這片土地是「我們的」: 台灣原住民族和政府共同管理的研究 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學亞太研究英語碩士學位學程 International Master’s Program in Asia-Pacific Studies College of Social Sciences National Chengchi University 碩士論文政治 Master’s Thesis 大. 立. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. 這片土地是⸢我們的⸥: 台灣原住民族和政府共同管理的研究 This Land is “Our” Land: A Study of Indigenous-State Co-Management in Taiwan. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Student: Emily Grubb Advisor: Professor Da-Wei Kuan. 中華民國 2017 年 6 月 June 2017.

(2) 這片土地是⸢我們的⸥: 台灣原住民族和政府共同管理的研究 This Land is “Our” Land: A Study of Indigenous-State Co-Management in Taiwan 研究生: 葛明麗指導教授: 管大偉. Student: Emily Grubb Advisor: Professor Da-Wei Kuan. 國立政治大學. 立. 政治大. 學. ‧ 國. 亞太研究英語碩士學位學程碩士論文. y. ‧. Nat. er. io. sit. A Master’s Thesis. n. Submitted to International a Master’s Program invAsia-Pacific Studies. i l C n hengchi U. National Chengchi University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of the Arts in Social Sciences. 中華民國 2017 年 6 月 June 2017.

(3) Table of Contents. Acknowledgements Abstract Chapter One……………………………………………………………………………………...1. 立. 政治大. 學. IV. V. VI. VII.. Introduction………………………………………………………………………1 Research Motivation……………………………………………………………..3 Literature Review………………………………………………………………...5 a. Historical Background……………………………………………………….5 b. Indigenous-State Relations……………………………………………….12 c. Co-Management Studies……………………………………………………18 d. Key Elements of the Canadian Co-Management Model…………………24 Research Area…………………………………………………………...............29 Research Question………………………………………………………………33 Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………...34 Methodology and Procedure…………………………………………………...36. ‧ 國. I. II. III.. Chapter Two: Taroko National Park Co-Management Committee……………………………38. ‧. Taroko National Park Case Context…………………………………………...38 Coming to the Co-Management Committee…………………………………...44 Co-Management Committee Operations……………………………………...47 Current Concerns and Conflicts……………………………………….............49. sit. y. Nat. I. II. III. IV.. n. al. er. io. Chapter Three: Taiwan Forestry Bureau-Rukai Indigenous Peoples Co-Management Initiative………………………………………………………………………………………….55 I. II. III. IV.. Ch. i n U. v. Forestry Bureau-Rukai Peoples Case Context………………………………55 Coming to the Co-Management Committee…………………………………...59 Intended Operations of the Committee………………………………………62 Current Concerns and Conflicts……………………………………………….64. engchi. Chapter Four: Analysis and Discussion………………………………………………………..74 I. II. III. IV.. Taroko National Park Co-Management Committee………………………….75 Taiwan Forestry Bureau-Rukai Indigenous Peoples Co-Management Initiative…………………………………………………………………………83 Discussion………………………………………………………………………92 Application of the Canadian Model to Taiwan………………………………...97. Chapter Five: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………103 References…………………………………………………………………………...…………107 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………..113.

(4) Index of Tables. Table 1- Rukai Villages and Corresponding Concerns…........…………………………………...68. Table of Figures. Figure 1- Legal Regime Typologies……………………………………………………………...14 Figure 2- Co-Management Agreement Framework………………………………………………20 Figure 3- Map of Taroko National Park 2006……………………………………………….........29. 政治大 Figure 5- Conceptual Framework Applied to Co-Management…………………………………..34 立 Figure 4- Rukai Distribution Map 2008…………………………………………………………..31. ‧ 國. 學. Figure 6- Procedural Flowchart…………………………………………………………………..37 Figure 7- Author’s interview with Tian Guifang in Taroko, May 21, 2017……………….............46 Figure 8– Meeting at Kundagavane, Walking Workshop 2017…………………………………..55. ‧. Figure 9- Rockslide near village of Adiri (Ali), Walking Workshop 2017……………………….57. Nat. sit. y. Figure 10- Walking Workshop participants in Taromak, Walking Workshop 2017......………….60. io. er. Figure 11- Rukai Community Council leader speaks at Adiri village, Walking Workshop 2017...63 Figure 12- Rukai women welcome participants to Rinari village, Walking Workshop 2017…..…68. n. al. List of Abbreviations. Ch. CIP: Council of Indigenous Peoples DPP: Democratic Peoples’ Party FB: Forestry Bureau FPIC: Free and Prior Informed Consent ILO: International Labor Organization KMT: Guo Min Dang (Kuo Min Tang) MOI: Ministry of the Interior. engchi. i n U. v.

(5) NCCU: National Chengchi University NPB: National Park Bureau NTD: National Taiwan Dollars UN: United Nations VOC: Dutch East India Company. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(6) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. The people who are crazy enough to think. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. they can change the world are the ones that do. ~Steve Jobs. For Lisa, Dale, Megan, Jeremy, and Amit, with love, always..

