原住民族狩獵自主管理機制的架構與展望

The Institutional Arrangement and Prospect of Indigenous Hunting Self-Governance

臺灣原住民族狩獵議題的相關爭論長達數十年，為了化解衝突，達成原住民族文化與野生動物保育的雙贏，二、三十年來已有許多學者呼籲引入國際保育界愈趨重視的以社區保育體制，改變目前中央集權的一統模式，以在地部落為小尺度治理單元，並連結國家的野生動物保育體系。過往由於社會的不信任氛圍以及曖昧不明的官方政策，以部落為基礎之實務性操作屢受阻礙，但在近年社會各界呼籲修訂野生動物保育法及政府政策轉變之契機下，部落自主管理的呼聲終於得到落實的可能。本文重新檢視社區保育之相關概念，包括參與式取徑、共有資源治理、在地知識等學理，主張未來的制度方向必須給予彈性空間，讓過去在體制中被弱化的「獵區」重新浮現、建構與整合，鼓勵部落自我組織，透過小區塊式的在地治理，與政府的適應性管理對接。部落自主管理並非代表國家權力的全面退出，而是在不同的尺度層級上，依據資源類型或事務的特性，尋求更細緻的權責分工，其中自主管理的單位可以是單一部落、部落群或個別族群，必須依在地政治與歷史脈絡而定，同時生態環境脈絡也將是重要考量因素。我們建議臺灣社會應跳脫目前理念上的辯論，根據上述特質設計制度雛形，透過謹慎的動態操作，逐步累積實務經驗，並以經驗證據為基礎，建立臺灣新一代的野生動物狩獵與保育體制。

The rights of indigenous hunting have been debated for decades. In order to resolve conflicts and achieve a win-win situation for both indigenous culture and wildlife conservation, many researchers have been calling for the introduction of community-based conservation which has been gaining attention in the global conservation community over the past decades. This concept is trying to change the model of centralized government by using local tribes as small-scale units of governance and linking national wildlife conservation regime. In the past, tribal-based practices were often hindered by public distrust and ambiguity in official policy, but in recent years, with calls for amendments to the Wildlife Conservation Act and change in policy, indigenous hunting self-governance has finally been implemented. This paper re-examines the related concepts of community-based conservation, including theories of participatory approach, common-pool resource governance, and local knowledge. We argued that the future institution policy must be flexible enough for allowing the indigenous hunting ground management, which previously weakened in regimes, to re-emerge, be constructed and integrated, and encouraging tribes to organize themselves. These small-scale local governance units will then connect with the national system of adaptive management. Hunting self-governance does not represent a total withdrawal of state power, but rather a more detailed delegation of authority and accountability at different levels and scale according to characteristics of resources or affairs. The units of self-governance can be a single tribe, tribal groups or an individual ethnic group depending on the context of local politics and history, while the ecological context will also be an important consideration. We suggested that Taiwan’s civil society should go beyond the current debates on ideas, and then establish a new regime of wildlife conservation and hunting which is based on the iterative process of trial and error and accumulation of empirical practices.