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

10.6152/jaa.201812_(89).0003

洪廣冀(Kuang-Chi Hung)；何俊頤(Chun-Yi Ho)

以社區為基礎的自然資源管理 ； 原住民族 ； 政治生態學 ； 關係生態論 ； 基礎建設 ； community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) ； indigenous people ； political ecology ； relational ontology ； infrastructure

考古人類學刊

89期（2018 / 12 / 01）

93 - 141

繁體中文

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.

1. 台邦・撒沙勒(2008)。傳統領域的裂解與重構：Kucapungane 人地圖譜與空間變遷的再檢視。考古人類學刊，69，9-44。
   連結：
2. 官大偉(2013)。原住民生態知識與流域治理：以泰雅族Mrqwang 群之人河關係為例。地理學報，70，69-105。
   連結：
3. 官大偉(2014)。空間秩序、地理再現與生態政治：臺灣山地資源利用／保育的歷史地理回顧。臺灣原住民族研究季刊，7(1)，159-197。
   連結：
4. 官大偉(2014)。原住民族土地權的挑戰：從一個當代保留地交易的區域研究談起。考古人類學刊，80，7-51。
   連結：
5. 官大偉(2015)。原住民生態知識與當代災害管理：以石門水庫上游集水區之泰雅族部落為例。地理學報，76，97-132。
   連結：
6. 官大偉、林益仁(2008)。什麼傳統？誰的領域？ 從泰雅族馬里光流域傳統領域調查經驗談空間知識的轉譯。考古人類學刊，69，109-141。
   連結：
7. 林文玲(2013)。疆域走出來︰原住民傳統領域之身體行動論述。臺灣社會研究季刊，91，33-92。
   連結：
8. 林冠慧、張長義(2015)。脆弱性研究的演變與當前發展。地理學報，77，49-82。
   連結：
9. 林益仁(2015)。泰雅族傳統領域與流域治理的啟示。臺灣社會研究季刊，100，291-310。
   連結：
10. 洪廣冀(2016)。論科技研究中的地理轉向及其在地理學中的迴響。臺大地理學報，83，23-69。
    連結：
11. 孫稚堤、顏愛靜(2012)。流域治理與土地倫理之研究：以石門水庫上游集水區的原住民族部落為例。地理學報，66，21-51。
    連結：
12. 陳文德(2014)。文化產業與部落發展：以卑南族普悠瑪（南王）與卡地布（知本）為例。考古人類學刊，80，103-140。
    連結：
13. 湯京平、呂嘉泓(2002)。永續發展與公共行政：從山美與里佳經驗談社區自治與「共享性資源」的管理。人文及社會科學集刊，14(2)，261-287。
    連結：
14. 蔡政良(2015)。花東原住民面對觀光的土地文化衝突。臺灣社會研究季刊，98，219-237。
    連結：
15. 鄭瑋寧(2010)。文化形式的商品化、「心」的工作和經濟治理：以魯凱人的香椿產銷為例。臺灣社會學，19，107-146。
    連結：
16. 顏愛靜(2015)。土地倫理為本之永續農業和原住民社區發展：以新竹縣尖石鄉泰雅族部落為例。都市與計劃，42(2)，209-233。
    連結：
17. 顏愛靜、孫稚堤(2008)。原住民地區共用資源自主治理之研究：以馬里克彎河域的護魚行動為例。地理學報，52，53-91。
    連結：
18. 顏愛靜、孫稚堤、陳亭伊(2016)。有機農業多功能性之研究：以新竹縣尖石鄉石磊部落為例。地理學報，82，59-86。
    連結：
19. 顏愛靜、陳亭伊(2011)。原住民傳統領域共同管理之研究：以新竹縣尖石鄉泰雅族部落為例。地理學報，61，1-30。
    連結：
20. 羅素玫(2010)。文化認同、生態衝突與族群關係：由阿美族都蘭部落的傳統領域論述談起。考古人類學刊，72，1-33。
    連結：
21. 羅素玫(2015)。環境與發展的文化政治：臺灣阿美族都蘭部落的傳統領域抗爭。臺灣社會研究季刊，98，239-257。
    連結：
22. Agrawal, Arun(2005).Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
23. Allen, John(2003).Lost Geographies of Power.Malden, MA:Blackwell.
24. Anand, Nikhil(2012).Pressure: The PoliTechnics of Water Supply in Mumbai.Cultural Anthropology,26(4),542-564.
25. Anand, Nikhil(2017).Hydraulic City: Water and the Infrastructures of Citizenship in Mumbai.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
26. Baird, Ian G.(2015).Translocal Assemblages and the Circulation of the Concept of "Indigenous Peoples" in Laos.Political Geography,46,54-64.
27. Barry, Andrew(2006).Technological Zones.European Journal of Social Theory,9(2),239-253.
28. Bauman, Zygmunt(2000).Liquid Modernity.Cambridge:Polity Press.
29. Bennett, Jane(2010).Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
30. Bijker, Wiebe E.(ed.),Hughes, Thomas P.(ed.),Pinch, Trevor(ed.)(1989).The Social Construction of Technological System: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
31. Birkenholtz, Trevor(2009).Groundwater Governmentality: Hegemony and Technologies of Resistance in Rajasthan's (India) Groundwater Governance.Geographical Journal,175(3),208-220.
32. Blaikie, Piers M.,Brookfield, Harold(1987).Land Degradation and Society.New York:Methuen, London.
33. Blaikie, Piers M.,Muldavin, Joshua S. S.(2004).Upstream, Downstream, China, India: The Politics of Environment in the Himalayan Region.Annals of the Association of American Geographers,94(3),520-548.
34. Brenner, Neil,Madden, David J.,Wachsmuth, David(2011).Assemblage Urbanism and the Challenges of Critical Urban Theory.City,15(2),225-240.