(7) Acknowledgements In the process of writing this thesis, I was extremely fortunate to have the support and guidance of numerous individuals and institutions. First and foremost, I would like to thank my incredible parents, Lisa Green and Dale Grubb, for their unwavering support throughout my research and writing process. I would also like to thank my siblings, Megan and Jeremy Grubb, for encouraging me all along the way. Additionally, I would like to extend the utmost gratitude to Fulbright Taiwan and the Foundation for Scholarly Exchange, without whose funding and confidence in my abilities this degree and thesis would not have been possible.. 治政 I would like to especially thank my advisor, Professor大 Kuan Da-Wei (Daya), for his 立 and generosity in connecting me with numerous other consistent feedback, advice, mentorship, ‧ 國. 學. scholars and resources. I truly appreciate not only his advice and insight, but also the numerous opportunities for self-enrichment with which he provided me. I would also like to thank my. ‧. second committee member, Professor Lin Yih-Ren, for his feedback and for having invited me to participate in the Walking Workshop between the Rukai peoples and Forestry Bureau, an. sit. y. Nat. experience that proved truly invaluable. Additional thanks to my third committee member,. io. the process.. n. al. er. Professor Tang Ching-Ping, for his constructive advice and commentary on my thesis throughout. Ch. i n U. v. At this point, I would like to extend the most heartfelt of thank yous to my various. engchi. interviewees, who provided me with insight and access to information about these specific, local issues, that otherwise would have remained a mystery to me. I would also like to thank my classmate and her family for accompanying me on several interviews, helping with translations, and sharing their views of Taroko culture with me. Furthermore, I would like to say thank you to the Forestry Bureau and Rukai communities that hosted the Walking Workshop for allowing me to witness and experience such a historic moment in the development of the Taiwanese comanagement regime. I would also like to thank Professor Fikret Berkes for his participation in this workshop and his willingness to share his knowledge, as well as YuPing Chen for her assistance in translation throughout the workshop..

(8) Finally, I want to thank my partner, Amit Vyas, for his love and consistent encouragement in my pursuit of the IMAS degree and my writing of this thesis. Thank you for having the confidence in me to tackle these difficult issues and continue pursuing my dreams. I also want to thank all of the friends that I have made during my time in Taiwan. Without them, these past two years would not have been nearly as exciting and adventurous.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(9) 摘要過去幾十年來，當地社區，科學家和政府官員不得不面對日益惡化的環境惡化以及對可持續發展和資源利用日益增長的需求。近年來,為了解決日益增長的問題，土地和資源共同管理的概念越來越受歡迎。共同管理通常被定義為⸢兩個以上的社會行為者之間談判，界定和保證公平分享給定領土，地區或一套自然資源的管理職能，權利和責任的情況 ⸥ (Borrini et al. 2000) 。更具體地說，森林共同管理是指分享責任的領域和資源與森林有關的請況。在理論上，森林共同管理的好處不僅應該是環境，而且應該是社會經濟。在本論文中，我將對台灣的共同管理案例研究，十多年前成立的太魯閣國家公園合. 治政大協議的示範框架，我還將討論加入加拿大國家公園管理的共同管理。我將在台灣和加拿立大的相關殖民時期追溯土著國家關係的歷史和演變，以更好地了解當前原住民族和國家共作管理委員會，以及另一個最近新出現的魯凱族和台灣林業局。為了提供台灣共同管理. ‧ 國. 學. 同管理工作的基礎。. ‧. 本論文還將討論國際原住民族權利制度的出現在台灣制定本國原住民族政策方面發揮的作用。我將了解原住民如何適應台灣國家公園和森林管理工作的政策和決策框架。. Nat. sit. y. 在評估原住民族與中央政府在這方面的權力關係的性質時，我的目的是回答以下問題：台. al. er. io. 灣當地原住民族如何與台灣政府達成共同管理協議？在分析歷史和國際背景，政策框架. n. 和每個案例的具體細節時，我將就台灣當局與原住民部落未來的共同管理工作提出建議。. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 關鍵字: 共同管理, 原住民族, 台灣, 太魯閣, 魯凱, 國家公園, 林木局, 加拿大.

(10) Abstract Over the past several decades, local communities, scientists, and government officials have had to contend with increasing environmental degradation and the growing need for sustainable development and resource use. In more recent years, in order to address these rising concerns, the concept of co-management of land and resources has become increasingly popular. Co-management is commonly defined as “a situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define, and guarantee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources” (Borrini et al. 2000). More specifically, forest co-management refers to situations in which the area and resources for which responsibility is being shared are forest-related. In theory, the benefits of. 政治大 In this thesis, I will conduct 立two case studies of co-management in Taiwan, the Taroko. forest co-management should not only be environmental, but socioeconomic as well.. National Park co-management committee, which was established over a decade ago, and another. ‧ 國. 學. more recently emerging case of co-management between Rukai indigenous peoples and the Taiwan Forestry Bureau. In order to provide a model framework for Taiwanese co-management. ‧. agreements, I will also discuss co-management as it has been incorporated into Canadian. y. Nat. national park management. I will trace the history and evolution of indigenous-state relations. sit. across the pertinent periods of colonization in both Taiwan and Canada to better understand the. al. er. io. foundations upon which current indigenous-state co-management efforts have been constructed.. v. n. This thesis will also touch upon the role that the emergence of an international indigenous. Ch. i n U. rights regime has played in shaping domestic indigenous policies in Taiwan. I will identify how. engchi. indigenous peoples fit into the policy and decision-making frameworks of Taiwan’s national park and forest management efforts. In assessing the nature of power relations between indigenous peoples and the central government in this context, I aim to answer the following question: how do local Taiwanese indigenous peoples engage in co-management agreements with the state government of Taiwan? Upon analyzing the historical and international contexts, the policy frameworks, and the specific details of each case, I will posit suggestions for future co-management efforts between the Taiwanese state government and indigenous communities.. Keywords: co-management, indigenous, Taiwan, Taroko, Rukai, National Park, Forestry Bureau, Canada.

