Towards Collaborative Planning and Management of Natural
Protected Areas: A Case Study in the Formosan Landlocked
Salmon Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan
Kuang-Chung Lee
Department of Geography
University College London
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Ph.D.
University of London
11/2001 ProQuest Number: U644294
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest.
ProQuest U644294
Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to explore what contributions a collaborative planning approach can make to achieving more sustainable solutions to the management of protected areas in Taiwan. Among the three designations of natural protected areas in Taiwan, the Wildlife Refuge is notable because its legal status provides more opportunities for stakeholder participation than other statutory designations. Drawing on a theory of collaborative planning advanced by Healey (1997, 1998a) this study provides an in-depth analysis of the history of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Wildlife Refuge to evaluate the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to planning and management.
A historical review of institutional practices suggests that several attempts have been made to move towards a more collaborative approach to natural areas planning and management in Taiwan. For example, devolution of power to the local government on a legal basis, some involvement of local people and conservation NGOs in the planning process on a legal basis, and establishment of formal instruments of policy, such as management plans and advisory committees. These are all ways of encouraging government institutions and scientists to work together in processes of planning and management. However, these practices mainly involve establishing formal arenas to foster the implementation of official ‘plans’ and their imposition on local areas. Local knowledge and local people are still marginalized in the planning process.
Public meetings convened as part of the research were held with local farmers, tourists, and local management authorities and provided new inclusionary and communicative forums and arenas that were appreciated by most participants. The meetings discussed a range of issues based on local knowledge previously not addressed in traditional planning meetings. The meetings also involved local people who had previously been excluded from traditional planning processes. Such meetings brought together local people and the local management authorities in a face-to-face, consensus-building process. The meetings demonstrated how new political instruments designed to build social capacity amongst all relevant stakeholders can be used as a means of mobilising collaborative actions associated with the management of the local area.
Detailed qualitative analysis of the record of these public meetings reveals that the main management problem of the Formosan Salmon Refuge Area arises from the different priorities given by stakeholders to two concepts: ‘livelihoods of people’ and ‘the well-being of wildlife.’ A sustainable solution to the long term management of the area will require a continuing programme of collaborative planning so that agreement can be reached about how these two goals can be reconciled. Recommendations about the forms such approaches might take are suggested based on a theoretically informed and explicit evaluation of the case study. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is almost impossible to acknowledge all those who have contributed to the writing of this thesis. First and foremost 1 would like to wholeheartedly thank my supervisor Carolyn Harrison for her tremendous help throughout my time at UCL. Her patience, critical guidance and a great deal of encouragement have fostered my research interest and motivation, and led me gradually on the right path of learning. Carolyn’s supervision and her family’s warm support have made my four-year study at UCL an enjoyable journey and experience. 1 would like to extend my thanks to Sheilah Meikle, Andrew Warren, Jacquie Burgess, Richard Munton, Pasty Healey, and many people in the Environment and Society Research Unit (ESRU) for their valuable comments and advice on my research, particularly in helping me in the development of my thinking and research approaches. For financial support 1 am indebted to the Ministry of Education in Taiwan for granting me a four-year scholarship between Sep 1997 and Aug 2001. 1 would also like to express my gratitude to the Cultural Division of Taipei Representative Office in the UK that administers the scholarship scheme and has always kept an active interest in my personal and intellectual well-being. In the course of my fieldwork in Taiwan 1 have begged for favours from many people and institutions. In particular 1 would like to thank the Council of Agriculture, the Wuling Farm Office (especially for kindly offering me free accommodation and a motorcycle throughout my second phase of fieldwork), the Shei-Pa National Park Headquarters and its Wuling Warden and Police Office, the Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch, the Taichung County Government, the Endemic Species Research Institution, and all the nice people from these institutions, all the friendly local farmers and their family in the Wuling area, and all those who took part in interviews and group meetings, and Pei-Fen Lee at National Taiwan University and his colleagues. The conduct of fieldwork would have not been possible without their generous help, support, and participation. Many thanks go to all the nice people from the Hawkridge, the Nansen Village, AFSIL, the International Lutheran Student Centre, and the St. Helens Church in London for their friendship, help, and company. Special thanks and love go to Professor Shin Wang, Mr. Hsiao-Yu Tang, and Miss Ling-Yu Hsu and her family in Taiwan for their constant encouragement, generous help, and valuable advice. A big thank you also to my dear friends Tung-Liang & Shu-Ming, Wei-Hsi & Chuan Pao, and Tao-Chung & Jan-Yin for their lovely friendship. Finally, 1 would like to give my sincere love and thanks to my parents and parents-in-low, my sister Ming-Hsuan and my brother Kuang-Yu in the United States, and my dear wife Mei-Ling and our two sons Po-Sheng and Po-Wen. Their love and full support have been the foundation of my four-year study in the UK. CONTENTS
TITLE ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS FIGURES TABLES PLATES
Chapter 1 Introduction...... 11 1.1. Introduction ...... 11 1.2. Thesis structure...... 13 1.3. General background and problems of protected area management ...... 14 1.3.1. Definition, categories, and management objectives of protected areas ...... 15 1.3.2. Problems and causes of people-park conflicts ...... 17 1.4. Public participation and participatory approaches ...... 22 1.4.1. Definition and types of public participation ...... 22 1.4.2. Varieties of participatory approaches...... 24 1.4.3. Benefits and risks of public participation ...... 26 1.4.4. Problems of participatory approaches...... 29 1.5.Public participation in environmental decision-making in Taiwan ...... 29 1.5.1. The development of Taiwan’s environmental movement ...... 30 1.5.2. Public participation in the planning systems of protected areas ...... 32 1.6. Conclusion ...... 41
Chapter 2 Theory and Methodology ...... 44 2.1. Introduction ...... 44 2.2. Theoretical underpinnings of collaborative planning ...... 45 2.2.1. Choice of theory ...... 45 2.2.2. Theories of collaborative planning ...... 45 2.2.3. Anthony Giddens and the theory of structuration ...... 46 2.2.4. Jurgen Habermas and the theory of communicative action ...... 47 2.3. Approach of collaborative planning ...... 48 2.3.1. How are collaborative processes to be constructed? ...... 49 2.3.2. How are the processes and outcomes to be evaluated? ...... 51 2.3.3. Critiques of collaborative planning ...... 53 2.4. Hypothesis and research questions ...... 56 2.5.Research design ...... 57 2.5.1. Choice of case study ...... 57 2.5.2. Strategies of inquiry and qualitative research methods ...... 58 2.5.3. Fieldwork procedures ...... 59 2.5.4. Analytical framework...... 60 2.5.5. Data interpretation...... 62
Chapter 3 A Historical Review of the Conservation of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon (1917-1995)...... 64 3.1. Introduction ...... 64 3.2. Analytical framework ...... 65 3.2.1. Three dimensions of the ‘institutional capacity’ and key themes ...... 65 3.2.2. Six stages of the Salmon conservation ...... 67 3.2.3. Data sources ...... 68 3.3. Stage I (1917-1945): Initiation ...... 70 3.3.1. Knowledge resources ...... 70 3.3.2. Relational resources ...... 72 3.3.3. Mobilisation capacity ...... 73 3.3.4. Outcomes ...... 74 3.4. Stage II (1945-1983): Neglect and restart...... 74 3.4.1. Knowledge resources ...... 74 3.4.2. Relational resources ...... 79 3.4.3. Mobilisation capacity ...... 80 3.4.4. Outcomes ...... 80 3.5. Stage III (1984-1992): Protection by the Council of Agriculture ...... 81 3.5.1. Knowledge resources ...... 81 3.5.2. Relational resources ...... 87 3.5.3. Mobilisation capacity ...... 91 3.5.4. Outcomes ...... 92 3.6. Stage IV (1992-1995): Protection by the Shei-Pa National Park...... 92 3.6.1. Knowledge resources ...... 93 3.6.2. Relational resources ...... 99 3.6.3. Mobilisation capacity ...... 102 3.6.4. Outcomes ...... 105 3.7. Conclusion: trends from stage I to stage IV ...... 105
Chapter 4 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (1995-1997): Findings of the official planning meetings...... 110 4.1. Introduction ...... 110 4.2. Institutional capacity at the start of stage V ...... 111 4.3. Qualitative analysis of the first planning meeting on 2"^ March 1995 ...... 116 4.3.1. Who was involved?...... 117 4.3.2. Where and when did the meeting take place? ...... 117 4.3.3. In what style did the discussion take place? ...... 118 4.3.4. How were the arguments sorted out and consensus created? ...... 119 4.3.5. Outcomes of the meeting and how the agreements were to be maintained? 135 4.4. Review of other official meetings from 10^ July 1995 to 24^ July 1997 ...... 138 4.5. Evaluation of institutional capacity-building at the end of stage V ...... 144 4.5.1. Outcomes ...... 144 4.5.2. Unresolved problems ...... 148 Chapter 5 Stakeholder Participation in the Management Process of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (1997 onwards) (1): Findings of the fieldwork and the group meeting with local farmers and local management authorities...... 153 5.1. Introduction ...... 153 5.2. Processes of the fieldwork...... 154 5.2.1. Participant observation ...... 155 5.2.2. Interviews...... 162 5.2.3. Recruitment of the farmers group meeting ...... 163 5.3. Transcript analysis of the farmers group meeting ...... 165 5.3.1. Who was involved?...... 166 5.3.2. Where and when did the meeting take place? ...... 167 5.3.3. In what structure and style did the discussion take place? ...... 168 5.3.4. How were the arguments sorted out and was a new discourse created? ...... 170 5.4. How to maintain the agreements and critique: outcome and evaluation ...... 194 5.4.1. External evaluation ...... 195 5.4.2. Internal evaluation ...... 197 5.4.3. Unresolved problems ...... 200 5.5. Conclusions ...... 202
Chapter 6 Stakeholder Participation in the Management Process of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (1997 onwards) (2): Findings of the group meeting with tourists and local management authorities ...208 6.1. Introduction...... 208 6.2. Recruitment of the tourists group meeting...... 209 6.3. Transcript analysis of the tourists group meeting...... 213 6.3.1. Who was involved?...... 214 6.3.2. Where and when did the meeting take place?...... 215 6.3.3. In what structure and style did the discussion take place?...... 215 6.3.4. How were the arguments sorted out and was a new discourses created?...... 218 6.4. How to maintain the agreements and critique: outcomes and evaluation...... 236 6.4.1. External evaluation...... 236 6.4.2. Internal evaluation...... 238 6.4.3. Unresolved problems ...... 239 6.5. Conclusions...... 242
Chapter 7 Evaluations and Conclusions...... 248 7.1. Introduction ...... 248 7.2. Evaluation of processes and outcomes of planning and management of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge ...... 248 7.2.1. Main management problem of the Salmon WR ...... 249 7.2.2. Effectiveness of traditional, rational planning approaches ...... 249 7.2.3. Effectiveness of the collaborative planning approach ...... 253 7.2.4. Challenges of applying the collaborative approach to the Salmon WR ...... 258 7.3. Opportunities and challenges for applying collaborative planning approach to the protected area management in Taiwan ...... 259 7.3.1. Opportunities ...... 260 7.3.2. Challenges ...... 262 7.4. A critical perspective on Healey’s collaborative planning approach ...... 265 7.5. Conclusions ...... 270
REFERENCE...... 273
Appendix I: Composition of the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee ...... 286
Appendix II: Reasons for adopting Healey’s approach to collaborative planning...... 287
Appendix III: Category o f news about the Salmon, July 1991 - March 1999...... 289
Appendix IV: Main tasks in the annual ‘patrol and protection project of the Salmon’s habitat’ conducted by the Farm and local farmers at stage III...... 290
Appendix V: COA’s Salmon research and recovery projects at stage III...... 291
Appendix VI: Planning processes for the Salmon Nature Reserve at stage III...... 292
Appendix VII: Negative factors and conservation strategies for the Salmon...... 293
Appendix VIII: Salmon conservation research and projects at stage IV...... 294
Appendix IX: Zoning map for the Farm’s recreational development project of the Wuling Area 295
Appendix X: Task-division agenda in the Conservation Plan o f the Salmon Wildlife Refuge...... 296
Appendix XI: Calendar of the first stage of fieldwork...... 297
Appendix XII: Calendar of the second stage o f fieldwork...... 301
Appendix XIII: Research questions and methods o f enquiry for the second stage o f fieldwork...... 312
Appendix XIV: Background information for the farmers meeting- A reference prepared for the director of the Shei-Pa National Park before the meeting...... 314
Appendix XV: Zoning map of the Park’s Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area...... 319
Appendix XVI: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...... 320 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Matrix of management objectives and lUCN protected area management categories 16
Table 2-1 Comparison between collaborative planning and traditional planning...... 52
Table 2-2 Methods of qualitative research...... 58
Table 3-1 Salmon population from 1984 to 1992...... 84
Table 3-2 Discourses on why Salmon became endangered at stage III...... 86
Table 3-3 Salmon population from summer 1992 to Oct 1994...... 95
Table 3-4 Salmon conservation strategies of the Shei-Pa National Park...... 98
Table 4-1 Stakeholders groups at the start of stage V...... 113
Table 4-2 Participants in the first official planning meeting at stage V...... 118
Table 4-3 Official planning meetings for the Salmon Wildlife Refuge at stage V...... 136
Table 4-4 Stakeholder groups at the end of stage V...... 145
Table 5-1 The agenda for the farmers group meeting...... 165
Table 5-2 Composition o f participants o f the farmers group meeting...... 166
Table 6-1 Tourist population in the Wuling area from 1995 to 1998...... 210
Table 6-2 Composition of participants of the tourists group meeting...... 214 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Amstein’s eight rungs on a ladder of citizen participation...... 24
Figure 1-2 Map of protected areas in Taiwan...... 36
Figure 1-3 Legal and administrative framework of protected areas in Taiwan...... 37
Figure 1-4 Procedure of selection and designation of National Parks...... 38
Figure 1-5 Procedure of selection and designation of Nature Reserves...... 39
Figure 1-6 Procedure of selection and designation of Wildlife Refuges...... 40
Figure 2-1 The elements of institutional capacity-building...... 49
Figure 2-2 Multiple-method approach and triangulation...... 59
Figure 2-3 Data interpretation...... 63
Figure 3-1 Analytical diagram for historical review of the Salmon conservation...... 66
Figure 3-2 Stages of the Salmon conservation history...... 69
Figure 3-3 Map of the case-study area and the upper Tachia River Basin...... 72
Figure 3-4 Population change of the Salmon from Sum 1986 to Win 1992...... 84
Figure 3-5 Salmon survey area and check dams distribution in the Chichiawan stream...... 85
Figure 3-6 Population change the Salmon from summer 1992 to Oct 1994...... 96
Figure 3-7 National Park’s landuse zoning plan of the Wuling area...... 103
Figure 4-1 Institutional capacity at the start of stage V...... 112
Figure 4-2 Population change of the Salmon from 1987 to 1995 ...... 114
Figure 4-3 Analytical diagram of the first official planning meeting at stage V...... 120
Figure 4-4 Institutional capacity at the end of stage V...... 147
Figure 5-1 Seating arrangement map of the farmers group meeting...... 169
Figure 5-2 Analytical diagram of the farmers group meeting...... 171
Figure 6-1 Tourists interests of the Wuling area...... 211
Figure 6-2 Seating arrangement map of the tourists group meeting...... 217
Figure 6-3 Analytical diagram of the tourists group meeting...... 219
Figure 7-1 Conceptual framework of the case study findings...... 251 10
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 3-1 The upper Tachia River Basin and the Techi Reservoir...... 108
Plate 3-2 The Wuling farmlands along the Chichiawan Stream...... 108
Plate 3-3 A warden and his guard dog hired by the Farm were patrolling the stream at the stage III 109
Plate 3-4 Veteran farmer Mr. Chang still keeps the armband and the whistle used for patrolling the stream at stage III...... 109
Plate 4-1 The on-site negotiation meeting in the Wuling area in July 1995...... 151
Plate 4-2 The Farm grew cabbages along the stream before the meeting of compensation scheme in Nov 1996...... 151
Plate 4-3 The same farmland shown in Plate 4-2 has been reforested by trees after the implementation of the compensation schem e...... 152
Plate 5-1 The farmers group meeting was held in the local Ming village...... 205
Plate 5-2 Self-introduction in the farmers group meeting...... 205
Plate 5-3 Discussion in the farmers group meeting...... 206
Plate 5-4 Some ‘corrugated iron houses’ in the Ming village...... 206
Plate 5-5 Veteran farmer Mr. Chien in his living room...... 207
Plate 6-1 Many tourists go camping in the Wuling area on holidays...... 244
Plate 6-2 Discussion in the tourists group meeting (1 )...... 244
Plate 6-3 Discussion in the tourists group meeting (2 )...... 245
Plate 6-4 An information board alongside the stream...... 245
Plate 6-5 Tourists at the Fish Watching Stand...... 246
Plate 6-6 Alluvial material deposited in the upper stream after the floods accompanied with the Ho-Po typhoon ...... 246
Plate 6-7 Tourists felt confused by different information boards installed separately by the Park, the Farm, and the Forestry Bureau...... 247 11
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. Introduction
National Parks and protected areas have long been regarded as an important instrument for conserving wildlife and landscape (Bishop et al. 1997). From 1962 to
1992, four World Congresses on National Park and Protected Areas were held by lUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (Formerly the lUCN
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas - CNPPA) and a review of the central topics of the conference proceedings shows changes in the concepts and arguments used to promote protected areas. These concepts have changed from ones concerned with protecting ‘nature islands for the world’ to concerns that are now about ‘meeting people’s needs’ (lUCN 1994, Zube 1995). This trend runs parallel with a series of international commitments, namely, the ‘World Conservation
Strategy’ (lUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980), ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED 1987), ‘Caring for the Earth’ (lUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991), and ‘Agenda 21’ (UNCED 1992). The governments of the world have agreed to plan for a sustainable future based on
sustainable development that means ‘improving and maintaining the well-being of people and ecosystems’ (lUCN/IIED 1994: 13). In this context, the management of protected areas is increasingly regarded as a way of enhancing a sustainable society both for the well-being of wildlife and for livelihoods of people (McNeely 1993).
