equal plane, although Taiwan is technically in a state of post-colonialism, on a day-to-day basis, indigenous peoples experience life in a continued state of colonialism (Simon 2016). Therefore, one might reasonably conclude that indigenous-state national park and forest management efforts to this day have yet to be realized on a basis of equality, but rather are still conducted in a top-down manner.
Canada
Similar to Taiwan, Canadian history has also been characterized by over four centuries of colonial rule. The first French colonists began to arrive in Canada in 1537. At this point,
“France saw Aboriginal nations as allies, and relied on them for survival and fur trade wealth”
(Jaenen 2007). Additionally, although France claimed sovereignty over a great deal of land in the St. Lawrence basin and hinterland, “the French Crown also recognized that Aboriginal peoples were part of independent nations governed by their own laws and customs” (Jaenen 2007). In the 17th and 18th centuries, “French and British colonies pushed further inland” and continued to compete for control of land and resources (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). As the colonial powers fought each other, their “commercial alliances
transformed… into vital military alliances” (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011).
When the Seven Years’ War ended in 1763, “Britain replaced France as the preeminent colonial power in the land that is now Canada” (Miller 2006). That same year, the British Crown also issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in which it was established that “all lands to the west became the ‘Indian Territories’ where there could be no settlement or trade without the permission of the Indian Department and strict control by the British Military” (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). For the next several decades, the British colonial government continued to interact with Aboriginal nations on the basis of commercial and military treaties with the Crown.
In the 1820s, however, the British colonial government began to enact policies
“encouraging First Nations people to abandon their traditional ways of life” in hopes that they would assimilate into the larger British society (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10 2011). Over the following century, the British colonial powers instituted assimilation programs and initiatives to “civilize” the indigenous peoples. Rather than respect aboriginal lands, British colonial assemblies enacted programs and legislation to protect Indian reserve lands and
incentivize indigenous peoples to give up their traditional ways of life and adopt agricultural lifestyles (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). In 1876, the government passed the Indian Act, which further stripped indigenous peoples of their unique rights and identity (Henderson 2006). This Act was soon followed by the establishment of Indian residential schools in 1883.
Around the same time, the earliest of Canada’s National Park legislation began emerging in 1887. Just 14 years after the Department of the Interior had been established (1873), the Rocky Mountains Park Act created the first national park and provided park administration (Parks Canada 2013). This act was followed in 1911 by the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, and the National Parks Act and Natural Resources Acts were passed in 1930 (Parks Canada 2013). It was at this time that control over public lands and resources was given to the provincial governments, but these acts failed to account for indigenous claims over lands being delineated as national parks and forest reserves. From 1911 to 1936, the Dominion Parks Branch was run by Commissioner James B. Harkin, who oversaw the establishment of nine new national parks (Finkelstein and McNamee 2012).
Later that century, in 1969, the Trudeau Government proposed a policy called the “White Paper.” This policy “called for a repeal of the Indian Act, ending the federal responsibility for First Nations and terminating their special status, as well as the decentralization of Indian affairs to provincial governments who would then administer services for First Nations communities and individuals” (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). The government failed to consult with First Nations peoples in the passage of this legislation, and the White Paper was thus vastly rejected by aboriginal peoples.
In the 1970s, Canadian government began to develop new policies to better address First Nations rights claims. One particular policy resulted in a “process to settle land claims through negotiation where Aboriginal rights and title would be transferred to the Crown through a settlement agreement which guaranteed defined rights and benefits for the signatories” (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). This agreement assigned more decision-making power to the First Nations themselves. Similarly, in 1973, the government adopted a
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11 Comprehensive Claims Policy and a Specific Claims Policy to better address issues of claims to Aboriginal title and non-fulfillment of obligations outlined by various treaties.
Since the 1970s, the government and Parks Canada have sought closer working relations
Since the 1970s, the government and Parks Canada have sought closer working relations