(11) Chapter 1. I. Introduction Over time, there has been an increasing focus on the ways in which “social and ecological systems are, or may be, linked in order to promote sustainability” (Carlsson and Berkes 2005). Many scholars argue that co-management strategies are the most effective ways by which to engage the government and local communities in promoting ecologically sustainable initiatives. While there are many definitions of co-management, one that is commonly accepted is “a situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define, and guarantee amongst. 政治大 given territory, area or set of natural resources” (Borrini et al. 2000). Also important to note is 立 themselves a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and responsibilities for a. that co-management has many different aspects and can be understood as power-sharing,. ‧ 國. 學. institution-building, trust and social capital, process, problem-solving, and governance (Berkes 2008). Unfortunately, actively incorporating local communities, particularly indigenous. ‧. communities, in ecological initiatives has proven to be a particularly contentious issue in settler states. Some difficulties derive from the fact that “local knowledge often arises from a different. y. Nat. sit. worldview than Western science and has different starting points, assumptions and rules”. al. er. io. (Berkes 2008). Additionally, effective co-management strategies “require multi-level. v. n. governance arrangements that link social actors (vertically and horizontally) in the pursuit of. Ch. i n U. shared learning” (Armitage et al. 2008). This type of linkage is particularly difficult in states. engchi. where the actors are not on equal planes or do not share proportionate power in the decisionmaking process, as is typically the case in settler states. Taiwan and Canada are two such settler states. Though both are strikingly different in terms of their geographic locations, landscapes, and climates, they do share similar colonial histories and relative indigenous populations (being approximately two percent of the total population of each state). Understanding the long colonial histories of each Taiwan and Canada is paramount in comprehending the foundations upon which current indigenous-state relations have been established. In Taiwan and Canada alike, successive centuries of colonization by outside forces have contributed to the stripping of indigenous rights, especially through assimilationist policies like the residential schools in Canada and the census and reserve land 1.

(12) systems in Taiwan. Over the past several decades, however, both Taiwan and Canada have undergone processes of democratization, and are now considered to be democratic states. Through these processes, Taiwan and Canada have both seen the revision of national park legislation and increased efforts to protect lands deemed to be naturally and culturally valuable (Finkelstein and McNamee 2012). While initially excluded from the planning and management of national parks and forested areas, over the years, both the Taiwanese and Canadian governments have claimed to take steps toward incorporating indigenous peoples into these processes (Parks Canada Indigenous Affairs Branch 2016). The question remains, however, to what extent these state governments have successfully devolved decision-making power to local indigenous communities in the planning and management of forests within designated national. 政治大. park areas. This question is especially pertinent when such areas overlap with traditional. 立. indigenous territories.1. In the international sphere, states, supranational institutions, and civil society have. ‧ 國. 學. interacted over the years to give rise to an indigenous rights regime. At the same time, the emergence of this regime and the “multi-faceted process that ultimately led to the establishment. ‧. of a universal and comprehensive regime of indigenous rights” serve to exemplify the critical role that “regional systems can play in the construction and consolidation of global human rights. y. Nat. sit. regimes” (Barelli 2010). Since the 1930s, international recognition of indigenous rights has been. al. er. io. marked by the adoption of numerous indigenous peoples’ human rights instruments. Some of. v. n. these include ILO Conventions concerning the protection of indigenous and tribal populations. Ch. i n U. (ILO Convention No. 169, 1989), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. engchi. (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ratified and adopted by the General Assembly in 2007 (Mona 2007). All of these international conventions, covenants, and declarations have served as assets in indigenous peoples’ pursuit of recognition and equality. In addition to highlighting some of these landmark instruments, I will elaborate on the extent to which the emergence of an international indigenous rights regime has influenced the recognition of indigenous rights in Taiwan. According to ILO Convention 169 Article 13 about land, indigenous territories are generally understood to be “the total environment of the areas which the peoples concerned occupy or otherwise use” (International Labor Organization 169, 1989). All references to indigenous territories contained within this thesis shall henceforth be understood as such. 1. 2.

(13) 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 comanagement in both Taiwanese case studies (Ortiga 2004). In identifying the degrees to which. 政治大 effective and ineffective components of each agreement. Finally, I will discuss Canadian 立. each co-management agreement meets the criteria within this framework, I will discuss the. indigenous-state co-management as a potential model for Taiwan. This analysis will thus allow. ‧ 國. 學. me to make informed suggestions for future forest and national park co-management agreements in Taiwan.. ‧. II. Research Motivation. sit. y. Nat. al. er. io. When I began my studies at the National Chengchi University in the fall of 2015, I. n. intended to improve my understanding of the complexities of Taiwan’s history to apply to a. Ch. i n U. v. study in cross-strait relations. During my first semester at NCCU, I enrolled in a course on the. engchi. 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. 3.

(14) 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. 政治大 On a different note, I grew up as a woman in a patriarchal society, and while I have not 立. lands and territories. I see this as an urgent issue that needs to be discussed.. faced the same degree of prejudice or marginalization as is faced by those of other minority. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. that democratic governments like those in the United States, Taiwan, and even Canada fail to. al. er. io. recognize the stark inequalities and prejudices that are faced by minority groups. I am incredibly. v. n. frustrated that the original inhabitants of these states, namely indigenous peoples, do not have. Ch. i n U. access and rights to their traditional lands and territories. Thus, I aim to contribute to the. engchi. 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.. 4.