However, the goal of sustainable management of protected areas is not easily achieved. Most protected areas are still managed by a traditional ‘top-down’ approach that has often failed to sustain the wildlife they were designed to protect and failed to involve or benefit local people who are most affected by the 12 management proposals (Roe et al. 2000). Numerous studies have examined how more participatory approaches to managing protected areas can be promoted to achieve the goal (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996; Chambers 1994, 1997; Ghimire and
Pimbert 1997; IIED 1994; Leitmann 1998; Lewis 1996; McNeely 1995; Porter and
Salvesen 1995; Pretty et al. 1995; Warburton 1997). However, empirical evidence to show that such participatory initiatives have succeeded in achieving their goals is still sparse and much more experiment approaches and research are required if lessons are to be drawn from local, national, regional, and international experience
(Hockings et al. 2000, Roe et al. 2000).
In Taiwan, much progress in nature conservation has been made since the early
1980s. To date, 38 natural protected areas have been designated under specific nature conservation laws, covering 9 % of Taiwan's total land area. These areas include 6
National Parks, 19 Nature Reserves, and 13 Wildlife Refuges. Taiwan, though famous for its ‘economic miracle’, is a small island (36,000 sq. km) and has a population of 22 million (its population density ranking of the second highest in the world after Bangladesh (Government Information Office 2000)). As a result many natural areas have been exploited and others experience pressures from development.
Under these circumstances conflicts occur among different stakeholders, such as government institutions, local people, developers, tourists, environmentalists, etc.
Agencies responsible for the planning and management of natural areas continue to face the difficult task of resolving such conflicts. In particular, agencies need to work closely with all those interests that have a stake in the future of natural areas if a sustainable solution is to be found to the conservation of natural areas.
The purpose of this study is to explore what contributions a collaborative planning 13 approach can make to achieving more sustainable solutions to the management of protected areas in Taiwan. Among the three designations of natural protected areas in
Taiwan, the Wildlife Refuge is notable because its legal status provides more opportunities for stakeholder participation than other statutory designations. Drawing on a theory of collaborative planning advanced by Healey (1996, 1997, 1998a) this study provides an in-depth analysis of history of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon
Wildlife Refuge to evaluate the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to planning and management.
1.2. Thesis structure
This study first reviews the general background and problems of protected areas in a worldwide context and the development of participatory approaches as a response to problems associated with conventional top-down approaches (Chapter 1). Chapter 2 reviews collaborative planning theory and practice as a basis for defining the research questions and justifying the chosen methodology. The empirical study focuses on planning and management practices of protected areas in Taiwan and a case study of the Formosan Salmon Wildlife Refuge provides an in-depth account of these practices (Chapter 3-6). Multiple methods of social inquiry are used to elicit different stakeholders’ concerns about the planning and management of the Wildlife
Refuge. In-depth interviews and group meetings are combined with ethnographic observations to explore the differing understandings and the common ground among
stakeholders concerning the planning and management of the study area. Chapter 7 evaluates the findings of the empirical study and assesses what contributions a collaborative planning approach can make to protected area management in Taiwan.
It provides an overall evaluation of Healey’s (1996, 1997, 1998a) collaborative 14 planning approach as the basis for providing an effective participatory approach to environmental decision-making.
The findings can be used in two ways. First, they can be used to reveal gaps in traditional top-down approaches to protected areas and to explore opportunities for a more collaborative way of planning and management. Second, they can be used to examine how the approach to collaborative planning can be applied to sustainable management of protected areas in a specific social, political, and cultural context.
The remainder of this introductory chapter is divided into two parts. The first part serves as a global context and reviews the general management issues and the development of participatory approaches to protected area management. The second part reviews the environmental movement and the development of participatory approaches to the planning and management of protected areas in the national context of Taiwan.
1.3. General background and problems of protected area management
Both the number of site and the area of protected areas in the world has grown rapidly over recent decades. Today there are over 30,300 protected areas, covering
some 9% of the earth’s land area. About two thirds of the protected areas were established within the last 30 years (Davey and Phillips 1998). Protected areas have been essential instruments for nature conservation internationally. At the
international level, coordination is undertaken by UN organisations such as the
World Conservation Union (lUCN). The most active institution has been the World
Commission on Protected Area (WCPA) membership of which comprises some 1000 government officials, experts, academic specialists, NGOs, and other partner 15 organisations from over 140 countries (WCPA 2001). This section which follows is based on lUCN and other related literature and aims to review the general definition, categories, management objectives of protected areas, and the problems and causes of what have become known as ‘people-park conflicts.’
1.3.1. Definition, categories, and management objectives of protected areas
As provided by the recent IVth World Congress of WCPA in 1992, the definition of a protected area is (lUCN 1994):
‘An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance
of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means.’ (p.7)
This general definition tries to summarize the diverse types of protected areas in different countries of the world. In practice, the specific purposes for managing a protected area differ greatly. According to primary objectives of management, protected areas are categorized into six types as follows (lUCN 1994, Davey and
Phillips 1998):
Category I Strict protection: la Strict Nature Reserve Ib Wilderness Area Category II Ecosystem protection and recreation (National Park) Category III Conservation of natural features (Natural Monument) Category IV Conservation through active management (Habitat/Species Management Area) Category V Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (Protected Landscape/Seascape) Category VI Sustainable use of natural ecosystems (Managed Resource Protected Area)
Though the basis of this categorisation is by primary management objectives, most 16 protected areas also have a range of secondary or other potentially applicable objectives. Table 1-1 illustrates in matrix form the relationship between management objectives and the lUCN categories. This categories system is intended for use in all countries and to provide a basis for international comparison. It is, therefore, very general and needs to be applied and interpreted with flexibility at national and local levels. Generally, the lUCN categories system represents a gradation of human intervention: Categories I to III are basically associated with the protection of natural areas with limited human intervention and environment modification while greater intervention and modification can be found in categories IV to VI (lUCN 1994).
Table 1-1 Matrix of management objectives and lUCN protected area management categories
Management Objective la Ib 11 III IV V VI Scientific research 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 Wilderness 2 1 2 3 3 - 2 Preservation of species and genetic diversity 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Maintenance of environmental services 2 1 1 - 1 2 1 Protection of specific natural/cultural features 2 1 3 1 3 Tourism and recreation - 2 1 1 3 1 3 Education - - 2 2 2 2 3 Sustainable use of resources form natural ecosystem 3 3 - 2 2 1 Maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes 1 2 Key: 1 Primary objective 2 Secondary objective 3 Potentially applicable objective - Not applicable
Source: lUCN (1994: 8)
Although in principle, lUCN’s categories and ‘standard’ terminology have been recommended for use internationally, in practice, different countries have established national protected area systems employing widely different terminology (lUCN 17 ibid.). For example, ‘national parks’ can mean different things in different countries.
In the UK, ‘national parks’ are better assigned to category V since they generally contain human settlement and landuse activities. Therefore, while applying lUCN categories system, it is important to examine the management objectives and practices of a specific protected area rather than assuming that it should be based on the lUCN systems.
1.3.2. Problems and causes of people-park conflicts
Although, in principle, protected area management has been focused on ‘improving and maintaining the well-being of people and ecosystems’, a growing body of literature points out that the current protected area system fails to achieve this goal and that ‘people-park conflicts’ are common (IIED 1994; Ghimire and Pimbert 1997,
Porter and Salvesen 1995; Warburton 1997). This traditional planning paradigm of protected area management has been greatly shaped by the model for National Parks pioneered in the United State commonly referred to as the ‘Yellowstone model.’ The first national park in the world, the Yellowstone National Park, was established in the late 19^^ century when American conservation thinking suggested that people and wildlife were in conflict with each other and that natural areas should be set aside purely for aesthetic enjoyment. By the 1970s, world-wide conservation policy and action was dominated by this model of national parks based on human displacement and exclusion, wildlife legislation and enforcement, and the state ownership of wildlife resources. More recent approaches however have shown that traditional top-down approaches often have a critical impact on the livelihoods of local people
(Roe et al. 2000). 18
These traditional approaches to environmental decision-making have been criticised for several reasons but most fundamentally because they are heavily dominated by scientific rationality and rely on an expert community to determine management policies and practices. For example, they ignore the consideration of affected interests in favour of ‘objective’ analysis and hence encounter lack of public acceptance, and by relying on systematic observation and general theories they often discount knowledges of local people who are most familiar with, and affected by, the environment to be protected. Several critical reviews of this top-down approach such as that provided by Hulme and Murphree (1999), Ghimire and Pimbert (1997), IIED
(1994), Infield and Adams (1999), Lewis (1996), and Roe et al. (2000) summarise the wide range of major problems and causes of people-park conflicts. The two sections that follow draw on this international literature to summarise key problems and causes of conflicts in natural area management and related studies undertaken on these issues in Taiwan.
1.3.2.1. Problems
A. Loss of livelihoods and culture of local communities
A conventional top-down approach often imposes new restrictions upon local people
in respect of access to certain resources, ranging from total exclusion to selective
restraints. On some occasions, local communities are forced to leave their
settlements without providing alternative ways of livelihoods. These actions cause
the breakdown of many traditional ways of life, social networks, and relationship
with the land. Chi (1998a) for example, criticises the location of three of the six
National Parks in Taiwan indigenous people’s traditional hunting and collecting
areas. The subsequent imposition of restrictions on fishing, hunting, and collecting 19 under the National Park Law has caused many local people to lose their traditional livelihoods.
B. Erosion in traditional resource use and protection
The exclusion of local people from protected areas causes the loss of valuable traditional knowledge of resource use. Many sophisticated agricultural and ecological management systems innovated by indigenous people over many
generations may disappear in the expulsion process. Moreover, this exclusion can,
sometimes, result in a decline of biodiversity, since many biodiversity-rich areas
relate to places used by indigenous people. Sung et al (1995) for example, in their
study of conflicts between the Yu-Shan National Park and its native people in
Taiwan argue that the prohibition on hunting in the National Park has violated the
traditional hunting culture and rituals of local indigenous people.
C. Growing social conflict
Relying on strict regulations and their rigorous implementation, top-down
approaches often cause an adversarial relationship between local people and park
authorities. As a result ‘parks wars’, including mass protests, attacks on park
wardens, poisoning of wildlife and burning of forest, have become more common
events in many developing countries, such as in Africa (Koch 1997) and in Latin
America (Utting 1993). In the case of Taiwan Chi (1998b) argues that the imposition
of the National Park Law on indigenous people which lacks consideration of their
territorial rights has led to protests by indigenous people against the National Parks
authorities. 20
1.3.2.2. Causes of conflicts
A. Differing national and international interests and priorities
Protected areas often represent the priorities of regional, national, and international interests that usually conflict with local people’s livelihoods. These interests are usually dominated by outside ‘experts’ or officials who have limited understanding of local people’s needs and their diverse livelihood systems. As a result, local people often regard nature and wildlife conservation as an alien concept or practice. In the case of Taiwan Lu’s (2000) research shows that the discourses of natural protected areas in Taiwan have been dominated by scientists and civil servants who place most emphasis on wildlife conservation and ignore the importance of local people’s livelihoods.
B. Negation o f local right, territory, and well-being
Traditional top-down approaches of protected area management are usually characterized by restraining the rights of native people and local communities over their ancestral lands and the resources. Improvement of local people’s livelihoods has not often been an important goal when protected areas are set up. Many conservation projects often serve to attract national or foreign funding, which may largely be used for resource surveys, patrolling, official building, planes and vehicles, and international travel and meetings. Little research is invested in improving the welfare of local communities. Sung et al. (1995) argue that the lack of consideration of indigenous people’s rights and culture in the National Park Law in Taiwan is one major cause of conflict between Yu-Shan National Park authority and local people.
C. Lack o f concern for capacity building o f local institutions 21
Local institutions are important for managing wildlife and protected areas and for coping with changing economic conditions. They usually have a close relationship with local communities on resource management, labour sharing, marketing and many other activities. Local institutions, therefore, have potential to play a crucial role in facilitating collective action and collaborative natural resource management.
Lu’s (2000) research on some Wildlife Refuges in Taiwan also shows how ignorance of this important role of local institutions by top-down bureaucracies has often caused the inefficiency of protected area management.
D. Limited public participation
Despite frequent calls for public participation in nature conservation over the last two decades, it is still rare for national conservation authorities to devolve power and resources to local institutions and communities. Several studies suggest that conservation institutions, experts, and planners need to shift from being
‘implementers’ to new roles o f‘facilitators’ (Chambers 1995 and 1997, Healey 1997,
Lewis 1996). In these terms the planning and management process should seek to empower local institutions and communities and enhance their partnership and ownership. This implies that a new professionalism will be needed in planning and management of protected areas. As Ko (1999) and Yeh (1999) point out, in Taiwan for example, current environmental decision-making processes in nature conservation and environmental protection provide few opportunities for public involvement. As a result, both the government and citizens generally lack experience of practising public participation and the kind of devolution of power anticipated by other international researchers. 22
1.4. Public participation and participatory approaches
Participatory approaches seek to address some of the management problems associated with conventional top-down approaches. Research has shown that protected areas will not be sustainable unless they receive wide public support and often public support will not exist unless people’s livelihoods and needs are met
(Davey and Phillips 1998, Ghimire and Pimbert 1997, IIED 1994, Lu 2000).
Participatory approaches therefore aim to meet people’s needs and to win public support through promoting public participation in planning and management processes of protected areas.
This section provides an overview of issues of public participation and associated participatory approaches. It first reviews the definition, benefits and risks, and types of public participation, as well as reviewing the range of participatory approaches available. Second, it discusses the theoretical and practical problems of applying existing participatory approaches and identifies a role for more inclusionary and communicative approaches- to be discussed in Chapter 2.
1.4.1. Definition and types of public participation
1.4.1.1. Definition of public participation
This research adopts the definition of public participation of Renn et al. (1995) as:
‘forums for exchange that organised for the purpose of facilitating communication
between government, citizens, stakeholders and interest groups, and businesses
regarding a specific decision or problem’ (p.2)
By this definition, public participation embraces a range of forums for interactions 23 between ‘the public’ and decision makers. The word ‘public’ is not a homogeneous group but a wide variety of heterogeneous groups of individuals or stakeholders.
Since the universe of ‘the public’ can be potentially boundless (Healey 1997, ODA
1995), this research employs the term of ‘stakeholder’ to include any person, group, or organisation that ‘has a stake’ (Healey 1997 and 2000) or that ‘is affected by the causes or consequences of an issue’ (Bryson and Crosby 1992:65).
