國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
imported wholesale.
6.2 Taking the co-management model to Taiwan
It is important to recognise that models from Australia cannot be directly transplanted into Taiwan. There are not only historical differences and different systems of
government, but one country covers a vast area and there is not intense competition for land. Indeed the areas in which Aborigines have been given legal rights and control over in Australia are predominantly places that are sparsely populated and not valued for development (with the exception of pastoralism, tourism and mining). In contrast Taiwan is a relatively small and densely populated island. There is greater competition for the control of land and access to natural resources. Furthermore, the management of watersheds is a critical issue that directly affects every person on the island.
The co-management models of Uluru and Kakadu go beyond the national park
paradigm that began with the declaration of iconic national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite in the United States in latter half of the nineteenth century. The
Yellowstone model deliberately excluded indigenous peoples and failed to recognise the influence of man in shaping the landscape. Co-management is more in accordance with the biosphere model which emerged in the 1970s and better accommodates the coexistence of indigenous peoples with protected areas and nature conservation. The biosphere model clearly recognises the existence of cultural landscapes and the importance of indigenous peoples' ongoing management in maintaining these landscapes.
The biosphere reserve model is based on the concept of core conservation areas surrounded by buffer zones and transition zones. The outer zones allow for a wider range of land use than in the core conservation areas (Stevens, 1997: 18). Such a model could be adapted to Taiwan as it recognises the place of indigenous peoples living in national forest areas but outside national parks. It would allow for traditional or sustainable use of resources in concert with promoting conservation goals.
Formally recognising conservation areas that include indigenous peoples needs to be complemented by a system of co-management. Indeed the establishment of a system
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of co-management is clearly mandated by Article 22 of the IPBL which states:
The government shall obtain consent from the locally affected indigenous peoples and formulate a common management mechanism before establishing national parks, national scenery, forest district, ecological protection zone, recreation zone and other resource management institutions. The regulations shall be made by the central relevant authority jointly with the central indigenous affairs authority (Ministry of Justice, 2005).
Co-management will ensure that indigenous peoples play an active part in the decision making process and their interests are not marginalised. Allowing indigenous people to hold a majority of seats on boards of management would be a formal recognition of custodianship. If such a system were implemented it is possible that the government would try to maintain control by installing pro-government elites, fostered through a network of patronage, who would act as the government's proxies and not radically change the status quo. However, the past two decades of democratisation in Taiwan though have changed people's expectations of government. The people now have much stronger expectations of actively participating in government decision making, not merely voting in elections once every few years.
If co-management is adopted in Taiwan it is essential that boards of management have broad representation and mechanisms to prevent control of them being captured by groups promoting partisan or economically exploitative agendas. The differences in skills and world view that different parties bring to the table also need to be
accommodated. Indigenous people have traditional knowledge about the land and strong social and cultural ties to it. However, there may be a lack of individuals with technical expertise or professional knowledge in certain areas. Appointments to boards should also take this in consideration to ensure that the boards are made up of people with the necessary skills that can complement each other.
A further challenge lies in how willing government agencies are to give up their power or change their ways of management to better accommodate indigenous peoples. The spirit of co-management is one of partnership and working together. Yet it is the government agencies who currently control the resources and these agencies may fear co-management as it threatens their existing power and control. The Forestry Bureau
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and other government agencies may also fear that if indigenous peoples are given greater control over resource use and decision making then this will lead to unsustainable exploitation of resources.
Yet these fears are not necessarily justified. Their needs to be recognition of the social and cultural connections that indigenous peoples have to the land. The management of land and forests affects indigenous peoples very directly. They are the ones who live in areas that are most affected by landslides and floods that are caused by poor management of forests. Where exploitation does occur it may be as a result of the influence of outside economic forces. Indigenous peoples certainly have something to gain by gaining greater participation and power in decision making. However, this is recognition of their historical circumstances and special status. Co-management enables indigenous people to have a formal custodianship of the land and is a means by which they can continue their culture and protect their heritage.
Co-management is not necessarily a panacea. It can actually lead to increased conflict and may in fact lead to an increase in state control and marginalisation of local people (Castro and Nielsen, 2001: 230). There may be a need for caution in how and where it is adopted. If a co-management framework is put in place without adequate support from either the government or local people or the necessary skills and capacity then it will be a failure. Hence, it is best to adapt co-management in a region where the key ingredients for success are already present. These ingredients include strong
communities with a demonstrated capacity to work together and an economic base that reduces the dependency on the central government. Altman (2003: 4) suggests that winning land and resource rights are an essential first step. But subsequently there is a need for either institutional redesign or strengthening or the establishment of new institutions so gains can be realised. Hence existing institutions like the Forestry Bureau may have to undergo reform or new institutions must be founded to enable co-management.
It is important for government agencies to gain a greater understanding of the indigenous peoples' traditional management practices. If agencies only focus on maintaining control over use of resources then they ignore the potential value of land management work that is done by indigenous peoples as part of their customs and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
daily life. Altman (2002: 42), in discussing indigenous land management in Australia, suggests that the value of indigenous land management needs to be properly
quantified. Expenditure on land management in national parks could be benchmarked against the unrecognised value of land management undertaken on adjacent
Aboriginal land. This is an area that needs further research in Taiwan.
There is also a need to better understand the contribution of subsistence to the indigenous economy. Indigenous peoples use forest resources for multiple purposes.
These include building materials, food and fibre. A better understanding of the patterns of resource use and their place in the local economy can be incorporated into management plans. This is an area that requires more qualitative research.