(15) 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 indigenous-state relations in each today. While Canadian indigenousstate relations are largely based on treaty federalism, Taiwanese indigenous-state relations are more so conducted in a top-down manner resulting from centuries of oppression and denied. 政治大 governing the planning and management of national parks and forests, the emergence and 立. recognition of rights. Additionally, while both Taiwan and Canada have different agencies. evolution of these structures have taken relatively different paths. This is especially apparent in. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. Taiwan. sit. and informative to compare these two states in my analysis.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 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 5.

(16) 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).. 政治大 Sino-Japanese war in 1895. It goes without saying that “the Japanese occupation had an impact 立 Japanese colonization of Taiwan began following the defeat of Chinese forces in the. on what became of indigenous culture and society” (Faure 2009). This is especially owing to the. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. population,” much of the land that had remained under indigenous control to that point was. al. er. io. seized by the government for development (Brown 2004). With regard to the forested lands of. v. n. Taiwan, forestry matters fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of Agricultural Production,. Ch. i n U. which reported to the Japanese Governor General’s Office (Forestry Bureau 2016). Given the. engchi. 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 6.

(17) 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. 政治大. Forestry Administration Division was reorganized once more and was renamed the Forestry. 立. Bureau (Forestry Bureau 2016).. In 1968, the KMT established a reserved land system as a way of legally registering. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. 1972 and revised the Forestry Law (Edmonds 1996). By 1984, five national parks had been. al. er. io. established, including Kenting, Yushan, Yangmingshan, Taroko, and Shei-pa National Parks. n. (Edmonds 1996). These parks were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior’s. Ch. i n U. v. National Parks Department and accounted for over 8.5 percent of Taiwan’s total land (Edmonds. engchi. 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 7.

(18) 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. 政治大 to the Executive Yuan (Edmonds 1996). In cases where forested land is within the delineated 立. Forestry Administration, which reports to the Taiwan Provincial Government, and through such. borders of a national park, however, ultimate control over said piece of forest lies with the. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. traditional lands delineated as forests and parks. In more recent years, the Forestry Bureau has. al. er. io. promoted balancing “traditional forestry work against the needs of nature conservation,” but the. v. n. active incorporation of indigenous peoples into this process has remained unclear (Edmonds. Ch. i n U. 1996). At the same time, the Taiwan Forestry Act, which was initially passed in September of. engchi. 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 8.

(19) 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. 政治大 “France saw Aboriginal nations as allies, and relied on them for survival and fur trade wealth” 立 colonial rule. The first French colonists began to arrive in Canada in 1537. At this point,. (Jaenen 2007). Additionally, although France claimed sovereignty over a great deal of land in. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. Canada 2011). As the colonial powers fought each other, their “commercial alliances. er. al. n. 2011).. io. transformed… into vital military alliances” (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Ch. i n U. v. When the Seven Years’ War ended in 1763, “Britain replaced France as the preeminent. engchi. 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 9.

(20) 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. 政治大 (Parks Canada 2013). This act was followed in 1911 by the Dominion Forest Reserves and 立 Rocky Mountains Park Act created the first national park and provided park administration. Parks Act, and the National Parks Act and Natural Resources Acts were passed in 1930 (Parks. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. parks (Finkelstein and McNamee 2012).. al. er. io. Later that century, in 1969, the Trudeau Government proposed a policy called the “White. n. Paper.” This policy “called for a repeal of the Indian Act, ending the federal responsibility for. Ch. i n U. v. First Nations and terminating their special status, as well as the decentralization of Indian affairs. engchi. 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 decisionmaking power to the First Nations themselves. Similarly, in 1973, the government adopted a 10.

(21) 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 with formerly displaced communities and Canada’s indigenous peoples, including the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (Routledge and Dick 2011). Through revisions to the National Parks Act, now titled the Canada National Parks Act, Aboriginal communities are now allowed to participate in traditional subsistence harvesting, which had previously been prohibited by park legislation (Finkelstein and McNamee 2012). Additionally, Parks Canada has emphasized that collaboration between the Parks and Aboriginal communities is essential to the establishment of new national parks (Finkelstein and McNamee 2012). One example of such collaboration is. 政治大 cooperative efforts between Parks Canada and the Dehcho First Nations (Finkelstein and 立 reflected in the expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve in 2009, which entailed. McNamee 2012). Other collaborative methods for conserving resources and co-managing. ‧ 國. 學. traditional territories that are encompassed within public lands are through management boards, which are ideally comprised of an equal number of indigenous and state representatives. Most. ‧. recently, Parks Canada collaborated with the Labrador Inuit peoples to establish the Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve in 2005 (Rice 2015).. y. Nat. sit. In the past two and a half decades, it appears that the Canadian government has made. al. er. io. great strides in addressing past wrongs and attempting to return lost power and rights to First. n. Nations peoples. In 1995, the government launched a new process, “the Inherent Right to Self-. Ch. i n U. v. Government Policy, to negotiate practical arrangements with First Nations to make self-. engchi. government a reality” (A History of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). Additionally, Parks Canada has continued to engage in partnerships with forestry and agriculture industries, Aboriginal communities, private landowners, environmental groups, and provincial park agencies (Finkelstein and McNamee 2012). The government’s proactive approach in pursuing partnerships and engaging local indigenous communities during the early stages of national park and forest management is indicative of the evolving nature of indigenous-state negotiations in Canada.. 11.