1.4.1.2. Types of public participation
Amstein’s (1969) use of eight rungs on a ladder of public participation remains a useful analysis of power relations in participation and ‘ nonparticipation’ (Figure 1-2).
The bottom rungs of the ladder are ‘manipulation’ and ‘therapy’, describing levels of non-participation. On these levels people do not participate in planning, but power holders serve to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ the participants. Rungs 3 ‘informing’ and 4
‘consultation’ are levels of ‘tokenism’. People may indeed hear and be heard, but they lack the power to ensure their views are adopted by the powerful. Therefore no assurance of effective change can be made. Rung 5 ‘placation’ allows people to advise, but the power holders retain the right to decide. Rungs 6 to 8 represent levels of citizen empowerment. ‘Partnership’ enables people to engage in trade-offs with power holders. ‘Delegated power’ and ‘citizen control’ allow people to obtain a majority of decision-making seats ‘at the table’, or full managerial power.
Amstein’s classification of public participation is normative and emphasises that
‘citizen participation is citizen control’ in decision-making processes. In applying
Amstein’s approach, two problems are worth noting. First, she advocates the ‘upper ladder’ types of participation such as citizen control, delegated power, and 24 partnership and, therefore, devalues or de-emphasizes the consideration of ‘lower ladder’ types of participation such as consultation and information. The latter could also be useful and effective forms of participation in specific contexts and for specific purposes. Wilcox (1994) argues that different levels of participation are appropriate in different circumstances and this is more of a case of horses for courses.
Second, her approach focuses on citizen participation in decision-making and seems to ignore the importance of participation in implementation processes, as promoted by Wilcox (ibid.) as ‘acting together.’ In practice, the types of public participation will depend on the specific context and objectives of participation (Clark et al.
2001).
Citizen control Delegated power >■ Degrees of citizen power Partnership Placation Consultation >■ Degree of tokenism Information Therapy Manipulation Non-participation
Figure 1-1 Arnstein’s eight rungs on a ladder of citizen participation
1.4.2. Varieties of participatory approaches
There is a varied terminology to describe participatory approaches tailored to
different objectives and context. For example, the World Bank (1996) summarizes 4
groupings of methods for social assessment and participation, including
workshop-based methods for collaborative decision-making, community-based
methods for collaborative decision-making, methods for stakeholder consultation. 25 and methods for social analysis. The New Economics Foundation (NEF 1998) sums up 21 techniques for community participation based on UK’s experience such as
Action Planning, Community Appraisals, Planning For Real, Round Table
Workshops, etc. Renn et al. (1995) evaluate 8 innovative participatory models in
Europe and the United State, including Citizen Advisory Committees, Citizen Panels,
Citizens Juries, Citizen Initiatives, Negotiated Rule Making, Mediation,
Compensation and Benefit Sharing, and Dutch Study Groups. The International
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED 1994) reviews community approaches to wildlife management in Africa and categorises them into two main groupings: top-down and participatory. The latter represents a continuum from passive participation approaches, towards active participation and community-led approaches. This echoes Amstein’s (1969) idea of citizen participation ladder that values delegation of power and citizen control. Active participation and community-led approaches seek to devolve power and responsibility for resource management to the community and local people can involve more actively in the generation and distribution of benefits. On the other hand. Roe et al. (2000), based on the objectives to be achieved, identify three categories of community conservation approaches that have emerged in Africa, including: protected area outreach, collaborative management, and Community-Based Natural Resource
Management (CBNRM). Outreach approaches aim to improve the biological integrity and the role of protected areas in local planning through working with and benefiting to local communities. Collaborative approaches aim to achieve consensuses on the use of natural resources between local communities and conservation authorities under certain forms of legal authority. CBNRM seeks to achieve sustainable management of natural resources through delegating power and 26 resources to local communities.
These alternative typologies suggest that it is not possible to develop a universal
‘taxonomy’ for participatory approaches and new initiatives and terminologies continue to be created and tested in different social, political, and environmental situations. However recent reviews all emphasise that context and objectives of participation need to be taken into account when designing and applying particular participatory approaches. This thesis seeks to build on this contextualized approach.
1.4.3. Benefits and risks of public participation
The proliferation of participatory research and actions in recent years implies they have more benefits than traditional top-down approaches. Drawing on Warburton’s
(1997) review of participation action in the countryside of UK, the benefits of participation can be summarized under three headings: effectiveness and efficiency, building social capacity, and ethics:
• Effectiveness and efficiency: including reducing or avoiding conflicts, sharing
resources, developing local ownership, and meeting local circumstances and local
people’s need.
• Building up social capacity: including sharing knowledge and skills, building up
understanding, trust and partnership, and increasing local people’s self-awareness
and greater control.
• Ethics: including involving the powerless and reducing marginalisation, and
safeguarding local people’s rights. 27
In a similar view, a review of the application of community-based wildlife management (CWM) in different regions including East Africa, Southern Africa,
Central and West Africa, Central America, South America, South Asia, South East
Asia, Australia, and Canada, Roe et al. (2000) summarise the positive benefits of
CWM as including:
• Economic benefits: including direct financial benefits such as the sale or lease of
hunting quotas or tourism concessions, sale of wildlife products, revenue sharing
schemes, as well as indirect financial benefits such as employment, improved
productivity, increased subsistence products, and livelihood diversification.
• Social benefits: including the development of new institutions or the strengthening
of existing institutions, political empowerment and increased involvement of local
communities in decision-making and control over resources, and cultural
strengthening through revival and recognition of traditional knowledge, customs
and practices.
• Environmental benefits: including increases in the extent and diversity of wildlife
habitats and species.
However, several reviewers emphasise that public participation is not a panacea for resolving all issues of environmental decision-making. In addition to the positive impacts mentioned above. Roe et al. (2000) demonstrate the costs and weaknesses of
CWM as follows:
• Economic costs: including opportunity cost of land, crop and livestock damage
caused by wildlife, and restrictions on resource utilisation. 28
• Social weaknesses: including conflicts within the community, between
communities or between the community and the state or other external institutions,
weakening of traditional authority and institutions, and corruption and nepotism.
• Environmental weaknesses: including declining wildlife, continued use at
unsustainable levels, introduction of exotic species, continued investment in
livestock over wildlife, and overgrazing by livestock.
Webler and Renn (1995) also point to five problems of public participation. First, regardless of whether the public is involved in the decision-making process, the government or legally responsible bodies will be often to blame for insufficient regulation or lack of proper implementation if an accident such as pollution occurs.
Second, public involvement may worsen environmental damage if the public are allowed to make a decision that is contrary to scientific evidence or judgement. Third,
early public involvement may compromise the efficient objectives and recommend
expensive programs with small gains. Fourth, consensus is difficult to achieve
among all the different stakeholder groups with different values and interests. Fifth, participation may enlarge conflicts if some parties take advantage of ‘equal voice’
opportunity and pursue their own interests and objectives.
Public participation is hence contentious because it involves a range of benefits and
weaknesses affected by a considerable number of diverse factors. Participation
cannot guarantee successful outcomes. Context and cases at issue are all-important
and cannot be generalised (Roe et al. 2000). Besides, the determination of acceptable
levels of public participation is a social process that relies on value judgement
among stakeholders and cannot be made by scientific measurements or legal requirements (Webler and Renn 1995). These issues cause difficulties and problems 29 when applying participatory approaches and evaluating their processes and outcomes.
A critical application of participatory approaches therefore requires an assessment of benefits and constraints.
1.4.4. Problems of participatory approaches
There are both theoretical and practical problems in promoting participatory approaches to protected area management. In terms of theory, most research on participatory approaches starts with a practical problem and is not theoretically-driven, thus studies often lack an understanding of ‘the local within the global systems’ (Wright and Nelson 1997). In terms of application, for example.
Chambers (1995, 1997) argues that the widely-used methods of Participatory Rural
Appraisal (FRA) run the risk of missing out the powerless, promoting change in a hurry, getting ‘into a rut’, labelling without substance, and arousing unmet expectations. Roe et al. (2000) also stress that support for community-based wildlife management approaches (CWM) is often based on untested assumptions that lack empirical verification. Many community-based conservation approaches are criticised as being too idealistic. More practical experiments and case studies that are informed by a theoretical framework are required if their effectiveness is to be evaluated critically.
1.5. Public participation in environmental decision-making in Taiwan
As discussed in the previous sections, management problems of protected areas
occur within a particular social, political, ecological, and cultural context. As a result
solutions forged in other national contexts may not easily apply in the case of Taiwan.
It is helpful here to provide a general context related to public participation in 30 environmental decision-making in Taiwan. For example, it is important to recognise that Taiwan is still a young democratic society. Its environmental movement is still emerging and government agencies have yet to gain wide experience in involving citizens in the process of decision-making (Ko 1999, Lin 1999, Lu 2000, Yeh 1999).
The following section focuses on two topics. First, it reviews recent developments in
Taiwan’s environmental movement. Second, it introduces and reviews the ‘hard infrastructure’ (Healey 1997) relevant to public participation in the planning systems of protected areas in Taiwan.
1.5.1. The development of Taiwan’s environmental movement
The emergence of Taiwan’s environmental movement is generally agreed to have started in the late 1970s (Hsiao 1987, Patel and Lin 1989, Lin 1999). Lin (ibid.) demonstrates that Taiwan’s environmental movement coincides with the political transition in the 1980s from an authoritarian regime to a more democratic society.
Drawing on a wide range of academic research, official reports, newsletters of environmental NGOs, and newspapers, Lin divides Taiwan’s modem environmental movement into three phases, namely:
• The academic-dominated phase (the late 1970s-1984): Global environmental
concerns and ecological knowledge rooted in international environmental
movements were introduced into Taiwan through academic professionals who
relied heavily on western scientific expertise. During this period, environmental
discourses were dominated by western scientific knowledge and a rationalist
paradigm. Many environmental issues were championed by academics to draw
public attention to the problems of environmental degradation in Taiwan. The 31
United State’s model of national parks and protected areas was introduced by academics into Taiwan (Lu 2000). For example, the National Park Law was enacted in 1972 and the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law was enacted in 1982.
The first National Park in Taiwan was set up in 1984.
The politicised phase (1985-1992): During this period, Taiwan’s environmental movements extended beyond the academic community and gained wider social support from grassroots NGOs (mainly campaign for anti-public health hazards and anti-nuclear power), political opposition groups (notably the Democratic
Progress Party, DPP, founded in 1986), and the general public. Environmental movements became more confrontational and were promoted by the political opposition party, DPP, who used public environmental protests as a means of achieving a democratic transition. The lifting of the Martial Law in 1987 was a landmark of social, political, and institutional transition. For example, after 1987, about 80% of environmental NGOs were established and public protests against health hazards and nuclear power increased. The press also can play an important role in raising public environmental awareness. Government control of the press was lifted in 1988 and about 85% new domestic news agencies were established between 1988-1998 (Government Information Office 1999). About 67% National
Parks and 79% Nature Reserves were set up during this period and the Wildlife
Conservation Law was enacted in 1989.
The ‘place making’ phase (1993-present): Mass protest movements declined
significantly after 1993 when the ruling party, Kuo-Ming-Tang (KMT), started to
strengthen a sense of Taiwanese identity nationally and internationally. The focus of Taiwan’s environmental movement has transferred from anti-authoritarianism 32
to an on-going concern of ‘place making’ at both national and local levels. At the
national level, the KMT government adopted a revisionist approach to political
reform by establishing a coherent vision of ‘Taiwanese identity.’ The main
opposition party, DPP, successfully won one-third of legislator seats in the general
election of 1992 and started to engage in an intra-institutional approach of political
reform rather than the extra-institutional approach of mass protests. From 1993,
the Council of Cultural Affairs started promoting a community programme called
‘integral community construction’ which substantially financed environmental
NGOs and local communities to engage in environmental protection, nature
conservation, cultural heritage preservation, and economic development at local
level (Lu 2000). Triggered by the United State’s economic sanction according to
the Pelly Amendment to Taiwan in 1994 for illegal trading of rhino horn and tiger
bone, a new coalition of environmental NGOs ‘Eco-Conservation Alliance’ was
established in the same year and advocated lobbing the revision of the Wildlife
Conservation Law. This Law was amended in Oct 1994. 12 out of 13 Wildlife
Refuges were established by local governments during this period. Above all these
actions served to moderate the confrontational tendency of environmental
movements in the previous phase and to focus their actions to ‘place-making’
projects in Taiwan that supported claims to a national identity- including the
recognition of indigenous people’s rights.
1.5.2. Public participation in the planning systems of protected areas
There are three statutory categories of natural protected areas in Taiwan (COA 1997,
Lee 2001): National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Wildlife Refuges (Figure 1-2), which are correspondingly designated under the National Park Law (enacted in 33
1972), the Culture Heritage Preservation Law (enacted in 1982), and the Wildlife
Conservation Law (enacted in 1989 and amended in 1994). Figure 1-3 shows the legal and administrative framework of these three protected areas.
National Parks in Taiwan, in-line 'with lUCN’s category II (Table 1-1), are planned and designated by the central Ministry of Interior. There are 6 National Park in
Taiwan and each has a National Park Headquarters responsible for its management.
Nature Reserves, equivalent to lUCN’s category I, are planned and designated by the
central Council of Agriculture. 19 Nature Reserves have been designated in Taiwan
and most of them are managed by the national Forestry Bureau or by Local
Governments. Wildlife Refuges, parallel lUCN’s category IV, are planned,
designated, and managed by Local Governments.
The designation procedures for National Park (Figure 1-4) and Nature Reserves
(Figure 1-5) show a very ‘top-down’ decision-making process underpinned by a
scientific, rationalist approach. The central authority of National Parks, the Ministry
of Interior, sets up a National Park Advisory Committee as a legal consultation body
comprising 16 high-level officials from central and provincial government
institutions and 5 specialists from academic institutions. The central authority of
Nature Reserves, the Council of Agriculture, also sets up a Natural and Cultural
Landscape Standing Committee and a Technical Committee as formal consultation
bodies. The Standing Committee comprises 7 high-level officials from central
government institutions and the Technical Committee involves 10 experts from
academic institutions. These consultation bodies (the National Park Advisory
Committee, and the Natural and Cultural Landscape Standing and Technical 34
Committees) form a tight official and expert community who dominates the decision-making process of planning and management for National Parks and Nature
Reserves. No statutory opportunity is provided for the involvement of environmental
NGOs, local people, or other interest groups.
The designation procedure of the Wildlife Refuge under the Wildlife Conservation
Law provides opportunities for a more ‘bottom up’ approach unlike the ‘top-down’
processes of National Parks and Nature Reserves (Figure 1-6). The Wildlife
Conservation Law is the most recent one and was enacted in 1989 and amended in
1994, at a time when public concern about the environment has also increased
(Section 1.5.1). It embraces new ideas about wildlife conservation in Taiwan. More
importantly, the amendment process of the Wildlife Conservation Law involved a
remarkable degree of public participation: a total of six revisions of the Law were
proposed under the amendment. Except for the one revision proposed by the
government department, the other five revisions were proposed by legislators who
had been lobbied by various non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
As a result of this lobbying process, opportunities for public participation via
voluntary groups and members of the public in the planning and management of
Wildlife Refuges were enhanced under the amendments in four ways:
• A Wildlife Refuge should be planned and managed by the local county
government through a collaborative and bottom-up process.
• Before the establishment or modification of a Wildlife Refuge, an on-site public
hearing of the plan, ‘if necessary, should be held to sufficiently adopt the opinions 35
of local residents’.
• Before the establishment or modification of a Wildlife Refuge, the plan should be
approved by the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee\ Non-governmental
representatives should comprise not less than two-thirds of the total committee
membership (Appendix I).
• Local governments may commission other public or private organisations to
manage the Wildlife Refuge.
However, the amendments do not provide a clear definition of what ‘if necessary’ means or of how to ‘sufficiently adopt’ the opinions of local residents. Hence these conditions are necessarily open to interpretation. Nevertheless, these amendments associated with planning and management of the Wildlife Refuges are new and promote a more participatory approach than earlier nature conservation laws. Thus, the amendments to the Wildlife Conservation Law in 1994 formed something of a turning point in the planning systems of protected areas in Taiwan. Since then, there has been a greater opportunity for a more participatory and bottom-up process in the planning and management of Wildlife Refuges.