35. Carse, Ashley(2012).Nature as Infrastructure: Making and Managing the Panama Canal Watershed.Social Studies of Science,42(4),539-563.
36. Carse, Ashley(2014).Beyond the Big Ditch: Politics, Ecology, and Infrastructure at the Panama Canal.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
37. Carse, Ashley,Lewis, Joshua A.(2017).Toward a Political Ecology of Infrastructure Standards: Or, How to Think about Ships, Waterways, Sediment, and Communities Together.Environment and Planning A,49(1),9-28.
38. Castree, Noel(2008).Neoliberalising Nature: Processes, Effects, and Evaluations.Environment and Planning A,40(1),153-173.
39. Castree, Noel(2004).Differential Geographies: Place, Indigenous Rights and "Local" Resources.Political Geography,23(2),133-167.
40. Castree, Noel(2008).Neoliberalising Nature: The logics of Deregulation and Reregulation.Environment and Planning A,40(1),131-152.
41. Coombes, Brad(2007).Defending Community? Indigeneity, Self-determination and Institutional Ambivalence in the Restoration of Lake Whakaki.Geoforum,38(1),60-72.
42. Dean, Mitchell(1999).Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society.London:Sage Publications.
43. Escobar, Arturo(1995).Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
44. Ferguson, James(1994).The Anti-politics Machine: "Development," Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
45. Forsyth, Timothy(2003).Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science.London:Taylor & Francis.
46. Forsyth, Timothy(2008).Political Ecology and the Epistemology of Social Justice.Geoforum,39(2),756-764.
47. Gandy, Matthew(2014).The Fabric of Space: Water, Modernity, and the Urban Imagination.United States:The MIT Press.
48. Gandy, Matthew(2003).Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
49. Goldman, Mara(ed.),Nadasdy, Paul(ed.),Turner, Matthew(ed.)(2011).Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
50. Goodale, Mark(2016).Dark Matter: Toward a Political Economy of Indigenous Rights and Aspirational Politics.Critique of Anthropology,36(4),439-457.
51. Goodman, Michael(ed.),Boykoff, Maxwell(ed.),Evered, Kyle(ed.)(2008).Contentious Geographies: Environmental Knowledge, Meaning, Scale.London:Routledge.
52. Greenough, Paul(ed.),Tsing, Anna L.(ed.)(2003).Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast Asia.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
53. Hardin, Garrett(1968).The Tragedy of the Commons.Science,162(3859),1243-1248.
54. Harvey, David(2003).New Imperialism.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
55. Harvey, David(2006).Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development.London:Verso.
56. Harvey, Penelope(ed.),Jensen, Casper Bruun(ed.),Morita, Atsuro(ed.)(2017).Infrastructures and Social Complexity: A Companion.Oxon:Routledge.
57. Hinchliffe, Steve(2008).Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies.London:Sage.
58. Khan, Naveeda(2006).Flaws in the Flow: Roads and Their Modernity in Pakistan.Social Text,24(489),87-113.
59. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D.(ed.),Mulkay, Michael(ed.)(1983).Science Observed.London:Sage.
60. Kosek, Jake(2006).Understories: The Political Life of Forests in Northern New Mexico.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
61. Kuhn, Thomas(1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolution.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