(22) III.b. Indigenous-State Relations. Indigenous-state relations in Canada and Taiwan have long and varied histories. Both states have clearly been influenced by various international milestones in the recognition and protection of indigenous and human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, the manifestations of such influences have appeared in differing forms in each state. In Canada, because of the state government’s history of negotiating with indigenous peoples by way of signing treaties on somewhat of a nation-to-nation basis, Canada’s indigenous-state relations today, especially with regard to national park planning and management, assign a larger. 政治大 Taiwan’s varied colonial history, especially beginning with the Japanese removal of indigenous 立. decision-making role to those indigenous communities involved. On the other hand, because of. peoples from their traditional territories and the development of public lands, it was not until. ‧ 國. 學. more recently, through the 2005 Basic Law on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (原住民族基本法 yuanzhuminzu jibenfa), that indigenous peoples were allotted more recognition in the. ‧. Taiwanese government. While Taiwanese legislature mandates that the National Parks Bureau. y. Nat. must collaborate with local indigenous peoples in the establishment and management of parks,. sit. little real decision-making power is assigned to local communities. Thus, in comparing the. al. er. io. forest and national park co-management models of Taiwan and Canada, it is essential to bear in. n. iv n C while the two may be compared to derive comprehensive haemore i U model, we must remind h n c g ourselves that those mechanisms that are successful in one model may not necessarily be directly mind the differences in past and present indigenous-state relations in both states. As a result,. applied to the other.. International Milestones International recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights is very closely tied to the development and relative consolidation of an international human rights regime. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in Paris in 1948, puts forth some of the fundamental rights of all peoples, including rights to own property, rights to life, liberty, and security of person, and the statement that “all humans are born free and equal in 12.

(23) dignity and rights” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948). Years later, in 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was passed, in which Article 27 addressed the rights of ethnic minorities and implied that there existed minorities in need of protection. In 1989, the International Labor Organization (ILO) convened concerning the protection of Indigenous Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, referred to as ILO Convention No. 169 (Mona 2007). Finally, in 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes historical injustices committed against indigenous peoples, denounces practices of superiority, calls for self-determination, and emphasizes indigenous land rights (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007). Additionally, 1995-2004 was deemed to be the “first United Nations’ International. 政治大 decade were rather ambitious: “to strengthen international cooperation for the solution of 立. Decade of the World’s Indigenous People” (Corntassel 2007). Because the goals of the first. problems faced by indigenous peoples in the areas of human rights, culture, the environment,. ‧ 國. 學. development, education, and health” through “partnership in action,” not every facet was satisfied (Corntassel 2007). As a result, “indigenous delegations successfully lobbied for the. ‧. passage of a Second Indigenous Decade (2005-2014)” (Corntassel 2007). The second decade was intended to allow for the “further strengthening of international cooperation for the solution. y. Nat. sit. of problems faced by Indigenous people” (Corntassel 2007).. al. er. io. On a more regional level, indigenous rights movements have also been occurring. v. n. throughout North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, Africa, and elsewhere in. Ch. i n U. Southeast Asia for the past several decades. As these movements have taken place, they have. engchi. opened up space in the dialogue for scholars to asses to what degree post-colonial governments protect fundamental indigenous rights, particularly rights to land and traditional territories. One such scholar is Roque Roldán Oritga, who conducted case studies on numerous Latin American countries to assess “common problems in the legal framework for the recognition of indigenous lands” (Ortiga 2004). In doing so, Ortiga utilized six key criteria to evaluate and classify the indigenous land rights regimes in Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, and Peru (Ortiga 2004). These criteria include: 1) land tenure regime, 2) territorial recognition, 3) natural resources rights, 4) tenure security, 5) autonomy, and 6) legal recourse2 (Ortiga 2004). By measuring the degree to. Oritga defines these criteria as following: 1) Land tenure regime- “the character of the right over land that has been recognized, which can range from outright (fee simple) ownership through several types of restricted ownership to 2. 13.

(24) which each of these criteria were met in the aforementioned states, Ortiga was able to classify the indigenous land rights regimes into three typologies: 1) countries with a superior legal framework, 2) countries with a legal framework in progress, and 3) countries with a deficient legal framework (Ortiga 2004). Ortiga also took into account whether or not these and other Latin American countries had ratified the ILO Convention No. 169. His research led him to conclude that the following countries fell into each of these three legal regime typologies:. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. Figure 1- Legal Regime Typologies, Ortiga 2004. ‧. Important to note, however, is that this type of evaluation and classification is not limited to. y. Nat. Latin American countries (Ortiga 2004). In fact, similar criteria can reasonably be adapted and. sit. adopted to assess indigenous land rights regimes and management efforts in other states. al. er. io. worldwide, more specifically those cases at hand in Taiwan and Canada.. v. n. With regard to those covenants and conventions adopted on an international level, as well. Ch. i n U. as the more regional indigenous rights movements that have affected change in numerous states’. engchi. domestic legal frameworks, these movements have served as models and sources of inspiration and potential alliance for Taiwan and Canada’s own indigenous movements.. Taiwan. simple use rights (usufruct)”; 2) Territorial recognition- “recognition of land in a form that corresponds to the concept of an indigenous territory, as defined by ILO 169”; 3) Natural resources rights- “the sorts of rights over natural resources ownership, administration, and use granted as a consequence of the land right”; 4) Tenure security“the degree of security of the type of land title”; 5) Autonomy- “the amount of autonomy in managing their own affairs that is accorded to an indigenous group as a consequence of their land rights, including legal recognition as an indigenous group, and their ability to use their own traditional legal and justice systems”; and 6) Legal recourse“the legal actions to which they have recourse in order to defend their lands” (Ortiga 2004). For a more detailed explanation of Ortiga’s evaluation, please reference his paper Models for Recognizing Indigenous Land Rights in Latin America.. 14.