' The Committee is established by the Council of Agriculture under Wildlife Conservation Law to assist with wildlife conservation. 36
Formosan Landlocked Salmon Wildlife Refuge
She! -Pa National Park
National Parks
Nature Reserves 60 km Wildlife Refuges S cale
Figure 1-2 Map of protected areas in T aiw an (Based on Government information Office 2000) National Parks Law U Cultural Heritage Preservation Law L Laws Wildlife Conservation Law (enacted in 1972) S (enacted in 1982) ^ (enacted in 1989, first amended in 1994)
National Parks ; Nature Reserves K Wildlife Refuges Designated Protected Areas No: 6 No: 19 a No: 13 Area: 322,845 ha. Area: 64,477 ha. 1 Area: 23,201 ha. Area/Taiwan: 8.6% Area/Taiwan: 1.8% B Area/Taiwan: 0.6% ILCN category: II ILCN category: 1 K lUCN category: IV ...:v'f"
Central G. iMinistry of Interior (M l) Council of Agriculture (COA) Agencies
Local G. Agencies National Park Headquarters (NPH) Provinces K Special Municipalities (LGAs)
Counties
Planned, designated, and managed Designation Planned, designated by MI; Planned, designated by COA; by LG As; Procedure Managed by NPHs Managed by LG As Approved by COA before designation
Figure 1-3 Legal and administrative framework of protected areas in Taiwan 38
Survey by Ministry of Interior (MI)
Consultation of Mi's National Site se ection Park Advisory Committee
Site selection by MI
Drawing up the National Park Master Plan
Discussion by Ml's National Park Advisory Committee
Submit to the national Executive Designation Y uan for approval
Approval by the Executive Yuan
>- i .
Legal announcement of the Legal announcement of the establishment of the National National Park Master Plan by Park by the Executive Yuan the Ml
Figure 1-4 Procedure of selection and designation of National Parks(Yeh 1999: 123) 39
Survey and site selection by the Council of Agriculture (COA)
Consultation of COA's Natural and Cultural Landscape Advisory Technical Com m ittees
Approval by COA's Natural and Cultural Landscape Standing Advisory Committees
Legal announcement of the Assignment of the establishment of the Nature management authority for the Reserve by COA % Nature Reserve by COA T
Figure 1-5 Procedure of selection and designation of Nature Reserves (Based on the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law, 1982) 40
Survey of proposed areas
Proposal of draft plan
If public hearing is necessary
Acceptance of If public No public hearing hearing is not necessary
Yes / No
Yes Approval by the Wildlife Conservation Advisory w Committee _
YesNo
Authorization by the Council of Agriculture
Yes
Announcement / Implementation by local governments
Immediately
Deposit of plan on public at least 30 days
Monitoring
If modifications recommended
Modification
Figure 1-6 Procedure of selection and designation of Wildlife Refuges (Based on the Wildlife Conservation Law, 1994) 41
1.6. Conclusion
• Over the last twenty years, there has been an international trend in planning and
management of protected areas towards a more sustainable objective that aims to
enhance both the well-being of wildlife and livelihoods of people. However, the
current planning systems and practices of protected areas often fail to achieve this
goal and as a result people-park conflicts are common. Numerous studies have
been conducted to promote more participatory approaches to the management
problems of protected areas but there is still little empirical evidence to show to
what extent participatory approaches achieve their stated goals. In taking forward
such approaches researchers in the international community suggests that the
following are important considerations for their successful implementation:
• Context is important. The need for public participation is still debated because
participation involves both benefits and weaknesses that are influenced by diverse
factors embedded in different local and regional contexts. There is no universal
‘taxonomy’ for ‘proper’ participatory approaches. Contexts and objectives of
management are always important considerations when designing and applying a
specific participatory approach. Case studies that pay attention to the contextual
considerations can make an important contribution to an evaluation of
participatory approaches.
• In Taiwan, an emergent democracy for only ten years, there is now an opportunity
to pursue more participatory approaches to environmental decision-making, which
are consistent with the value orientations of this new political order. Nevertheless, 42
the planning systems and practices of protected areas are still dominated by a
‘top-down’ approach. The planning system of the Wildlife Refuges, enacted under
the recent amendments of the Wildlife Conservation Law in 1994, provides for
more opportunities for public participation than earlier statutory designations.
However, there is lack of experience of implementing participatory approaches
and lack of evidence about what contributions these participatory approaches can
contribute to achieving management objectives. There is also ambiguity over the
legal requirements for public participation in planning system of Wildlife Refuges.
Theoretically informed empirical studies need to be conducted to explore the
problems of existing planning systems and practices and to evaluate the
effectiveness of participatory approaches to protected area management in Taiwan.
The key purpose of the research is to provide a theoretically informed evaluation of the contribution a collaborative approach can make to the planning and management of natural protected areas in Taiwan. It does this through:
• reviewing the theoretical basis of participatory approaches in particular that
offered by Healey (1996, 1997, 1998a).
• applying and developing Healey’s collaborative approach to a detailed case study
of one category of natural protected areas in Taiwan- the Wildlife Refuge.
• drawing on historical and ethnographic field methods to review processes and
outcomes of the management of the case-study area during a period when a
top-down approach began to be replaced by more collaborative one. 43
• using a range of explicit criteria to review the effectiveness of a more
collaborative approach as a basis for taking forward such approaches to natural
area planning and management in Taiwan. 44
Chapter 2 Theory and Methodology
2.1. Introduction
This chapter introduces the major methodological issues related to this thesis. In particular, it focuses on insights offered by collaborative planning theory and practice for addressing the management problems of protected areas raised in
Chapter 1. The chapter is structured in four parts.
• First, I explain the reasons why I chose Healey’s theory of collaborative planning
as the theoretical basis for this study. I review the theoretical underpinnings of the
collaborative planning approach to spatial and environmental planning issues
mainly through the contributions of Patsy Healey’s collaborative planning theory,
and its relationship with Anthony Giddens’s theory of structuration, and Jurgen
Habermas’s theory of communicative action.
• Second, I explore the analytical framework of Healey’s approach of collaborative
planning, and the criteria for evaluating a collaborative process and outcomes. I
also review some contemporary critiques of Healey’s collaborative planning
approach.
• Third, I propose my research questions based on the hypothesis of Healey’s
collaborative planning approach.
• Last, I introduce my research design, including the choice of case study, strategies
of inquiry, analytical framework and approach to data interpretation and analysis. 45
2.2. Theoretical underpinnings of collaborative planning
2.2.1. Choice of theory
Owing to the practical shortcomings and theoretical limits of general participatory approaches noted in Chapter 1, this research draws on Healey’s (1996, 1997, 1998a) approach to collaborative planning for environmental decision-making for three main reasons. First, Patsy Healey is recognised as one of the most active thinkers in planning theory in Britain today. Her collaborative planning theory is a contemporary presentation of a normative planning theory about how planning can achieve its goals (Rydin 1998). Second, Healey’s approach involves both innovative planning theory and practice and meshes with the need to transform a traditional
‘top-down’ approach to protected areas planning and management to a more participatory one. Third, Healey’s approach is still evolving and has been criticised for being too idealistic and lacking empirical support (Section 2.3.3). In particular the effectiveness of Healey’s collaborative planning approach needs to be evaluated through empirical studies^.
2.2.2. Theories of collaborative planning
‘Communicative planning’ (Forester 1989), ‘argumentative planning’ (Fischer and
Forester 1993), ‘planning through debate’ (Healey 1992), ‘inclusionary discourse’
(Healey 1996), or ‘collaborative planning’ (Healey 1997, 1998a) are terms widely used in planning theory literature in the 1990s. This theoretical development is
closely associated with the work of Patsy Healey (Rydin 1998, Tewdwr-Jones and
Thomas 1998, Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger 1998). Her work seeks to develop a
^ More detailed reasons about why I reject other pragmatic approaches to collaborative planning and specifically why I came to adopt Healey’s approach please read Appendix II. 46 new approach to spatial and environmental planning to cope with concerns about the quality of places and dilemmas about how to ‘make sense together while living differently’ (Forester 1989: 118). One the one hand, people celebrate diversity and
individual liberation; on the other, they are often confused by the conflicts among
different interest groups and threatened by the environmental degradation. Healey
argues that these dilemmas require a new approach to planning which offers both a
force to change the quality of places and to change normative ideas about the forms
and processes of collective governance.
Healey (1997, 1998b) identifies two key people whose ideas have greatly contributed
to the theoretical development of collaborative plaiming. One is Anthony Giddens
and his structuration theory (Giddens 1984); the other is Jurgen Habermas and his
theory of communicative action (Habermas 1984). Giddens emphasises the role of
active agency and the power of structures, while Habermas focuses attention on the
process of collective discourse and ways of confronting the distortion of dialogue by
the powerful.
2.2.3. Anthony Giddens and the theory of structuration
In collaborative planning, Healey (1997) bases her view that individuals are ‘neither
fully autonomous nor automatons’ on Giddens’s theory of structuration. This
position acknowledges that powerful structures in societies serve as both
opportunities and constraints on public behaviour and are not something set apart
from or outside individuals. How people act thus constitutes the influence of these
structural forces. With sufficient awareness and consciousness of these structuring
constraints, people can work to ‘make a difference’ by changing the rules and flows 47 of resources, and most significantly, by changing ways of thinking. As Healey (1997) puts it, ‘Conscious reflexivity on our assumptions and modes of thinking, on our cultural referents, thus carries transformative power. The micro-practices of everyday life are thus key sites for the mobilisation of transformative forces’ (p.49).
If collaborative planning is understood in this interactive way, how does this action take place? Here Habermas’s theory of communicative action provides key
theoretical insights about how to reconstitute the public realm through open, public
debate.
2.2.4. Jurgen Habermas and the theory of communicative action
In collaborative planning, Healey (1997) explains the use of Habermas’s work
beginning with the contrast between an ‘abstract system’ and ‘lifeworld’. Habermas
uses the concept of an ‘abstract system’ to describe the economic and political
structures which constrain people’s daily life, the ‘lifeworld’. His theory of
communicative action seeks to reconstitute the public realm as a means for
redesigning the abstract system to be more sensitive to people’s lifeworlds.
Habermas effects the reconstitution and integration of the ‘abstract system’ and
‘lifeworld’ by expanding the types of reasonings or validity claims that have
purchase on decision making in the public realm. Habermas draws on speech act
theory (Austin 1969, cited in Webler 1995) to demonstrate what communicative
action means and focuses on four types of speech acts. Each speech act makes a
validity claim, i.e. ‘the appeal implicit in a statement that makes the message
meaningful’, which draws attention to a specific ‘world’ (Webler 1995): A 48 communicative speech act makes claims to comprehensibility grounded in the
‘world’ of language. A constantive speech act claims to truth or correctness represented in the objectifiable world of nature or society. A regulative speech act proposes interpersonal relations or norms appealing to the world of culture or society. A representative speech act reveals the speaker’s own subjectivity associated with the world of the speaker’s truthfulness and sincerity.
Building on this approach, Healey argues that there are three modes of reasonings that people often mix together in their lifeworlds: ‘instrumental-technical reasoning’,
‘moral reasoning’ and ‘ emotive-aesthetic reasoning’. The first refers to
communicative and constantive speech acts and emphasises linguistic
comprehensibility and objective truth. The second refers to regulative speech acts
and focuses on values and ethics. The third refers to representative speech acts and
relates to personal emotive experience. In daily lives, people often employ these
different reasonings in conversation. Habermas argues that the appeal to science, to
moral value, and to emotional expression should be given equal voice rather than
privileging one sphere of reasoning, as is the case in traditional, rational planning
approaches dominated by instrumental-technical reasoning. In Habermas’s ‘ideal
speech situation’ in the public realm, planning becomes ‘a process of interactive
collective reasoning, carried out in the medium of language, in discourse’ (Healey
1997: 52).
2.3. Approach of collaborative planning
Accepting the basic premises of Healey’s collaborative approach, two questions arise:
how are collaborative processes to be constructed? and how are the processes and
outcomes to be evaluated? 49
2.3.1. How are collaborative processes to be constructed?
Healey divides collaborative governance (the formal and informal rules and practices that structure society) into ‘soft infrastructure’ and ‘hard infrastructure’ (1997). The former is about the reconstruction of the planning process through which the social, intellectual, and political capital can be built up (Figure 2-1). The later is about the redesign of the formal institutions of government. This is the ‘soft infrastructure’ on which Healey’s collaborative planning focuses most. Social capital (relational resources), intellectual capital (knowledge resources), and political capital
(mobilisation capacity) are terms used by Healey to describe ‘institutional capacity-building’ (1998a) which is a key concept in collaborative planning.
Knowledge resources
Institutional ^ Mobilisation , . . , capacity capacity Institutional capacity
Relational resources
Figure 2-1 The elements of institutional capacity-building (Healey 1998a: 1542)
Healey (1997) argues that collaborative planning, as an approach to spatial strategy-making, does not provide a set of procedures to follow and cannot be captured in an a priori process model. Instead, the process it works with can be aided through questions which help to review the existing ‘soft infrastructure’ and lead to a rethinking of what could happen. Healey (1996, 1997) offers five groups of questions (Table 2-1) for examining and reconstructing a collaborative process. 50
A. Getting started: initiators, stakeholders and arenas
• Questions: Who gets involved? Who are the initiators, stakeholders? Where is the
discussion to take place over time? In what forums and arenas? How are
community members to gain access to it?
• Methodological tasks: Reading the opportunity for strategic review; Setting arenas;
Adopting an inclusionary ethic.
B. Routines and style o f discussion
• Questions: In what stvle does discussion take place? What styles are most likely
able to ‘open out’ discussion to enable the diversity of ‘languages’ among
community members to find expression?
• Methodological tasks: Selecting an inclusionary style; Working with multiple
languages; Calling into presence non-present members.
C. Sorting through the arguments
• Questions: How can the jumble of issues, arguments, claims for attention, and
ideas about what to do which arise in discussion be sorted out?
• Methodological tasks: Acknowledging facts, values, and rights; Grasping different
points of view; Drawing out common treads.
D. Creating a new discourse
• Questions: How can a strategy be created that becomes a new discourse about how
spatial and environmental change could be managed?
• Methodological tasks: Using discourse keys; Exploring different storylines; 51
Checking who belongs in a story; Acknowledging what is ignored in a strategy
and why.
E. Maintaining consensus and critique
• Questions: How can a political community get to agree on a strategy, and maintain
that agreement over time while continually subjecting it to critique?
• Methodological tasks: Developing an explicit approach to conflict resolution at
the start; Building in rights of challenge to the position of the consensus; Adopting
principles for redeeming such challenges; Building in opportunities for regular
reflexive challenge to the consensus.
Table 2-1 also lists the comparison between collaborative process and traditional rational planning procedures. To some extent, the approach of collaborative planning matches the activities of traditional planning process in terms of survey, analysis,
evaluation, choice of strategy, and monitoring, but practices these activities in very
different ways. Healey (1996) puts it as follows:
‘They (collaborative planning processes) are undertaken interactively, often in parallel rather than sequentially; they deal explicitly in the everyday language of practical life, treating technical language as but on among the many languages to be listened to; as a result, the approach extends the reasoning process beyond instrumental rationality, to allow debate in moral and emotive terms. They involve active discursive work by the parties involved, facilitated by planners or other relevant experts, rather than being undertaken by planners themselves.’ (p.230)
2.3.2. How are the processes and outcomes to be evaluated?
The contribution of collaborative planning should be judged by the qualities of
processes and outcomes. Healey (1997) provides three normative criteria for 52 approaching evaluation, including effectiveness and efficiency, generation of institutional capacity, and involvement of all stakeholders. These three criteria also coincide with the benefits of participation listed in Section 1.4.3.