62. Larkin, Brian(2013).The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.Annual Review of Anthropology,42(1),327-343.
63. Latour, Bruno(1993).We Have Never Been Modern.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
64. Latour, Bruno(2004).Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
65. Latour, Bruno(1987).Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
66. Latour, Bruno(1988).The Pasteurization of France.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
67. Latour, Bruno、伍啟鴻譯、陳榮泰譯(2016)。巴斯德的實驗室：細菌的戰爭與和平。新北市:群學出版社。
68. Law, John(ed.)(1986).Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?.London:Routledge and Kegan.
69. Leach, Melissa,Mearns, Robin,Scoones, Ian(1999).Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management.World Development,27(2),225-247.
70. Li, Tania(2007).Practices of Assemblage and Community Forest Management.Economy and Society,36(2),263-293.
71. Li, Tania(2007).The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
72. Li, Tania(2010).Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession.Current Anthropology,51(3),385-414.
73. Li, Tania(2014).What is Land? Assembling a Resource for Global Investment.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,39(4),589-602.
74. Li, Tania(2000).Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia: Resource Politics and the Tribal Slot.Comparative Studies in Society and History,42(1),149-179.
75. Li, Tania(2014).Land's End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
76. Mansuri, Ghazala,Rao, Vijayendra(2004).Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review.The World Bank Research Observer,19(1),1-39.
77. McFarlane, Colin(2011).The City as Assemblage: Dwelling and Urban Space.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,29(4),649-671.
78. McFarlane, Colin(2009).Translocal Assemblages: Space, Power and Social Movements.Geoforum,40(4),561-567.
79. Mitchell, Timothy(2002).Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics, Modernity.Berkeley:University of California Press.
80. Monstadt, Jochen(2009).Conceptualizing the Political Ecology of Urban Infrastructures: Insights from Technology and Urban Studies.Environment and Planning A,41(8),1924-1942.
81. Müller, Martin,Schurr, Carolin(2016).Assemblage Thinking and Actor-Network Theory: Conjunctions, Disjunctions, Cross-fertilisations.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,41(3),217-229.
82. Ostrom, Elinor(1990).Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
83. Peet, Richard(ed.),Watts, Michael(ed.)(1996).Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements.London:Routledge.
84. Peet, Richard,Watts, Michael(1993).Introduction: Development Theory and Environment in an Age of Market Triumphalism.Economic Geography,69(3),227-253.
85. Perreault, Thomas(ed.),Bridge, Gavin(ed.),McCarthy, James(ed.)(2015).The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology.Abingdon, United Kingdom:Routledge.
86. Perreault, Thomas(ed.),Bridge, Gavin(ed.),McCarthy, James(ed.)(2007).The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology.Abingdon, United Kingdom:Routledge.
87. Perrow, Charles(1999).Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
88. Pritchard, Sara B.(2013).The Triple Disaster of 3/11.Japan at Nature's Edge: The Environmental Context of a Global Power,Honolulu, HI:
89. Robbins, Paul(2004).Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction.Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishers.