(25) Because KMT Martial Law in Taiwan did not end until 1987, Taiwanese indigenous peoples were relatively limited in their ability to protest dispossession and discrimination by the government and corporate powers. This limitation did not prevent the “younger generation of indigenous people” from starting the newspaper Gaoshanqing (Mountain Greenery) in 1983 and voicing their frustrations with being “victims of harassment and social injustice” and lacking “local economic outlets” (Allio 1998). One year later, in 1984, “the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (ATA) was founded, the first secular aboriginal organization bringing together representatives of each ethnic group” (Allio 1998). When Martial Law ended in 1987, the number and “mobilization of the aboriginal people was greatly extended” (Allio 1998). The. 政治大 when activists turned “from an initial concern for social welfare and individual rights to a focus 立 theme of Taiwanese indigenous rights movements appeared to shift in the mid-1980s, however, on collective rights” (Simon 2014, Ku 2005).. ‧ 國. 學. In the years following, many of the indigenous movements in Taiwan have largely been based on street demonstrations (Allio 1998). One of the best known indigenous movements was. ‧. the Correcting the Name (正名 Zheng Ming) movement in 1994, which demanded more accurate. y. Nat. terminology for the identification of Taiwanese indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants of. io. sit. the island. Another well-known movement was the Give Us Back Our Lands! (還我土地 Huan. al. er. wo tudi) movement, of which the Asia Cement Case and Taroko people were a part. While the. n. iv n C name to “indigenous peoples” (原住民 yuanzhumin), U Us Back Our Lands! Movement h e n g c the h iGive Correcting the Name movement was evidently successful in changing Taiwanese aborigines. “has been slow in achieving a similar success” due to the reserve land system (Allio 1998). A third notable indigenous movement in Taiwan was the Taking Our Place in the Constitution movement (入線 Ruxian). This movement “was rewarded in 1997 with the adoption of the. clause contained in article 10 of the amended constitution” (Allio 1998). In 1996, just prior to the adoption of the constitutional reform, the Council of Indigenous Peoples was established to “govern indigenous affairs” (Chi and Chin 2016). Later, in 1999, when DPP presidential candidate Chen Shui-bian was campaigning on Orchid Island (蘭嶼 lanyu), he signed the New Partnership Between the Indigenous Peoples and the Taiwanese Government (Simon 2014). Several years later, the Taiwanese government, under President Chen Shui-bian’s administration, 15.

(26) adopted the 2005 Basic Law on Indigenous Peoples, “which promised to meet most of the demands of the indigenous social movement, including political autonomy” (Simon 2014). Also during the 1990s, the indigenous movements’ leaders “looked toward the international community” for further support in their struggles (Allio 1998). In 1991, the ATA sent two members to Geneva “to participate as a non-governmental organization in the ninth session of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations” (Allio 1998). In the Asia Cement Case, Igung Shiban reported her case to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1997. In more recent years, as the Taiwanese independence movement has gained traction, so too has the push for Taiwanese indigenous peoples to obtain greater rights to land, self-determination, and autonomy. Article 21 of the Basic Law on Indigenous Peoples, passed in. 政治大 of resources on indigenous land has to be done with the permission and participation of the 立. 2005 during Chen Shui-bian’s presidency, “explicitly requires that any land development or use indigenous peoples concerned” (Simon 2010). In August 2016, newly elected DPP President. ‧ 國. 學. Tsai Ying-wen issued an apology to the indigenous peoples of Taiwan for all of the wrongdoings they have faced over the past four centuries (President Tsai’s Apology 2016). In this speech, the. ‧. President also acknowledged that in responding to “the appeals of indigenous movements… [the government’s] actions have not been fast enough, comprehensive enough, or sound enough”. y. Nat. sit. (President Tsai’s Apology 2016). President Tsai announced that the government would be. al. er. io. setting up an Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Commission under the. n. Presidential Office. She also requested that the “Executive Yuan convene regularly the. Ch. i n U. v. Indigenous Peoples Basic Law Promotion Committee, and use the Yuan's authority to coordinate. engchi. and handle matters related to any consensus reached by the above-mentioned commission” (President Tsai’s Apology 2016). Furthermore, President Tsai stated that the government would set up an Indigenous Legal Service Center to settle disputes between modern laws and indigenous traditional cultures with a high degree of cultural sensitivity (President Tsai’s Apology 2016). Unfortunately, at this point, many of these promises have yet to come to fruition. However, the acknowledgement by the head of state for the unfair treatment and abuses of Taiwanese indigenous peoples and the promise of further incorporation into the decision and policy-making processes in the coming years appears to indicate that a space has opened for indigenous peoples to become more actively engaged in Taiwanese governance.. 16.