Table 2-1 Comparison between collaborative planning and traditional planning
Questions for framing collaborative process Traditional rational planning procedures Stakeholder and arenas Survey •Who are the initiators, stakeholders? •Review of issues •Where is the discussion to take place over time? In what forums and arenas? How are community members to gain access to it? Routine and style of discussions Analysis •In what style does discussion take place? •Sorting through finding •What styles are most likely able to ‘open ouf discussion to enable the diversity of languages' among community members to find expression? Sorting through the arguments Evaluation •How can the jumble of issues, arguments, claims •Exploring impacts in relation to for attention, and ideas about what to do which values arise in discussion be sorted out? Creating a new discourse Choice of strategy •How can a strategy be created that becomes a •Inventing and developing new new discourse about how spatial and ideas environmental change could be managed? 5. Maintaining consensus and critique Monitoring •How can a political community get to agree on a •Continuous review strategy, and maintain that agreement over time while continually subjecting it to critique? Source: based on Healey (1996, 1997)
The first criteria, effectiveness and efficiency - address the questions of whether ends are effectively met and the means employed are efficient. These are major criteria used to evaluate traditional rational planning approaches. However, collaborative planning approaches place emphasis on how people change their ways of thinking and action. Healey argues that the aims of effectiveness and efficiency 53 need to be balanced to allow the ‘generation of institutional capacity’, the second criterion. Hence, traditional rational planning needs to be transformed from a
‘means-ends’, instrumental approach to an ‘institutional capacity-building’ communicative approach. Institutional capacity comprises three sub-criteria associated with the generation of knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity. Collaborative planning approaches score especially well on these three sub-criteria. The third criterion is the ‘involvement of all stakeholders’, which is based on distributional and ethical principles. Healey argues that without the third criterion, planning efforts will contribute little to addressing local conflicts
in a sustainable way.
Though Healey argues all three criteria need to be brought into play in judging the
quality of collaborative planning process and outcomes, the second and the third
criteria distinguish collaborative planning approaches from traditional, rational
planning approaches. In order to simplify the analytical work, for practical
application in the case study, I incorporate the third criterion ‘involvement of
stakeholders’ into the sub-criteria ‘relational resources’ of institutional
capacity-building (Figure 2-1).
2.3.3. Critiques of collaborative planning
Rydin (1998) criticizes collaborative planning on four grounds. The first relates to
the role of language. Collaborative planning emphasises the importance of language
and the ways communication can affect outcomes. However, Hajer (1995), through
the analysis of environmental politics and the power of discourse, stresses the
difficulties of challenging the interests of powerful groups through language alone. 54
Harrison and Burgess (1994), drawing on group discussion to explore the ways in which different social groups construct the meaning and value of ‘nature’, also emphasise the difficulties of constructing a consensus through discourses alone. This point leads to the second critique about the potential of consensus building out of
conflict. One basic assumption of communicative rationality is that consensus can be reached. This criticism again comes from the view of ‘real world’ and argues that
most forms of consensus are based on a threat of coercive imposition. Tewdwr-Jones
and Allmendinger (1998) for example, argue that mutual tolerance and active trust
are probably more realistic and achievable than consensus building per se. The third
criticism relates to the nature of collective action. Collaborative planning emphasises
the need for inclusion whenever possible, i.e. Healey’s criterion of ‘involvement of
all stakeholders’. However, some individuals or groups may decide not to become
politically active having weighed up the costs and benefits of participation. The need
for procedural safeguards for those who do not choose to participate seems to be
missing in collaborative planning. The fourth critique concerns the role of
professionalism. Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (ibid.) argue about why planners
should act as ‘facilitators’ but not as central, coordinating experts. They argue that
the collaborative planning approach seems to call for a de-professionalisation of
planning in order to facilitate more open discourse in communities. They ask the
question, what if the community reaches an agreement which the professional
considers unsustainable?
It also has to be recognised that Healey’s collaborative planning theory is a
normative planning theory. As Flyvbjerg (1998) puts it, there is always a tension
‘between the normative and the real, between what should be done and what is 55 actually done’ (p.l). Many critiques of collaborative planning, therefore, come from the viewpoint of the ‘real world’. Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger’s (1998) critique basiically comes from this starting point. They ask ‘what actually happens in the world’ - the constraints of Giddens’s ‘structure’, Habermas’s ‘abstract systems’, and
Healey’s ‘hard infrastructure’. But, they do not pay equal attention to the importance of “what should or can be done for a better future’ or to the active role of agency and the role of ‘lifeworld’ and ‘soft infrastructure’. Although Healey’s collaborative planning probably seems, as she puts it, ‘too radical and too idealistic for our present times’ (Healey 1997: 283), it does provide a new way of thinking and acting, and provides an innovative alternative for approaches to spatial and environmental planning.
The underpinning of collaborative planning by Giddens’s theory is important because it ‘gave power back to agency without losing the power dynamics of structure’ (Healey 1997: 120). It is the ‘power relation’ question which is usually criticized for lack of discussion in Healey’s collaborative planning (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger 1998). In theory, Healey follows Giddens’s analysis of structure and agency and uses ‘hard infrastructure’ and ‘soft infrastructure’ to explain her ideas of reconstruction of planning processes and redesign of formal institutions of government. In practice, however, Healey’s collaborative planning clearly focuses most on ‘soft infrastructure’ and the question of how power structures are to be challenged is less well developed.
In planning theory, Healey’s collaborative planning has become influential (Rydin
1998). In practice, however, it seems only a few examples can be found to test the feasibility of collaborative planning. Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998) even 56 argue that there has been no practice implemented within collaborative planning
framework, though some planners are implementing more innovative forms of participation in local planning processes. In a case study of the Brecon Beacons
National Park, Tewdwr-Jones and Thomas (1998) used Healey’s five questions as a
framework to compare practice with the outcome anticipated by collaborative
planning theory. They conclude that, owing to the legal and policy constraints in the
British planning system, the collaborative planning seems to have a long way to go.
The absence of case studies which apply, justify, and evaluate Healey’s collaborative
planning again contributes to a sense that the theory is too idealistic and too difficult
to implement in practice.
2.4. Hypothesis and research questions
Healey’s approach to collaborative planning sees spatial and environmental planning
as a social process which aims to build up collaborative relationships among
stakeholders and to generate collective governance cultures. It is based on the
hypothesis that collaborative governance is more likely to resist economic
exploitation, to moderate environmental degradation, and to build up social capital
than governance dominated by traditional, rational planning approaches (Healey
1998a).
Based on the main hypothesis underpinning Healey’s theory of collaborative
planning, this research seeks to address the following question:
What contribution can a collaborative planning approach make to a
more sustainable solution to the management problems of a protected
area that a traditional, rational planning approach does not offer? 57
2.5. Research design
2.5.1. Choice of case study
Case study research is a research strategy that provides an in-depth account of events, relationships, experiences and processes in a particular instance of a phenomenon. It allows the researcher to use a variety of sources, data, and research methods to explain why certain outcomes might happen, more than just finding out what those outcomes are (Denscombe 1998).
The sielection of the case study on the stakeholder participation in planning and management processes of the newly established Formosan Landlocked Salmon
Wildlife Refuge in Taiwan is justified on three accounts:
• First, the main reason for choosing Wildlife Refuges in Taiwan as the research
subject is because the designation provides greater opportunities for public
participation in their planning and management processes than other statutory
designations of natural areas in Taiwan (see Chapter 1).
• Second, the conservation history of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon has
invoked all three nature conservation laws in Taiwan. Many stakeholders have
been involved, and numerous salmon conservation research and projects have
been carried out. This particular case study therefore has a well documented
record of long-term debates and practical efforts surrounding the goals of
conservation. In particular the case provides a rich context for studying the
process of stakeholder participation in nature conservation in Taiwan.
• Third, in the planning stages of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge from 1994 to 1997,
most key stakeholders were involved and many issues were discussed. Some 58
participatory approaches were employed in the planning process to pursue
conflict-resolution and partnership-building among different stakeholders,
including a general consultation meeting, an on-site stakeholders negotiation
meeting, three Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee meetings, four
Working Panel meetings composed of representatives of different stakeholders
(details in Chapter 4). All of these practices were documented and lessons about
promoting a more participatory approach can, thus, be learnt from a close analysis
of these meetings. In particular it is possible to examine how the claims and
practices of different stakeholders generate a productive debate about the goals of
conservation through a shift towards more collaborative approaches to planning
and managing the natural areas.
2.5.2. Strategies of inquiry and qualitative research methods
This study employs a qualitative research methodology based on the belief that qualitative methods can provide a more in-depth understanding of ‘inner
experiences’, ‘language’, ‘cultural meanings’ or ‘forms of social interaction’ than purely quantitative data can do (Silverman 2000). Table 2-2 lists some of the uses of
four main qualitative methods including observation, textual analysis, interviews,
and transcript analysis of audio or video recording.
Table 2-2 Methods of qualitative research Method Features Uses Observation Extended periods of contact Understanding of another culture Textual analysis Attention to organisation and use Understanding of language and other of such material sign systems Interviews Relatively unstructured and Understanding ‘experience’ ‘open-ended’ Audio and video Precise transcripts of naturally Understanding how interaction is recording occurring interactions organised Source: Based on Silverman (2000, 2001) 59
This research employs a multiple-method approach and a range of different source material to help maximise understandings of the research question (Flowerdew and
Martin 1997). Methods include textual analysis of documents, participant observation, interviews, and transcript analysis of group meetings. Each method provides a particular perspective that illuminates certain aspects of reality (Morse
1994, also Figure 2-2). Each method produces data which have certain strengths and weaknesses in terms of time, resources, or access faced by the researcher. The multiple-method approach also allows findings to be validated or questioned by comparing the data collected by different methods through a process of triangulation
(Denscombe 1998).
Method 1: Method 2: Textual analysis Participant of documents observation
Method 4: Method 3: Transcript analysis Interviews of group meetings
Figure 2-2 Multiple-method approach and triangulation(Based on Denscombe 1998)
2.5.3. Fieldwork procedures
After identifying the key stakeholders and management issues of the Salmon
Wildlife Refuge (WR) through a review and an analysis of associated academic research reports and papers, governmental documents and meeting minutes, and 60 newspapers (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4), the research involved two field phases.
The 40-day first phase of fieldwork (2"^ October 98 - 15^^ November 98, outlined in
Appendix XI) was designed to familiarise myself with the study area, to make contact key persons in different stakeholder groups and to identify the management issues of the newly established Salmon WR. It involved visiting and interviewing key persons in different stakeholder groups, and reconnaissance of study area. This identification of key stakeholders and the analysis of the management issues helped in the design and conduct of my second phase of fieldwork. The five-month second stage of fieldwork took place in the study area from 22"^ April - 11* August 1999
(outlined in Appendix XII). Healey’s questions and criteria used to characterise a collaborative planning approach provided the framework for an in-depth exploration of existing soft and hard infrastructures of the Salmon WR. Fieldwork methods included participant observation of local activities, interviews with key persons in different stakeholder groups, and two group meetings with members of the local community, the park authorities and tourists. Details of processes of the first and
second stages of fieldwork are included in Chapters 5 and 6.
2.5.4. Analytical framework
The analytical framework for the empirical study is designed in the light of Healey’s
collaborative planning approach. I employ Healey’s three criteria for evaluating the
‘institutional capacity’ of planning system and practice, i.e. the generation of knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity, and her five
questions for examining a collaborative process to:
• First, review the history of public discourses on the Salmon conservation in
Taiwan from 1917-1995, based on textual analysis of academic research reports 61 and papers, governmental documents and meeting minutes, and newspapers. This review provides a general background and understanding of the scientific problems associated with the Salmon conservation, as well as the characters of traditional, rational planning approaches dominated by official and expert communities (Chapter 3).
Second, I explore the nature and characters of stakeholder participation in the planning stage of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge from 1995-1997, based on transcript analysis of the taped recordings of the first official planning meeting, and textual analysis of the subsequent 10 official planning meeting minutes.
Among these 11 official meetings, some participatory methods were adopted to
involve a wider range of stakeholders. Lessons learnt from the success and failures
of this period reflect the limitations of the traditional, rational planning approaches
(Chapter 4).
Third, I explore the management problems of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge from
1997 to the present from the perspectives of local farmers and tourists, who had
always been absent in the traditional planning processes. Analysis is based on
transcript analysis of two group discussions, and interviews, and participant
observations conducted in the field in 1998-99. The overall purpose of these
sources is to provide insights about how the local context impacts on the
management problems of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge, and about what
contribution a collaborative planning approach can make to a better understanding
of and more sustainable solutions to these problems than traditional ‘top-dovm’
planning approaches (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6).
Fourth, I conduct an overall evaluation of the findings of this empirical study as a 62
means of addressing the primary research question posed, namely: What
contribution can a collaborative planning approach make to a more sustainable
solution to the management problems of a protected area that a traditional, rational
planning approach does not offer? Three topics are employed in this evaluation,
namely: the effectiveness of the processes and outcomes of planning and
management of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge; the opportunities and challenges for
applying collaborative planning approach to the protected area management in
Taiwanese context; and an overall evaluation of collaborative planning approach
as the basis for providing an effective participatory approach to environmental
decision-making (Chapter 7).
2.5.5. Data interpretation
The method of transcript analysis of taped group meetings and interviews is based on
Huberman and Miles’ (1994) interactive model that comprises three subprocesses: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (Figure 2-3). First, with data reduction, the transcript is reduced in the light of Healey’s conceptual framework of the ‘institutional capacity’ that consists of three dimensions i.e. knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity (Figure 2-1).
The process of reduction includes data summaries, coding, emergent themes and clustering of key issues. Second, the reduced set of data helps to construct an analytical diagram of the discussions. Third, conclusion drawing and verification involves interpretation and drawing meanings from the displayed data. Methods used include comparison/contrast, noting of themes, and triangulation. 63
Data collection
Data Display
Data reduction
Conclusions: drawing/verifying
Figure 2-3 Data interpretation (Huberman and Miles 1994:429) 64
Chapter 3 A Historical Review of the Conservation of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon (1917-1995)
3.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to review the history of the public discourses on the Salmon conservation in Taiwan. There are four reasons for undertaking this review. The first three are associated with Healey’s dimension of ‘knowledge resources’, which are about what stakeholders thought the problems were and their possible solution. The fourth refers to Healey’s dimensions of ‘relational resources’ and ‘mobilisation capacity’, which focuses on how stakeholders built up working networks and employed political resources to achieve their goals. These four reasons are:
• The meanings and values attached to the Salmon (What is the Salmon?) are
continuously constructed and reconstructed by people who dominate the public
discourses at different periods in time. A historical review helps to show how the
meanings attributed to the Salmon change over time.
• The scientific rationale for conserving the Salmon is also based on a range of
meanings and arguments. Through these reasons, the case for conserving the
Salmon gains legitimacy (Why conservation?). A historical review examines
what scientific claims came to dominate the debate at different stages.
• Since its discovery in 1917, the Salmon’s low and declining population and its
restricted habitat range have always been a focus of concern. Effective strategies
for conserving the Salmon (How to conserve?) depend on a comprehensive
understanding of those restrictive or negative factors thought to contribute to the
Salmon’s distribution and population decline. A historical review explores what 65
claims were made about the relative importance of different factors and how far
the scientific community agreed about them.
• Any effective scheme designed to conserve the Salmon should also depend on
good collaborative governance among responsible stakeholders, as well as
appropriate institutional arrangements to put those works into practice. This
historical review provides an analysis of the social relationships among those
stakeholders and the political instruments they employed to deal with the issues
of Salmon conservation.
Taken together these issues form the wider context within which many official meetings for planning of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge on the next stage (Chapter 4) took place between the first planning meeting on 2"^ March 1995 and Oct 1997 when the Salmon WR was finally designated.
3.2. Analytical framework
3.2.1. Three dimensions of the institutional capacity’ and key themes
The analytical framework for this historical review is based on Healey’s approach of
collaborative planning. The approach seeks to examine the ‘institutional capacity’ of planning systems and practices from three aspects, i.e. knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity (Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2). Using
Healey’s approach and the qualitative data interpretation method (Figure 2-3 in
Chapter 2), six themes are revealed from textual analysis of the archival resources.