90. Robbins, Paul(2007).Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are.Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
91. Rocheleau, Dianne(2008).Political Ecology in the Key of Policy: From Chains of Explanation to Webs of Relation.Geoforum,39(2),716-727.
92. Rocheleau, Dianne,Edmunds, David(1997).Women, Men and Trees: Gender, Power and Property in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes.World Development,25(8),1351-1371.
93. Rose, Nikolas(1999).Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
94. Scott, James C.(1985).Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
95. Sneath, David(2009).Reading the Signs by Lenin's Light: Development, Divination and Metonymic Fields in Mongolia.Ethnos,74(1),72-90.
96. Sneddon, Christopher(2015).Concrete Revolution: Large Dams, Cold War Geopolitics, and the US Bureau of Reclamation.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
97. Sultana, Farhana(2013).Water, Technology, and Development: Transformations of Development Technonatures in Changing Waterscapes.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,31(2),337-353.
98. Swyngedouw, Erik(2004).Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power.New York:Oxford University Press.
99. Turner, Matthew(1993).Overstocking the Range: A Critical Analysis of the Environmental Science of Sahelian Pastoralism.Economic Geography,69(4),402-421.
100. von Schnitzler, Antina(2016).Democracy's Infrastructure: Techno-politics and Protest after Apartheid.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
101. von Schnitzler, Antina(2008).Citizenship Prepaid: Water, Calculability, and Techno-Politics in South Africa.Journal of Southern African Studies,34(4),899-917.
102. Walker, Peter,Fortmann, Louise(2003).Whose Landscape? A Political Ecology of the "Exurban" Sierra.Cultural Geographies,10(4),469-491.
103. Watts, Michael J.(1983).Silent Violence: Food, Famine, and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria.Berkeley:University of California Press.
104. Zimmerer, Karl(2000).The Reworking of Conservation Geographies: Nonequilibrium Landscapes and Nature-society Hybrids.Annals of the Association of American Geographers,90(2),356-369.
105. 史育禎、張長義、蔡博文(2006)。社區林業作為部落自然資源管理之想像：新竹縣尖石鄉司馬庫斯部落個案研究。臺大實驗林研究報告，20(1)，54-64。
106. 李文良(2001)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立臺灣大學歷史學系。
107. 林俊強、張長義、蔡博文、李建堂、丁志堅、李玉亭(2005)。運用公眾參與地理資訊系統於原住民族傳統領域之研究：泰雅族司馬庫斯個案。地理學報，41，65-82。
108. 林益仁、王信翰(2014)。自然資源的治理：一個泰雅族的模式初探。臺灣原住民族研究學報，4(4)，139-172。
109. 洪廣冀(2004)。林學、資本主義與邊區統治：日治時期林野調查與整理事業的再思考。臺灣史研究，11(2)，77-144。
110. 洪廣冀(2006)。林野利權的取用與控制、人群分類及族群：以蘭陽溪中上游地域爲中心（1890s-1930s）。「宜蘭研究」第六屆學術研討會論文集，宜蘭:
111. 洪廣冀、林俊強(2004)。觀光地景、部落與家：從新竹司馬庫斯部落的觀光發展探討文化與共享資源的管理。地理學報，37，51-97。
112. 洪廣冀、鄭欽龍(2001)。地方觀光的發展與困境：新竹司馬庫斯原住民部落的個案研究。中華林學季刊，34(2)，229-239。
113. 張國暉(2016)。捷運木柵線：移入的大型科技系統與在地交通建設網絡的共造。科技、醫療與社會，22，159-223。
114. 黃應貴編、陳文德編(2016)。21 世紀的地方社會：多重地方認同下的社群性與社會想像。臺北:群學。
115. 顏愛靜、官大偉(2004)。傳統制度與制度選擇：新竹縣尖石鄉兩個泰雅族部落共用資源自主治理案例分析。地理學報，37，27-49。

1. 戴興盛,陳毅峰,張惠東,呂翊齊(2023)。調適、批判與拼裝：從三種環境治理的視野重新檢視臺灣原住民族狩獵自主管理政策。地理學報，105，65-102。
2. 何俊頤(2019)。田野科學與其基礎建設以臺灣地下水觀測網為例。地理學報，93，1-34。
3. 藍姆路．卡造,賴玉菁,裴家騏,王佳涵(2021)。當原住民族傳統慣習遇上國家治理：吉拉米代部落狩獵自主管理制度之橋接策略。台灣原住民族研究，14(1)，127-168。
4. (2018)。從「臺灣之恥」到「發展最速的產業」：再思日治時期臺灣的科學林業與工業化。臺灣史研究，25(3)，83-140。
5. (2019)。「蕃地」開發、「蕃人」控制及臺灣原住民族群性的展現：以蘭陽溪中上游地域為中心（上篇）。考古人類學刊，90，1-44。
6. (2019)。從「本島森林的主人翁」到「在自己的土地上流浪」：臺灣森林計畫事業區分調查的再思考。臺灣史研究，26(2)，43-111。
7. (2020)。近代環境治理與地方知識：以臺灣的殖民林業為例。臺灣史研究，27(2)，85-144。