(27) Canada. While today, the Canadian government and Parks Canada pride themselves on their partnerships and active engagement with Aboriginal communities, indigenous-state relations have not always been so amicable (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). In fact, when Banff Park was created in 1885, the Stoney Indians, the original inhabitants of the area, were “kept out” and forced to relocate (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). Later, in 1930, the establishment of the Riding Mountain National Park resulted in the “forced removal of [what is now known as] the Keeseekoowning First Nation” (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). Nowadays, however, Parks Canada has ongoing relations with 130 plus Aboriginal groups, and. 政治大 said groups (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). 立. approximately 68 percent of park lands have come about as a result of formal agreements with As defined in the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada’s government formally recognizes. ‧ 國. 學. three distinct groups of indigenous peoples: the First Nations, the Inuit, and the Métis (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). According to this Act, with regard to the aboriginal population of. ‧. Canada, the government is responsible for negotiating and implementing indigenous land claims and self-government agreements (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). Prior to this. y. Nat. sit. Constitution Act, the Calder Decision of 1973 by Canada’s Supreme Court determined that. al. er. io. aboriginal title was to be recognized by Canadian Common Law (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon. v. n. 2010). Currently, largely due to comprehensive land claims and treaty settlement agreements,. Ch. i n U. Canadian indigenous people own approximately 40 of Canada’s land mass, over 600,000 square. engchi. kilometers, and have been compensated $2.8 billion Canadian dollars to further aboriginal traditional ways of life, invest in future resource development (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). Additionally, Canadian indigenous peoples actively participate in land and resource management decisions and cooperative management of national parks in aboriginal settlement areas (Langdon, Prosper and Gagnon 2010). After 1982, the Parks Canada policy decreed that “in areas subject to existing Aboriginal or treaty rights or to comprehensive land claims by Aboriginal peoples, the terms and conditions of parks establishment will include provisions for the continuation of renewable resource harvesting activities, and the nature and extent of Aboriginal peoples’ involvement in park planning and management” (Parks Canada, Section D). Both the 1984 Inuvialuit Final 17.

(28) Agreement and the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement involved negotiations to establish parks that included provisions for cooperative management boards (Parks Canada, Introduction 2016). These boards were intended to increase indigenous participation in the planning and operation of proposed national parks and are indicative of improved indigenous-state relations and the use of various tools to move toward better methods of effective co-management (Parks Canada, Introduction 2016). Several years later, in 1999, the Indigenous Affairs Branch was established with the goals of “support[ing] relationship-building with Indigenous partners, promot[ing] economic development and tourism, present[ing] indigenous themes, [and] encouraging Indigenous employment” (Parks Canada, Introduction 2016). When the CEO of Parks Canada established. 政治大 dialogue between Parks Canada and Indigenous Partners (Parks Canada, Introduction 2016). In 立 the 12-Member Aboriginal Consultative Committee (ACC) in 2000, this allowed for more open. 2008, the Parks Canada CEO announced his goal to develop a better framework for engaging. ‧ 國. 學. Indigenous communities in the planning and management of national parks and national historic sites, which indicates the government and the park agency’s willingness and commitment to. ‧. establishing formal relationships with Indigenous partners through collaborative structures (Parks Canada, Chapter 1 2016). This commitment, coupled with the appearance of other. y. Nat. sit. remedial projects, including the steps to reconciliation through the Jasper Indigenous Forum. al. er. io. regarding the Jasper National Park and the Healing Broken Connections project with the. n. Champagne, Ashihik, and Kluane First Nations, reflect the path that Canada’s government has. Ch. i n U. v. taken toward ameliorating relations with Canadian Indigenous peoples in more recent years (Parks Canada, Chapter 1 2016).. engchi. III.c. Co-Management Studies. As scholars, state policy-makers, and local community members alike have grown increasingly concerned with increasing environmental degradation and challenges in the past several decades, co-management has come to be a method by which governments and local communities have attempted to collaborate to address such issues. While it has many definitions, co-management is commonly understood as “a situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define and guarantee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the management 18.

(29) functions, entitlements and responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources” (Borrini et al. 2000). More simply, co-management can be interpreted as “the sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resource users” (Berkes, George and Preston 1991). Some scholars go further to propagate the idea of adaptive co-management, which is “a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-doing” (Folke et al. 2002). Within each of these definitions, however, the idea of co-management refers to a collaborative approach to planning for, establishing, and managing the use of shared land or resources. Within this idea of co-management, there exist a number of degrees of involvement, or levels to which the government has incorporated the local community, indigenous peoples, or other shareholders. 政治大 co-management can range from government-based management to community-based 立. into the actual decision-making process. According to Pomeroy and Berkes, the actualization of. management, and varies among informing, consultation, cooperation, communication,. ‧ 國. 學. information exchange, advisory role, joint action, partnership, community control, and interarea control (Pomeroy and Berkes 1997). Some of the more common applications of co-management. ‧. that seem to appear are co-management boards, as is the case in many of Canada’s national parks, and co-management as consultation, as seems to be the case in many of Taiwan’s national. y. Nat. sit. parks and forested areas.. al. er. io. In addition to these varying degrees and components of co-management, those actors. v. n. involved typically include the state, provincial, or federal government, the local community,. Ch. i n U. indigenous peoples with traditional territories located within the relevant area of land, and other. engchi. stakeholders. From the state government, the planning and decision-making power is typically deconcentrated to a local bureau, in these cases Taiwan’s National Parks Bureau and Forestry Bureau and Parks Canada (Pomeroy and Berkes 1997). Some scholars cite the numerous conditions that are necessary for successful adaptive co-management, including a “well-defined resource system, small-scale resource use contexts, clear and identifiable sets of social entities with shared interests, reasonably clear property rights to resources of concern, access to [an] adaptable portfolio of management measures, [and] commitment to support a long-term institution-building process,” among others (Armitage et al. 2008). The resulting comanagement agreement, be it in the form of a co-management board, advisory division, etc. can. 19.