These are as follows (Figure 3-1): 6 6
Population of Meanings and the Salmon and Conservation values of the its negative strategy Salmon factors
Knowledge
Current planning svstems and practices: Outcomes and arenas and M obilisation evaluation institutional . arrangements
R e la tio n
Composition W orking relationships stakeholders
Figure 3-1 Analytical diagram for historical review of the Salmon conservation
A. Dimension of knowledge resources
• Meanings and values of the Salmon
• Population of the Salmon and its control factors
• Conservation strategy
B. Dimension o f relational resources
• Composition of stakeholders
• Working relationships
C. Dimension of mobilisation capacity
Arenas and institutional arrangements 67
3.2.2. Six stages of the Salmon conservation
It is helpful to identify several phases in order to analyse the history and discourses of the Salmon conservation. Lin (1988) and Lin and Chang (1989) briefly reviewed the Salmon conservation history and identified two phases of activity between 1945 and 1989: a ‘destruction phase’ after World War 11 and a ‘conservation phase’ after
1974 when the government (the Forestry Bureau) started working on the Salmon conservation. Wang (1994a) in a more detailed study of conservation practices from
1938-1994 identified five periods, including ‘protection in Japanese occupied period
(1938-1945)’, ‘neglect period after WWll (1946-1975)’, ‘species protection period
(1976-1985)’, ‘artificial propagation and population conservation period
(1986-1992)’, and ‘habitat management and environmental education period (1992 onwards). In the light of these earlier studies, this study places more emphasis on the changes in the stakeholders who were involved in Salmon conservation (the responsible institutions and others). It identifies six stages in the history of Salmon conservation as follows (Figure 3-2):
• Stage 1 (1917-1945): the ‘initial’ period of the Salmon research and conservation
by Japanese scientists and colonial government.
• Stage 11 (1945-1984): the ‘neglect and restart’ period when the Salmon was
basically neglected by most scientists, the government, and the public until the
mid 1970s, and when its population also appeared to decline sharply.
• Stage 111 (1984-1992): the ‘protection by the Council of Agriculture’ period
when Salmon was revalued as a ‘Rare and Precious Species’ under the protection
of Culture Heritage Preservation Law enforced by the Council of Agriculture and
others. 6 8
• Stage IV (1992-1995): the ‘protection by the Shei-Pa National Park’ period when
the habitat of the Salmon was incorporated into a newly established Shei-Pa
National Park under the National Park Law enforced by the Park and others.
• Stage V (1995-1997): the ‘planning for Wildlife Refuge’ period when the habitat
of the Salmon was planned as a Wildlife Refuge under the Wildlife Conservation
Law led by GOA and others.
• Stage VI (1997-present): the ‘management of Wildlife Refuge’ period when the
habitat of the Salmon was formally designated as a WR under the Wildlife
Conservation Law and managed by the Taichung County Government and
others.
This chapter reviews the first four stages (1917-1995), while the last two stages
(1995 onwards) will be discussed in the following chapters 4 to 6.
3.2.3. Data sources
Sources of literature and documents used in this review come from associated academic research reports and papers, governmental documents and meeting minutes
(in Reference, Appendix V and Vlll), and newspapers^ (see Appendix 111).
^ In total 311 news from 19 Taiwanese newspapers, spanning from July 1991 to Mareh 1999, were eolleeted from the Shei-Pa National Park Headquarters and the Wuling Farm Office. 1945 1974 1989
Lin (1988); Destruction Conservation — Lin and Chang(1989)
1938 1945 1986 1992
Wang (1994) Neglect
Protection Species protection Artificial propagation and population S conservation Habitat management and environmental education
1997 1917 1945 1984 1992 1995 2000
IIIIV VI T his study I: initiation II: Neglect and restart
Protection by the Council of Agriculture - Protection by the Shei-Pa National Park Planning for Wildlife Refuge — Management of Wildlife Refuge Figure 3-2 Stages of the Salmon conservation history 70
3.3. Stage I (1917-1945): Initiation
The first stage starts in 1917 when the Salmon was first discovered in Taiwan in the
Japanese colonial period and ends in 1945, the end of World War II.
3.3.1. Knowledge resources
3.3.1.1. Meanings and values of the Salmon
Initially the Salmon had economic and cultural importance to the indigenous people.
It was fished for food by indigenous people for more than four thousand years (Liu
1997 and 1998). They also believed that the Salmon had some communication with
their ancestors (Koshigi and Nakamura 1938, Liu 1997 and 1998).
The Salmon was given scientific importance with its discovery in 1917. Its presence
in a subtropical area like Taiwan attracted the attention of zoologists and geographers,
both in Japan and abroad. It was seen as an unusual ‘glacial relief and its
distribution in Taiwan marked the second southernmost limit of the trout family in
the world. In 1938, it was designated by the government as a ‘Nature Monument’ of
Taiwan (Jordan and Oshima 1919, Koshigi and Nakamura 1938, Kano 1940).
3.3.1.2. Salmon population and key factors limiting its distribution and performance
From the beginning, the distribution of the Salmon in Taiwan was restricted to the
upper Tachia River Basin and there was a declining population trend. The population
of the Salmon was recorded mainly qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Kano
(1940) described the Salmon as ‘fairly common throughout the area’ in the six
reaches of the upper Tachia River Basin, including the Chichiawan, the Hsuehshan,
the Sukaran, the Yousheng, the Nanhu, and the Hohuan streams (Figure 3-3). 71
Koshigi and Nakamura (1938) reported in more detail that the population of the
Salmon was found to be still large in the Chichiawan and the Hsuehshan streams, but became less abundant in the Hohuan and the Yousheng streams, and its presence was uncertain in the Nanhu stream.
Kano (1940) explored the reason why the distribution of the Salmon was restricted to the upper Tachia River Basin and concluded that it was because the natural environment of the area was unique. After investigating 12 sections of the Tachia
River and comparing its longitudinal sections with other streams at altitudes above
1500m in Taiwan, he found that the upper Tachia River Basin had a longer and more
gentle river course, colder water temperatures (10.5-15.5°C) in the spawning season
of the Salmon), and richer aquatic insects than other rivers.
In their 1938 study, Koshigi and Nakamura had observed that the Salmon population
was declining and cautioned that the overfishing activity by the indigenous people of
the area could lead to the Salmon becoming extinct. Details of their observations of
that overfishing activity however were not documented.
3.3.1.3. Salmon conservation strategy
In the official report of the Nature Monument (5) in 1938, Koshigi and Nakamura
(1938) put forward several conservation strategies, including the prohibition of
introducing alien fish and spawn, restrictions on fishing during the spawning season
in the Chichiawan stream, and prohibition of deforestation and landform change
within a 300m zone on either side of the Chichiawan stream. Details of reasons on
which these recommendations were based were not documented. 3325
37113
2717 0 3 km ____ I Chichi(m’an. Scale Sheishan Yousheng* I 3740 Strea/iT *Ss(/\ / Stream
TAIWAN Wuling Farm
Huanshan^ ® Nanhu Stream ..4
'-j Legend K)
Case Study Area Lishi Hohuan Tachia Upper Stream *-* River Basin
Fushoushan Farm ▲ 3370 Peak and Height (m)
** Stream 3342 «ntniiiiuil^ Reservoir
Central Cross- island Highway
O Village
/ Check Dam (Tsao 1995)
Figure 3-3 Map of the case-study area and the upper Tachia River Basin 73
3.3.2. Relational resources
3.3.2.1. Composition of stakeholders
The upper Tachia River Basin was set up as a Special Aborigine District for governing indigenous people by the Japanese government at this stage, with entrances to the District strictly controlled by the Japanese police. During this period, there were about 400 indigenous people living in the area (Pan 1998). A few scientists also began to visit the area as part of their research after the discovery of the Salmon in 1917.
3.3.2.2. Working relationships
At this stage, involvement of different stakeholders in Salmon conservation was restricted to some scientists and government institutions. Indigenous people and their fishing activity were regarded as negative factors that could damage the population of the Salmon. During the 1920s and 30s, the Japanese government, collaborating with a few Japanese scientists, promoted a survey of National Monuments in Taiwan as part of a wider project designed to carry out an inventory of nature resources
(Huang H.W. 1998). Scientists like Koshigi and Nakamura put the Salmon on the list and suggested some strategies for protecting the Salmon’s habitat and maintaining its population.
3.3.3. Mobilisation capacity
Scientists and Japanese government officials played a dominant role in advancing their claims about Salmon conservation. However, lack of records means that it is difficult to determine what institutional arrangements they employed to undertake 74 practical conservation work.
3.3.4. Outcomes
The precise outcome of the practical conservation work was not clear. Though some basic research was carried out, no detailed population records were made of the
Salmon. Although, Wang (1994a) titled the period 1938-1945 as a ‘protection period’ because the Salmon was designated a National Monument and some conservation strategies were developed in the late 1930s. The precise outcome, if any, was not documented. It is questionable whether any conservation strategies had been put into practice during a period when Japan, the colonial government of Taiwan, started a full-scale war with China in 1937 and was engaged in the Pacific War in
1941.
3.4. Stage II (1945-1983): Neglect and restart
The second stage starts in 1945 when Taiwan was returned back to the Chinese government at the end of World War II. It ends before the former Prime Minister, Mr.
Lien, approved the Salmon as a ‘first priority’ protected species in Taiwan in Jan
1984.
3.4.1. Knowledge resources
3.4.1.1. Meanings and values of the Salmon
During this period, the scientific importance of the Salmon was generally ignored by the government and scientists (Wu 1989, Huang H.W. 1998). The Salmon returned to being an ‘ordinary fish’ without any legal protection. Like many other counties after 75
World War II, the Taiwanese government devoted their main efforts to pursuing national economic development rather than to environmental protection. Lin (2000) reviewed this stage and concluded that the research on the Salmon by scientists almost stopped and there were only three research papers published during this
40-year period (including Teng 1959, Behnke et al. 1962, and Cheng and Yu 1976).
In the mid 1970s, Cheng and Yu’s (ibid.) research refocused on the conservation of the Salmon and revaluated it as a species of scientific importance. They justified the
Salmon’s scientific status in terms of:
• The distribution of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon in Taiwan as being the
second southernmost limit of all salmon and trout in the world. It can only be
found in the high mountain areas of the upper Tachia River Basin of Taiwan. Its
presence suggests that Taiwan once experienced a cold and glacial period since
all salmon were cold-water fishes. As a ‘glacial relic’ the species was important
for studies in biology, paleogeography, paleobiology, paleoclimatology, and
geology.
• The landlocked Salmon can only be found in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the
northeast of Mainland China. Its presence may provide proof of Taiwan’s earlier
connection with Mainland China, Japan, and Korea in the past geological time- a
theory that had been advanced by Kano (1940).
Behind this latter proposition is the political significance of the Salmon as providing proof of support for geographical connection with Mainland China and hence of
Taiwan’s national identity as a Republic of China (ROC). At this stage the 76
Nationalist Chinese government in Taiwan still claimed that Mainland China was
inside the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Hence this time, political
reasons could help scientists to acquire support and legitimacy from the government
for Salmon conservation work.
3.4.1.2. Salmon population and key factors limiting its distribution and performance
Cheng and Yu (1976) conducted a two-year survey on the area of the upper Tachia
River Basin commissioned by the Forestry Bureau and found the Salmon still
surviving in the Chichiawan stream. However, no detailed population figures were
recorded in their report. Some later research showed that from 1959 to 1975 the
distribution in an area in which the Salmon occurred previously had shrunk by more
than 90% and the Salmon had become restricted to the Chichiawan stream (Lin et al.
1987, Day 1992, Tsao 1995). The decrease in the Salmon’s habitat and population
was thought to be due to over-fishing and over-development of the upper Tachia
River Basin.
• Over-fishing
Cheng and Yu’s report made the only observational records of the decline in the
Salmon population during this stage. They concluded that the direct and most
damaging impact was from over-fishing, especially the use of poison. They thought
that the exploitation of the hillsides of the upper Tachia River Basin since the late
1950s was of only secondary importance. Cheng and Yu (1976: 2-4) said:
“In 1951, I (Cheng) started the journey of survey from Taroko of the Hualien
County, passing through the Central Range, and then arrived to the Kya-wang
(Chichiawan) stream watershed, i.e. today’s Wuling Farm. The stream water
was very clean. I could see lots of fish everywhere. Catching a Salmon was easy
because at that time only few people lived or visited there and trees were 77
flourishing along both sides of the stream. The natural environment was not yet
destroyed then. However, since the introduction of illegal fishing techniques,
such as the use of poison, dynamite, and electricity to the area, as well as
indigenous people’ overfishing, the population of the Salmon has declined and
almost disappeared... In 1973,1...once saw lots of fish killed by poison, floating
downstream. Almost no fish in the stream could escape from this
disaster...Based on my observation, the exploitation and cultivation on hillsides
near Lishan"^ could make a negative impact, but not a direct one however.”
• Over-development
It is widely believed that the development in the upper Tachia River Basin in 1960s and 70s has serious negative impacts on the habitat and the population of the Salmon.
At stage I, the isolation and difficulty of reaching the area by road seemed to protect the area from serious exploitation. After WWII, the Nationalist Chinese government in Taiwan promoted economic development and started a series of development projects in the upper Tachia River Basin, including the construction of the Central
Cross-island Highway, land settlement and agricultural exploitation, and the construction of Techi Reservoir and check dams (Plate 3-1). Williams et aVs (1983) research provides a general review of these impacts on the natural environment in the upper Tachia River Basin.
First, the 194 km Central Cross-Island Highway was constructed between 1956 and completed in 1960 led to land settlement and agricultural exploitation along the highway corridors. This road connected Taichung County in the west and Hualien
County in the east. Besides. A 112 km branch was built up in 1956 from Lishan to the northeast llan County (Figure 3-3). As a result, the introduction of this modem transportation to the area with such advantageous location and attractive resources,
The biggest town in the upper Tachia River Basin, see Figure 3-3 78 including timber from the forest, hydroelectric power potential of the Tachia River, a local climate suitable for growing temperate fruits and vegetables, and the spectacular scenery for the development of tourism, led to both planned and spontaneous settlement and development of the area by migrants.
Second, the two planned settlement schemes by the Veteran Affairs Commission
(VAC) in the area drew large numbers of lowland farmers and spontaneous
settlement without strong controls over the use of land into the area. VAC set up the
Fushoushan Farm near Lishan in 1957 and the Wuling Farm in the Chichiawan watershed in 1963 (Figure 3-3, Plate 3-2). Both were about 500 hectares with more than 350 farm households. The farmers were retired servicemen and most of them
came to Taiwan with the Nationalist Chinese government after 1949 (Bullard 1997).
The Farms were run in a cooperative system. They were initially planned as a means
of providing livelihoods for some veterans as well as providing ‘demonstrations’ of
how hillsides could be developed for agricultural production in high mountain areas.
High profit gained from the growing of temperate fruits and vegetables attracted
many lowland farmers into the area and caused both the population and the settled
and farmed area to expand sharply. Before 1945 the total population in the upper
Tachia River Basin was about 500. It rose up to 6,184 in 1969, 49,246 in 1974, and
about 55,000 by 1980. In total about 10% of the area was deforested and used for
agriculture, roads, and building sites. As a result, the intense exploitation and
cultivation on many steep hillsides in the area led to serious accelerated erosion.
Third, this problem of soil erosion from hillsides did not attract public attention until
1973 when the Techi Reservoir was completed and suffered siltation problems
(Figure 3-3) though Tandon (1963) had already cautioned that the settlement of 79
farmers along the highways would cause erosion and siltation from hillsides. In order to moderate the siltation problem of Techi Reservoir, 69 check dams were built on the tributaries of the upper Tachia River Basin before 1983 (Chan and Chang 1988,
1989), including 9 in the Chichiawan stream, 4 in the Hsuehshan stream, 5 in the
Nanhu stream, 1 in the Hohuan stream. Since the 1980s, it has been widely believed
that check dams have had a serious negative impact on the Salmon’s population and
distribution. Impacts from the construction of check dams will be reviewed in the
following stages in more detail.
3.4.1.3. Salmon conservation strategy
Based on Cheng and Yu’s (1976) study, recovery of the Salmon’s population was
thought to be the first priority since the population had become very small. The
Forestry Bureau collaborating with Cheng and Yu proposed a hatchery project for the
Salmon to increase its population. By the end of this stage the hatchery had been
built on one of the reaches of the Chichiawan stream.
3.4.2. Relational resources
3.4.2.1. Composition of stakeholders
The settlement and development of the upper Tachia River Basin changed the
number and composition of stakeholders in the area. The 500 local residents of
indigenous people at stage I had now increased to 55,000 by the end of this stage that
comprised indigenous people, veteran farmers of the Fushoushan Farm and the
Wuling Farm, lowland farmers, tourists, and a few scientists.
