| Summary: | 過去原住民保留地政策是政府為管理、安撫原住民的產物，延續至今，原住民保留地政策變成政府為保障原住民生計的手段，加之，近年國際思潮影響政府觀念轉變，原住民逐漸展現其自主性，經過努力爭取，促請政府頒佈「原住民族基本法」，因此，原住民族土地權利範疇從保留地延伸至傳統領域。
同時，更由於馬告國家公園設立事件及司馬庫斯櫸木事件的刺激，政府訂定「原住民族地區資源共同管理辦法」，重申政府應尊重原住民土地資源權利，與原住民族建立共同管理機制，賦予原住民參與土地資源決策及管理的權利，奠立未來原住民族自主管理的基礎，故而，本研究重點即在於原住民族土地資源的共同管理機制。
基此，本研究採取文獻回顧、模型分析、個案研究、焦點團體訪談、深度訪談、參與式觀察等研究方法，運用Hayami & Ruttan的制度變遷模型及Lars Corlsson（2005）的共同管理決策模式，選擇新竹縣尖石鄉泰雅族玉峰村馬里光部落群及秀巒村基那吉部落群為研究個案。
接著，本研究加以釐清研究個案範圍內各個地方社群或單位不同的土地利用方式、各種土地利用的需求及各自的發展目標；並就馬告國家公園、原住民族地區資源共同管理辦法與國家公園法修正草案中共同管理機制加以比較分析，深入剖析原住民地區範圍內資源治理區域的共同管理機制議題；且審視政府與原住民訂定的土地資源利用與管理之正式與非正式制度，透過個案分析瞭解原住民族與政府認知之間的落差，析論原住民族傳統土地利用方式與政府土地管理法令之扞挌之處，以檢驗台灣當前原住民族土地資源共同管理制度是否有其缺失。
最終，從上述議題討論中，思考未來原住民族土地的利用與管理制度應解決那些問題，及應如何整合政府主管機關與地方原住民之意見，並提出共同管理機制之設計原則建議，以供政府與部落建構共管機制之參考。
=== Indigenous Reserved Land policy was a product of the government’s managing and placating indigenous people. Nowadays, it becomes a means for the government to secure the economy and livelihood in indigenous area. In the past few years, the international trend of indigenous discourse changed the government’s concept. Indigenous people gradually showed their subjectivity and made the government pass the “Indigenous Peoples Basic Law”. After that, the land right of indigenous people extends from limited Indigenous Reserved Lands to the wider traditional territory.
Meanwhile, because of the debate over the setting of Magao National Park and the conflict happened in the Smagus Beech Event, the government issued the “Regulation of resource co-management in indigenous area”, which reaffirms that the government should respect the land/resource rights of indigenous people. It also states that the government should establish the co-management mechanism, empower indigenous people’s participation and decision rights in the land/resources management. It provides the base of indigenous people’s self-government. The purpose of this thesis is to study the co-management mechanism in the indigenous area.
This study adopts research methods include literature review, model analysis, case study, focus group interview, in-depth interview, and participant observation. It applies both Hayami and Ruttan’s institutional innovation model and Lars Corlsson’s co-management model, and analyzes the cases in the Mrqwang and Knazi sub-groups of Atayal indigenous people. These two sub-groups are located in Yufeng Village and Xiuluan Village, Jianshin Township, Hsinchu County, according to the administrative district nowadays.
This study clarifies the differences of land uses, land demands, and development goals between these two communities. In order to analyze the issues of co-management mechanism in indigenous area, this study compares the co-management mechanisms designed in “Magao National Park Plan Draft”, “Regulation of Resource Co-management in Indigenous Area”, and “Amendment Draft of National Park Law”. Further more, this study surveys the informal and formal land/resources institutions and analyzes the difference between the government and the indigenous people’s perceptions of these institutions. Afterward, it analyzes the conflicts between the government’s land management laws and indigenous traditional land uses, and points out the problems of indigenous land/resources co-management institution in Taiwan.
At the end, this study summarizes the problems that indigenous land institution should solve in the future. It also makes suggestions to integrate the opinions of the governmental authorities and local indigenous people, so that the co-management mechanism can be established in principles.
|
|---|