(30) then manage the area in question, which in these cases are the specified National Parks, forested areas, and indigenous traditional territories. State Government. Indigenous Community Forestry Bureau. National Park Bureau. Township Representatives. Tribal Assembly Informing Consulting Cooperation Communication Information Exchange Advisory Role Joint Action Partnership Community Control Interarea Coordination. CoManagement Agreement. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Traditional Territories/National Park Lands (governance, planning, management). y. Nat. er. io. al. sit. Figure 2- Co-Management Agreement Framework. n. This growing awareness and concern for environmental issues and co-management. Ch. i n U. v. efforts have resulted in an increasing number of cases involving the application of such. Many. engchi. exemplary cases of co-management regimes exist across the globe, notably in various Latin American countries, the United States, Canada, and New Zealand, to name a few. A majority of successful co-management efforts pay special attention to the incorporation of local and traditional knowledge, in addition to modern scientific findings. In this section, I will highlight some relevant cases of co-management in several of the aforementioned states. The first case is that of fishery management in British Columbia, Canada (BC). Through the use of “archaeological evidence, oral histories, and historical documentation,” scholars have shown that Northwest Coast Indigenous Peoples not only utilized immense quantities of salmon and other marine fish and shellfish, but sustainably managed stocks for millennia, using 20.

(31) combinations of selective harvesting, habitat creation, maintenance and monitoring, systems of proprietorship and cultural constraints against overharvesting (Turner et al. 2013). Such a revelation is quite contrary to the drastic decline in Canada’s salmon fishery stocks, which demonstrates the large impact that externally imposed policies can have on local food security (Turner et al. 2013). In fact, scholars have pointed out that “the near-ubiquitous decline in the stocks of all five species of Pacific salmon coincides with the loss of control of the resource by local indigenous peoples and the start of commercial salmon fisheries” (Turner et al. 2013). Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that some “landmark legal cases in BC have helped define and assert Aboriginal treaty rights relating to the fisheries,” indigenous fishers are. 政治大 regimes and consultation efforts were in place” (Turner et al. 2013). However, one might 立 continually disadvantaged by government policies- “even in cases where co-management. reasonably conclude that the negative implications on the livelihoods of indigenous fishers might. ‧ 國. 學. have been much greater had such co-management regimes not been in place. Additionally, this case affirms the idea that the starting point of the co-management initiative (with whom the idea. ‧. originated) is key, seeing as those regimes initiated by the local indigenous peoples themselves tend to be more successful in protecting indigenous rights and the environment.. y. Nat. sit. The second case, which is also one of fishery management, takes place in Aotearoa New. al. er. io. Zealand (ANZ). Similar to the case in BC, the ANZ government imposed a Quota Management. v. n. System (QMS), which replaced unrestrained access to fisheries with a market-based approach. Ch. i n U. and “created property rights in specific species” (Turner et al. 2013). The indigenous peoples of. engchi. New Zealand, the Māori, “took a claim to the courts for recognition of indigenous ownership rights based on the Treaty of Waitangi” and were awarded a share in the commercial quota (Turner et al. 2013). The management of the fisheries, however, remained largely in the government’s control and many of the traditional species continued to decline (Turner et al. 2013). In addition to the losses in abundance and biodiversity, ANZ has also seen losses in traditional, cultural knowledge. In the late 1990s, the ANZ government passed a statute requiring the involvement of “Māori in certain decision-making processes… [but] most tribes continue to have a very limited role” (Turner et al. 2013). This particular case serves to show how in circumstances where the necessary legal framework is not present to protect and enforce. 21.

(32) the role of indigenous peoples in co-management agreements, such efforts are likely to prove less effective. Another co-management case is that of the Renewable Resource Councils (RRCs) in the Yukon Territory. After the settlement of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA), Yukon First Nations were awarded great settlements of land, including “resource management and land planning responsibility” (Natcher, Davis and Hickey 2005). In addition, the UFA “established a framework by which Renewable Resource Councils (RRCs) would be created” (Natcher, Davis and Hickey 2005). While the intention was for RRCs to incorporate traditional knowledge into the management regimes of local resources, some concerns have been raised regarding the “participatory effectiveness and social equity of these cross-cultural arrangements” (Natcher,. 政治大 of the concerns of the Yukon First Nations and emphasizes having “intimate knowledge of the 立. Davis and Hickey 2005). The Carmacks Renewable Resources Council (CRRC) addresses many land… [in order to] make informed management decisions on the Nation’s behalf” (Natcher,. ‧ 國. 學. Davis and Hickey 2005). This case demonstrates that while not all co-management regimes are effective in devolving power to the community level, those that are more successful tend to. ‧. involve groups that actively engage with local indigenous communities and share similar interests and goals.. y. Nat. sit. Expanding upon the history of Canada’s forest management, over the past several. al. er. io. decades, “the dominant forest management paradigm… has been industrial timber production. n. through long-term leases to private forest products companies” (Charnley and Poe 2007). In the. Ch. i n U. v. 1990s, however, the public began to criticize this model for allotting too much decision-making. engchi. power to the forest industry and federal and provincial governments. As a result, over the following decade, there was increased community participation in the forest management process, as exemplified by Canada’s Model Forest Program and various forest stakeholder advisory committees (Charnley and Poe 2007). These programs and committees allow for “local forest users to share forest management power and responsibility with the government, industrial lease-holders, or forest owners” (Charnley and Poe 2007). The rise of communities as forest management institutions has also allowed for increasing First Nation participation in forest comanagement initiatives, which in turn allows for communities to better meet the needs of local peoples for forest resources.. 22.