Most lands in the upper Tachia River Basin were public lands owned by three 80 government institutions. The Forestry Bureau was the major local Tandowner’ and managerial authority of the National Forest, accounting for 93% of the area. The
Provincial Department of Civil Affairs was the managerial authority of the
Aboriginal Reserved Lands, covering 4% of the area. The remaining 3% of the area belonged to the above 2 Veteran Farms (Williams et al 1983)
3.4.2.2. Working relationships
At this stage, the two main stakeholders involved with the Salmon conservation were a few scientists and the Forestry Bureau. The settlement and development of the indigenous people, veteran farmers, lowland farmers, and tourists was regarded as a negative factor of human interference that had seriously damaged the population of the Salmon.
3.4.3. Mobilisation capacity
Arenas for discussing the Salmon conservation at this time were limited and confined to the Forestry Bureau and scientists like Cheng and Yu. Details were unclear due to lack of records. The only legal instrument that the Forestry Bureau could employ to manage the area was the Forestry Law. However, no regulations under the Forestry Law provided protection for the endangered species and their habitat.
3.4.4. Outcomes
The precise outcome of the practical conservation work was quite limited. The hatchery built as a means of assisting the recovery of the Salmon’s population did not work and was abandoned soon after its construction. Nevertheless, the effort 81 made by the Forestry Bureau and scientists in the late 1970s had made a pioneering
‘restart’ that finally attracted the attention of other scientists and the central government in the early 1980s (COA 1987).
3.5. Stage III (1984-1992): Protection by the Council of Agriculture
The third stage starts in 1984 when the former Prime Minister Mr. Lien approved the
Salmon as a ‘first priority’ protected species of Taiwan and the Council of
Agriculture (COA) designated it as a ‘Precious and Rare species’ under the Cultural
Heritage Preservation (CHP) Law. It ends when the Salmon’s habitat was incorporated into the newly established Shei-Pa National Park in July 1992.
3.5.1. Knowledge resources
3.5.1.1. Meanings and values of the Salmon
At the beginning of this stage, the discourse of the Salmon conservation was moved from the local level to a national level. Its scientific and political importance was reinforced by Ministerial guidance approved by the Prime Minister in 1984 (Office of Ministers without Portfolio 1984, Ministry of Interior 1984). In the guidance, the
Salmon was declared the ‘first priority’ protected species in Taiwan. The meanings and values of the Salmon listed in the guidance were almost the same as those advanced by Cheng and Yu (1976).
The Ministerial guidance was mainly prepared and formulated by scientists and senior officials in the Ministry of Interior. Their proposal to recognise the Salmon on a national scale of conservation importance was based on the conclusions of a 82 meeting on 17-18^^ Dec 1983, when the Ministry of Interior invited a Minister
Without Portfolio, Mr. Chang, some scientists and numbers of other associated institutions to visit the Chichiawan stream and to discuss issues concerning Salmon conservation.
In the middle of this stage, the meanings and values of the Salmon were construed in more detail by the Council of Agriculture (COA), who was assigned by the above
Ministerial guidance as the key responsible authority for the Salmon conservation at this stage. Conservation of the Salmon became a ‘job’ and ‘duty’ of the COA.
Generally, scientists shared with COA similar ideas about the meanings and values of the Salmon (COA 1987, Lin and Chang 1991). This was because they were involved closely with COA in the strategy-making process for Salmon conservation.
However, scientists and COA placed different emphases on the importance of the
Salmon. COA put emphasis on the Salmon’s ‘political’ importance, such as underlining the Salmon as a proof to show Taiwan’s connection with the Mainland
China, and promoting Taiwan’s international image through devoting to the Salmon
conservation. COA also valued the traditional economic and cultural importance of
the Salmon to the Taiyal indigenous people. On the other hand, scientists stressed the
scientific importance of the Salmon as the subject of research. They seemed to
overlook the political importance of the Salmon as a symbol of national identity and
the economic and cultural importance of the Salmon for indigenous people.
The Ministerial guidance also assigned the Wuling Farm to engage in habitat
protection of the Salmon. Conserving Salmon therefore also became a ‘job’ and
‘duty’ for the Wuling Farm from 1984-1993, before the establishment of the Shei-Pa
National Park. During this period, with financial support from COA, the Farm and 83 veteran farmers worked on patrol projects on the Chichiawan stream to prevent illegal fishing and entrance into the area.
During this period, the Salmon also became part of the ‘scenery’ for tourists who visited the area and hence a source of ‘income’ for the Farm, the Forestry Bureau, and the veteran farmers. From the early 1980s, the Farm and the Forestry Bureau
started promoting tourism and more than 100,000 tourists came to visit the area each year (Wuling Farm 1995). They advertised the Salmon, temperate fruits and vegetables, and the mountain and countryside landscape to attract tourists to visit the
area. Tourists paid an entrance fee and for accommodation, food, and provided other
income for the Farm and local people through the purchase of souvenirs.
Most of the general public got to know the Salmon through the mass media. On TV
and in national newspapers, the Salmon was generally referred to as ‘National
Treasured Fish ( # ÿ in order to demonstrate its symbolic role defining Taiwan’s
identity. The way the media construed the Salmon basically followed the claims
made by scientists and COA.
3.5.1.2. Salmon population and key factors limiting its distribution and performance
During the period (1984-1992), the population of the Salmon was thought to be in
decline and its distribution was still restricted to the Chichiawan stream (Table 3-1,
Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5). Day (1992) and Day et al. (1993) analysed the temporal
change of the population during Sept 1987 to Jan 1991 and found that the declining
trend was mainly due to the decrease of young salmon. Tsao’s (1995) study of the
population change from 1987 to 1994 also shows a declining trend of 15% per year
due to decreasing numbers of young fish. On the other hand, the adult population 84 remained quite constant (Lin et al. 1990a, 1990b). In general, the total population in summer (July to Sep) was greater than in winter (Jan to Feb).
Table 3-1 Salmon population from 1984 to 1992
Salmon population Time of Survey Area of Survey Source of Reference 200+ 1984 Figure 3-5 COA (1988) 646 June-Sept 1986 Figure 3-5 Lin et al. (1988) 1798 Sept 1987 Figure 3-5 Lin et al. (1990a, 1990b) 1163 Feb 1988 Figure 3-5 Lin et al. (1990a, 1990b) 1057 July 1988 Figure 3-5 Lin et al. (1990a, 1990b) 648 Jan 1989 Figure 3-5 Linet al. (1990a, 1990b) 1136 Summer 1989 Figure 3-5 Tsao (1995) 606 Winter 1989 Figure 3-5 Tsao (1995) 941 Summer 1990 Figure 3-5 Tsao (1995) 679 Winter 1990 Figure 3-5 Tsao (1995) 679 Summer 1991 Figure 3-5 Tsao (1995) 616 Winter 1991 Figure 3-5 Tsao (1995)
Note: 1. Summer = June to Aug; Winter = Dec to Feb, e.g. winter 1989 = Dec 1989 to Feb 1990 2. The first two counts, 200 in 1984 and 646 in 1986, were not referred to in later literature.
2000 1798
1500 1163 1136 1057 !/3 941 ® 1000 679 679 648 (646) 606 500
(200+)
84 S-86 S-87 W-88 S-88 W-89 S-89 W-90 S-90 W-91 S-91 W-92 Time (S: summer (Jun to Aug); W: winter (Dec to Feb)) Figure 3-4 Population change of the Salmon from Sum 1986 to Win 1992 (Based on Table 3-1)
During this period, explanations for the decline in Salmon was dominated by the
ideas offered by scientists and government officials and causes of the Salmon’s
decline was discussed more often. Table 3-2 lists some key explanations worked on by the Ministerial guidance, the COA, scientists, and the mass media. 85
Old Hatchery (abandoned)
1 / Wuling bridge
Chichiawan Stream Current Hatcher/ (built in 1987)
Hsuehshan Stream Proposed New Hatchery Site
Yousheng Ymg-pm bridge Stream
1 km 2 km _J_ Tachia Scale River
Legend Jun-Sep 86 Survey Area Oct 95, May 96 Survey (Lin et a] 1988) Extension (Tzeng 1996) Case Study Area 87-94 Survey Extension Oct 96, Jul 97 Survey Extension (Tzeng 1997) Stream (Lin et ai 1990a &b, Tsao 1995) May 94 Survey Extension Oct 97, Jun 98, Oct 98, Jun 99 Survey Extension Check Dam (Tzeng 1994) (Tzeng 1998, 1999) Oct 94, Apr 95 Survey / N Artificial Hatchery Extension (Tzeng 1995) Centre
Figure 3-5 Salmon survey area and check dams distribution in the Chichiawan stream 8 6
Table 3-2 Discourses on why Salmon became endangered at stage III
Time Who Negative factors Sources
1984 Ministerial Over and illegal fishing; Check dams Ministry o f Interior (1984) guidance and Office of Ministers without Portfolio (1984)
1987 COA Rising water temperature; Forest clearance; Over COA (1987) and illegal fishing; Agricultural chemicals; Food decrease; Check dams
1988 Scientists Rising water temperature; Forest clearance; Lin et al (1988) Agriculture; Check dams; Typhoon, floods, sedimentation
1990 Scientists ‘A combination of factors’ of: Over-exploitation; Lin et al (1990a, 1990b) Check dams; Nature catastrophes (typhoons, floods, landslides); Agricultural impacts
1992 Scientists Both the natural catastrophes (typhoons and Day (1992) and Day et al floods) and human disturbances (check dams and (1993) agricultural practices)
1991 The media Agricultural practices; Illegal fishing; Hillside Newspapers (Appendix III) -1992 exploitation and soil erosion; Overfishing; Typhoons; Check dams
The government and scientists basically shared the same explanations for the declining population of the Salmon. The Ministerial guidance in 1984 adopted
Cheng and Yu’s (1976) explanation of the negative factors as over/illegal fishing and the construction of check dams. COA (1987) shared similar opinions with academic
Lin et aVs (1988) and ascribed the negative factors to the agricultural activity
(causing the clearance of original forest cover, the rise of water temperature, and the decrease of food), the over/illegal fishing (by the use of poison, electricity and dynamite), the construction of check dams (causing the isolation of habitats), and the typhoons and floods (causing the sedimentation of deep pools and the killing of the
Salmon). From 1990, scientists adopted a more holistic viewpoint and attributed the negative impacts to ‘a combination of factors’ of natural catastrophes and human disturbances (Lin et al. 1990a and 1990b, Day 1992, Day et al 1993). The former 87 mainly included typhoons and floods and the latter mainly included the construction of check dams and agricultural activity.
The media, as shown in the newspapers in 1991 to 1992, basically reflected explanations given by scientists or COA to explain the specific events. Negative factors reported in the media included agricultural activity, illegal fishing, hillside exploitation and soil erosion, overfishing, typhoons, and check dams.
3.5.1.3. Salmon conservation strategy
At this stage, strategic thinking about how best to conserve the Salmon conservation was based on scientific knowledge and a ‘top-down’, ‘hierarchical’ institutional arrangement under the instructions of the Ministerial guidance in 1984. Three main strategies were outlined in the Ministerial guidance:
• To legitimise the Salmon as a protected species on a legal basis (under the CHP
Law)
• To legitimise the Salmon’s habitat as a PA on a legal basis (under the CHP Law)
• To assign the Salmon conservation work to responsible government institutions in
the central, provincial, and local levels to work on habitat protection, prohibition
of illegal fishing and use of poison to kill the fish, and research and recovery
projects.
3.5.2. Relational resources
3.5.2.1. Stakeholders
The Ministerial guidance had an important influence on the composition of stakeholders who were enlisted to help put in place these conservation strategies. At this stage, stakeholders comprised scientists and government institutions from national to local levels. For example:
• The national level: the Council of Agriculture, the Council of Cultural Affairs, the
Ministry of Interior, the Veteran Affairs Commission, and the Department of
Health
• The provincial level: the Forestry Bureau and the Fishery Research Institute
• The local level: the Wuling Farm, the Taichung County Government, and the
Hopin Rural Township
• Scientists: mainly from the Academia Sinica and the National Taiwan University
Two stakeholder groups, farmers and tourists, were absent. Local veteran farmers, initially about 72 households, lived in four villages in the Wuling area. They were retired soldiers and worked on agricultural production collectively. The farmland they worked belonged to the Farm, though the income and produce from agricultural production belonged to them. During this period, they were basically regarded as a
‘part’ of the Wuling Farm. The Farm officials were their ‘taken for granted’ representatives.
During this period, about 140,000 tourists visited the Wuling area each year (Wuling
Farm 1995). From 1979 the Farm started introducing tourist facilities as a means of
supplementing their income. The Farm realised they could no longer just rely on the production of temperate fruits since the free market policy on import of (US) apples in 1979 sharply reduced the competitive advantage of domestic apples (Chang 1992). 89
To address the changed economic circumstances, the Farm developed an Integrated
Plan for Recreational Development in 1988 as their blueprint for future development
(Wuling Farm 1988a).
3.5.2.2. Working relationships
The range of stakeholders involved in Salmon conservation increased during this period. New social networks of partnership needed to be built up among stakeholders in order to put the Prime Minister’s directives on Salmon conservation into practice.
At this stage COA played an important role as a coordinator and brought different stakeholders together to work on Salmon conservation.
The activities of COA and others were based on ‘top-down’, ‘hierarchical’ relationship of social networks. Three social networks during this period can be revealed, namely, the working relationships between COA and other government institutions, the working relationship between COA and scientists, as well as the working relationship among COA, the Farm and farmers.
A. COA as the coordinator
In early 1985, COA established a Standing Advisory Committee and a Technical
Advisory Committee for dealing with issues about the Natural and Cultural
Landscape Preservation under the CHP Law (COA 1987). Since then, COA became the key convenor. The two Advisory Committees became the key public arenas in which strategic and procedural projects were designed to conserve the Salmon.
B. Working relationship between COA and other government institutions 90
COA worked with other government institutions mainly through the arena of the
Standing Advisory (SA) Committee composed of seven central government institutions. Members of the SA Committee included high-level officials from the
Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Department of Health, the
Council for Economic Planning and Development, and the Council of Cultural
Affairs. They were convened by COA’s Deputy Director (the chair) and met together every three months. The Department of Forestry and the Division of Nature
Resources Conservation of COA served as the secretarial staff of the Committee.
C. Working relationship between COA and scientists
COA worked with scientists mainly in the arena of the Technical Advisory (TA)
Committee comprising about ten experts with backgrounds in botany, zoology, geography, landscape design, ecology, and environmental economics. Members of the TA Committee were convened by the director of the COA’s Forestry Department
(the chair) and met together on a case-by-case basis. The Nature Resources
Conservation Division of COA served as the secretary of the Committee. It was more often the case that they joined the SA Committee in the Joint Committee meetings every three months. COA also funded the TA members and other scientists in annual research projects on the Salmon conservation.
D. Working relationship among COA, the Farm and farmers
During this period, COA worked with the Farm and local farmers on the habitat protection of the Salmon by establishing a local warden and guide service designed to police the streams for illegal fishing and prevent tourists from using the streams 91 for recreation (Plate 3-3, Plate 3-4). With financial support from COA, the Farm and local farmers conducted the annual project of ‘the Salmon habitat patrol and protection’ (COA 1989, Wuling Farm 1988b) (Appendix IV). The project lasted about 10 years until 1993 when Shei-Pa National Park was established and took over this task. However, the ten-year communal experience of participating in the Salmon conservation work had become deeply rooted in the minds of local farmers and people working in the Farm. As a result, they basically thought they were regarded officially as the Salmon’s ‘front-line protectors.’
3.5.3. Mobilisation capacity
The arenas and institutional arrangements i.e. the hard infrastructure was extended and consolidated in this stage in the following aspects:
• Legislation and penalty system. The CHP Law was enacted in 1982. Under this
legal statute, the Salmon and its habitat could be designated as an endangered
species and a protected area. The Law also included a penalty system to prevent
offences such as capturing or netting the protected species, or destroying the
‘original nature state’ of the areas.
• Policy and the delivery system. The Ministerial guidance in 1984outlined the
important strategies of the Salmon conservation and deployed a ‘top-down’,
‘hierarchical’ administrative system to conduct these tasks.
• Arenas. The regular meetings of COA’s Standing and Technical Advisory
Committees, both established in 1985, served as the key arenas in which COA
worked with scientists and other government institutions on the Salmon 92
conservation work.
