自然資源治理與原住民部落發展：後發展與後人類的視角

Governing Natural Resources and Developing Indigenous Communities: A Post-Developmentalist and Post-Humanist Review

證諸臺灣過去十年的自然資源治理政策，我們不難發現，做為臺灣自然資源之主要擁有者的國家，已逐漸調整過去以「排除」為基調的模式，轉而強調去中心化、分權、賦權等與國際發展論述接軌的概念。影響所及，如社區林業、共管、傳統領域等強調政府與社區間的「夥伴關係」也逐漸被納入國家之於原住民與原住民土地的治理政策中，並由林務局、國家公園、原民會等機構負責推動。不過，這樣「以社區為基礎的自然資源管理」（community-based natural resource management, CBNRM）是否能如發展論者預期地促成自然資源永續利用及原住民部落發展的兩全？證諸晚近環繞在傳統領域、野生動物保育、保留地流失與超限利用的爭議，此問題的答案顯然不若發展論者想像地那麼簡單。本文目的即在梳理過去十年間環境人類學者、政治生態學者及科技與社會研究者發展何種分析概念與取徑來處理原住民部落發展與自然資源治理的關聯。首先，本文說明發展學者之於CBNRM的反省如何催生出強調社區自決、社區之於自然資源經營之所有權與主權的第二代CBNRM，從而將此議題帶出既有發展研究與新制度經濟學的學科界線，成為政治生態學與環境人類學研究者共同關心的議題。其次，面對政治生態學此紛雜的領域，我們以「更政治」、「更生態」與「既政治又生態」等三條軸線來掌握該學科處理CBNRM的認識論與本體論立場，據此說明為何越來越多的研究者會採取關係本體論，以原住民性、基礎建設與拼裝等概念來拆解CBNRM涉及之自然與社會、全球與在地的交引纏繞。值得強調的，儘管本回顧文章以關係本體論──特別是其中的基礎建設概念──為結，這並不表示我們認為該概念已然成熟。我們認為目前以基礎建設為題的地理學與人類學研究還有下列值得深究之處：1.對時間性的理論化不足；2.民族誌薄弱；3.天真的客觀主義。以此為基礎，我們在結論處評析就臺灣原住民族之CBNRM、傳統領域、生態智慧為題的近期研究，主張本文論及的幾類關係性概念可為下一階段類似主題的研究提供出路。

If we take a survey of the natural resources policies undertaken in Taiwan during the past decade, it is not difficult to see that the state, as the major owner of natural resources in Taiwan, has already moved away from a policy based on the principle of exclusion and begun highlighting the importance of decentralization, devolution, empowerment, and other concepts that international development organizations have been advocating since the 1980s. As a result, polices relating to community forestry, co-management, and traditional territories that underline the partnership between the state and communities dependent on natural resources have become mainstream, and an array of state agencies have been charged with ensuring that the aforementioned policies are practiced both nationally and locally. But can such community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) enable policymakers to achieve a balance between governing natural resources and developing indigenous communities? Considering current debates surrounding traditional territories, wildlife conservation, the dispossession and unsustainable use of indigenous people's land, the answer is not as straightforward as developmentalists might expect. The goal of this essay is to review the post-developmentalist and post-humanist concepts and approaches that environmental anthropologists, political ecologists, and STS (science and technology studies) scholars have developed to deal with the relationship between governing natural resources and developing indigenous people's community. First, we show how developmentalists' reflections on CBNRM gave rise to the second generation of CBNRM, with focuses on the indigenous community's self-determination, as well as the property rights and sovereignty being maintained by the community over natural resource management. Then, we show how such focuses bring the subject of CBNRM out of the disciplinary boundaries of development studies and institutional economics, calling for attention from both political ecologists and environmental anthropologists. Second, we develop three lines of arguments -- “more ecological,” “more political,” and “both ecological and political” -- to delineate the epistemological and ontological stances that buttress environmental anthropologists' and political ecologists' analyses of the CBNRM. With these stances set forth, we explain why more and more researchers adopt relational ontology to untangle the network that characterizes today's CBNRM and move beyond such taken-for-granted dualisms as the natural vs. the social and the global vs. the local. Worthy of note is that although we end our review with such a relational concept as infrastructure, we do not think that it has been well formulated. Based upon our critical reading of relevant case studies, we argue that the concept of infrastructure still has the following problematic aspects worthy of further investigation: 1. insufficient theorization of temporality; 2. thin ethnography; and 3. naive objectivism. In conclusion, we critically examine recent studies pertaining to Taiwan's indigenous people's CBNRM, traditional territories, and traditional ecological knowledge, arguing that the relational concepts discussed in this essay shall pave the way for the next generation's research on CBNRM and related subjects.