• Resources. The financial resources for supporting associated research and
recovery projects mainly came from the COA through its annual conservation
projects.
3.5.4. Outcomes
At this stage about 38 conservation research and recovery projects were conducted by COA, scientists, and other institutions (Appendix V). The Salmon was designated by COA as a ‘Precious and Rare Species’ in 1984 under the protection of the CHP
Law. However, COA failed to set up the Salmon Nature Reserve under the CHP Law due to the disagreement between scientists and the Farm about the size of boundary of the Nature Reserve. Too small an area would be not enough for protecting the
Salmon’s habitat while too large would have severe impacts on the livelihoods of local farmers and income of the Farm. Though scientists and the Farm were both involved in the discussion of the Standing and Technical Committee meetings, they did not achieve a consensus about the boundary for the proposed Salmon Nature
Reserve (Appendix VI).
3.6. Stage IV (1992-1995): Protection by the Shei-Pa National Park
This stage starts in July 1992 when the Shei-Pa National Park (SPNP or the Park) was established and incorporated the Salmon’s habitat as part of their jurisdiction under the protection of the National Park Law (NP Law). It ends in Feb 1995 when
COA held the first official meeting for the planning of the Salmon WR under the
Wildlife Conservation Law (WC Law). 93
3.6.1. Knowledge resources
3.6.1.1. Meanings and values of the Salmon
A. Government
During this stage, the official ‘voice’ of the Salmon transferred from COA to the
National Park. The scientific rationale supporting the importance of the Salmon was documented in the Park’s Conservation Project for the Formosan Landlocked
Salmon (Shei-Pa National Park 1995). It was generally the same as the COA’s justification that emphasised the scientific importance of the Salmon (in section
3.5.1). However, significant for local people, the economic and cultural meanings of the Salmon to indigenous people were excluded from the documentation.
B. Scientists
At this time, academic Wang (1994b) based his observations on contact with
schoolteachers and the general public and found that most people in Taiwan had heard of the Salmon and recognised it as the most representative, endemic species in
Taiwan. He concluded that the meanings and values of the Salmon were fourfold:
• Ecological'. The Salmon, as a species, has its intrinsic value in its own right and
plays a specific role in the stream ecology.
• Economic and cultural'. The Salmon used to be an important source of food for
indigenous people. The fishing activity and some folk songs about the Salmon
used to be a part of their lives and culture.
• Academic. Since its discovery in 1917, the Salmon has become an important
object for the study of paleogeography, paleoclimatology, biological systematics. 94
and evolutionary ecology of the fish.
• Educational: In the light of the worldwide trend to conserve wildlife, the Salmon
is an example that demonstrates the efforts made by Taiwan to conserve
endangered species. These conservation efforts included the designation of the
Salmon as a ‘National Monument’ in Japanese colonial period, as a ‘Precious and
Rare Species’ under the CHP Law in 1982, and as an ‘Endangered Species’ under
the WC Law in 1989. Its nickname, the ‘National Treasured Fish’ has become
popular with the public.
C. The media
The Salmon became a focus of news that often attracted the public’s attention through the media. The media also started to make critical comments about the effectiveness of the Salmon conservation work at this time. The media construed the
Salmon as an endangered species at high risk that government institutions still failed to improve the Salmon’s chances of recovery.
At this stage, the Park’s police took over the patrol and protection of the Salmon’s habitat. The Farm and local farmers were not involved in this job as they had been in the previous stage. The Park authorities generally regarded local farmers as
‘polluters’ and a threat to the Salmon and signalled their intention of moving farmers out of the area. As a result, the conflict between the recovery of the Salmon and the livelihoods of local people became a serious debate. The media often served as a battleground between the Park and the Farm. For example:
“The Park’s director Mr. Lin said that both the Salmon and the veteran farmers needed protection and care from the government. However, the Salmon could 95
only live in the Chichiawan stream and could not be moved out. The farmers did not have this problem. Mr. Lin was worried that the Salmon would become extinct if the agriculture could not be stopped.
On the other hand, the Farm’s director Mr. Huang said that the Farm needed to consider farmers’ livelihoods at the present stage. But the ultimate goal would be the same as the Park’s- to sustainably maintain the habitat for the Salmon. However, the Farm could not stop all the agricultural practices right now.” (China Times, 24* Oct 1994)
3.6.1.2. Salmon population and key factors limiting its distribution and performance
During this period, the distribution of the Salmon was still restricted to the
Chichiawan stream. Based on Tsao’s (1995) and Tzeng’s (1994, 1995) studies, the population fluctuated seasonally between 250 and 1,000 (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6).
It showed a declining trend by 15% per year from 1987 to 1994.
Table 3-3 Salmon population from summer 1992 to Oct 1994
Salmon population Time of Survey Sources 959 Summer 1992 Tsao (1995) 253 Winter 1992 Tsao (1995) 943 Summer 1993 Tsao (1995) 278 Winter 1993 Tsao (1995) 788 May 1994 Tzeng(1994) 323 Summer 1994 Tsao (1995) 638 Oct 1994 Tzeng (1995)
Note: 1. Summer = June to Aug; Winter = Dec to Feb 2. Areas of survey in Figure 3-5 3. There existed a two-year gap in the population data from the summer 1992 to the winter 1993 for the newly established Shei-Pa National Park (Tzeng 1994, 1995). The ‘handover’ work of the Salmon conservation from COA to the Park in the first two years seemed to be problematic. The management of the area by the Park was not based on population data. The population census carried out by the Park started in May 1994. The two-year gap was not filled up until Tsao’s (1995) data published in 1995. 96
1200
1000 959 943
800 'Tsao (1995)
638 600 - •Tzeng (1994, 1995) 400 323 253 278 200
S42 W42 S-% W-M (% ^4 Time (S: summer (Jun to Aug); W: winter (Dec to Feb)
Figure 3-6 Population change the Salmon from summer 1992 to Oct 1994
Note: The area of survey of the Salmon population changed year by year. Tzeng (1994, 1995) extended the survey area each year to cover the upper reaches of the Chichiawan and Hsuehshan streams. This probably explains why in Tzeng’s data is higher than Tsao’s.
The official discourse on the reasons why the Salmon became endangered can be found in the Shei-Pa National Park’s (1995) Conservation Project of the Formosan
Landlocked Salmon. The Park concluded that the factors contributing to the habitat deterioration included agricultural activity, reservoirs and check dams, deforestation, natural landslides, and recreational activity. Compared to range o f explanations provided by COA in the previous stage, the Park put less emphasis on over/illegal fishing, typhoons and floods and added a new negative factor- recreational activity.
The latter included the sewage and garbage pollution and water extraction by the
Forestry Bureau’s Tourist Lodge, as well as hiking activity in the upper reach areas.
Scientists’ discourses are based on Tsao’s (1995) and Tzeng’s (1994, 1995) research.
They generally shared similar opinions and concluded that natural catastrophic events (typhoons and floods) combined with human activities (check dams and agricultural practices) were responsible for the decline in the Salmon population. 97
At this time, the media paid considerable attention to the Salmon population and the factors contributing to its decline. The Park frequently appeared in the national news and became a dominant voice and source of news. Though the media often headlined the negative factors as ‘natural catastrophes and man-made disasters’, like the Park, the media put more emphasis on the agricultural activity, the construction of check dams, and the recreational activity as three key human factors. The Farm’s agricultural activity was often criticised. For example:
“In order to protect the Salmon, the government has incorporated the Chichiawan stream, in which the Wuling Farm is located, into the National Park’s jurisdiction. All agricultural practices in the area have been soon criticised in all circles as an invisible killer of the Salmon.” (China Times,24^ Oct 1994)
The media also made its own observation about the lack of collaboration among the local management authorities (the Park, the Farm and the Forestry Bureau) and criticised their management of the local area as a ‘multi-headed (or three-headed) horse cart (^ # (5 .# ),% ^ ).’ Each local management authority had its own institutional duties, goals, and approaches. They did not work collaboratively.
3.6.1.3. Salmon conservation strategy
Table 3-4 lists the Park’s short-term to long-term strategies for the Salmon conservation documented in the Shei-Pa National Park’s (1995) Conservation
Project of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon. The short-term objective (in 3 years) was to moderate the degradation of existing habitats and to increase the population of the Salmon. The middle-term objective (in 5 years) was to expand the protected areas and stabilise the population of the Salmon. The long-term goal (in 10 years) was about sustainable management of the Salmon. 98
Table 3-4 Salmon conservation strategies of the Shei-Pa National Park
Short Term Goal (within 3 years): Moderating the deterioration of the existing habitats; Increasing the population of the Salmon Strategy 1: Control of stream water pollution Strategy 2: Development of artificial propagation technology; Evaluation of possible releasing sites Strategy 3: Support of ecological studies and basic biological research Strategy 4\ Improvement of existing habitats Strategy 5\ Expansion of new habitats Strategy 6: Enhancement of tourists education Strategy 7: Reduction of agricultural practices Middle Term Goal (within 5 years): Expanding the protected areas; Stabilising the population of the Salmon Strategy 1: Enhancement of riverbank protection Strategy 2: Expansion of new habitats Strategy 3'. Enhancement of environmental management Long Term Goal (within 10 years): Sustainable management o f the Salmon Strategy 1: Stop of any environmental deterioration Strategy 2: Support of academic research Source’. Shei-Pa National Park (1995)
In order to put the above project into practice, the Park drew up a task-division plan for working with other government institutions and scientists. There were 11 government and academic institutions listed in a task-di vision table in the Project.
Each was assigned to help the Park carry out a specific task. Three other government
institutions were asked to take main responsibility for the task, including:
• COA was asked to set up a new Salmon WR under the WC Law in the
Chichiawan stream watershed as soon as possible. The reason why the Park
needed a Salmon WR overlapping within its own area of jurisdiction was not
documented in its Conservation Project. The reason would be revealed in the
COA’s first official meeting on 5*^ March 1995, which will be discussed in
Chapter 4.
• The Wuling Farm was asked to enhance the soil and water conservation practices. 99
control the use of fertilizer and pesticide, promote the agricultural transformation
project, and resettle the veteran farmers to somewhere else.
• The Forestry Bureau was asked to carry out the reforestation along the
Chichiawan stream.
During this period, two scientists, Tsao (1995) and Tzeng (1994, 1995), worked on the Salmon conservation strategy. Using biological arguments, Tsao argued that the management strategy should deal with those factors limiting the population of the
Salmon (Appendix VII). He concluded that the efforts should be made to modify agricultural irrigation to keep minimum flows in the stream, to improve the management of riparian areas, to regulate non-point source pollution, to improve
stream habitats, and to set up fish passage over check dams. Tzeng (ibid.) suggested four strategies including: 1) Carefully protecting the known sites for spawning and hatchery of the Salmon in the streams. 2) Exchanging salmon in the upstream and downstream areas to increase genetic diversity. 3) Conducting the spring and autumn censuses to monitor the Salmon’s distribution and the changes of its habitats. 4)
Conducting off-site releases and habitat improvement practices. Tsao’s and Tzeng’s
conservation strategies were based on biological arguments to underpin a scientific
and experimental approach to habitat management.
3.6.2. Relational resources
3.6.2.1. Stakeholders
During this period, COA withdrew from the scene and the Park took the lead on the
Salmon conservation tasks. At the end of this stage, the Shei-Pa National Park (1995) 100 drew up the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Conservation Project in which a list of working partners was compiled. Compared with members of COA’s Standing and
Technical Committees in the previous stage, institutions involved in the Park’s list were more defined by professional expertise and had more technical connections with the Salmon conservation work. There were 11 government institutions on the list, including:
• The national level: CO A, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Ministry of
Interior, the Bureau of Tourism
• The provincial level: the Forestry Bureau, the Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and
Toxic Substances Research Institute, the Fishery Research Institute, and the
Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation
• The local level: the Park, the Farm, and the Management Committee of the Techi
Reservoir
The two stakeholder groups, local farmers and tourists, were still absent in the planning process. During this time, the livelihoods of farmers became a ‘conflict’ between the Farm authority and the Park authority. The livelihoods of farmers were one of the Farm’s duties while the agricultural practices of farmers were regarded by the Park as a source of ‘pollution’ and a threat to the Salmon.
During this period, about 150,000 tourists visited the area each year. Tourism had become the primary source of income for the Farm. By the end of this stage, the annual income of the Farm from agriculture production had been reduced to 36% while the tourism income increased to 54%. The Farm was implementing the 101
Transformation Project and aimed to further reduce the agricultural production to
25% and increase the tourism income to 75% by 2001 (Wuling Farm 1997).
On the other hand, the Park intended to regulate but not develop the tourism for the sake of the Salmon conservation (Shei-Pa National Park 1995). The Park’s Master
Plan, which referred to a comprehensive management plan prepared to guide the administration of the protection, utilization and development of the whole national park area (Article 8, National Park Law), had zoned a 46-hectare Recreation Area in the downstream area where new recreational facilities were planned (Ministry of
Interior 1992). However, since tourists and tourism were now regarded by the Park as ‘polluters’ and a threat to the Salmon, the initial recreational plan was basically
‘left on the shelf’ by the Park authorities during this period.
3.6.2.2. Working relationships
The working relationship and trust among stakeholders deteriorated during this period. First, the Park and the Farm had conflicting interests and priorities between the well-being of the Salmon and the livelihoods of local farmers. The Park gave priority to the conservation of the Salmon. They considered local farmers and tourists as ‘polluters’ and tried to reduce their population and activities in the area.
On the other hand, the Farm put ‘people first’ and regarded local farmers and tourists as their primary responsibility. The Farm’s first priority was to secure the livelihoods and interests of local farmers and tourists. They promoted the settlement for the farmers and the recreation for tourists. As a result, the Park and the Farm worked on their own duties and priorities in the same area and failed to achieve an effective working relationship with each other. 102
Second, the trust between the Park and the Farm was eroded because the Farm and local farmers felt the Park had ‘cheated on them.’ The stand the responsible authorities had taken on the Farm’s projects of the agricultural production and tourism seemed to be very different before and after the establishment of the
National Park. The meeting minutes of the 15^ National Park Advisory Committee
(NPA Committee) in Aug 1990 showed that the Committee in principle had agreed to the Farm’s desire to ‘keep the agricultural business type and develop tourism’
(Ministry of Interior 1991). A Recreation Area and some recreational facilities were
also drawn up in the Park’s Master Plan (Ministry of Interior 1992). However, after the establishment of the Park in July 1992, the Park made a U-tum and sought to
stop or reduce agricultural activity and tourism. Without a consensus-building
mechanism and process in place, any basis of the mutual trust between the Park and
the Farm was eroded.
3.6.3. Mobilisation capacity
• Legislation and penalty system. After July 1992 when the area was incorporated
into the Park, the area was protected under the NP Law. Under this legal statute,
the Salmon’s habitat was designated as the Ecological Protection Area^. The Law
also included a penalty system to prevent such offences as hunting or fishing
protected species, and to prohibit the destruction of original natural condition.
• Policy. A zoning approach was employed in the planning and management of the
area based on the Park’s Master Plan and the NP Law. The area was divided into
three functional zones with multi-purpose policies of ecological protection.
^ In accordance with the existing land use and the characteristics of local resources, a National Park may be divided into five management zones: the General Protection Area, the Recreation Area, the Cultural/historic Area, the Special Scenic Area, and Ecological Protection Area. 103 recreational development, and agricultural utilization and settlement. They included the Ecological Protection Area (94%), the General Protection Area (6%), and the Recreation Area (0.1%) (Figure 3-7, Ministry of Interior 1992, Taichung
County Government 1997). The Ecological Protection Area refers to the area where the natural biotic communities shall be strictly protected from development and shall be used only for scientific research. The Recreation Area refers to the area in which recreation facilities and limited resource uses may be permitted. The
General Protection Area refers to existing settlement and other land uses that may be allowed to continue.
Ecological Protection Area Study area
General Protection Area
Streams Recreation Area
Figure 3-7 National Park s landuse zoning plan of the Wuling area
Delivery system. The Park’s Headquarters was established in Tungshih (near the
Taichung city) in 1992 comprising 7 administrative divisions: the Planning 104
Division, the Conservation Division, the Interpretation Division, the Recreation
Division, the Construction Division, the Secretarial Section, and the Park Police.
The Headquarters then set up a Warden Office (about 10 staff) and a Police Office
(about 10 cops) in the Wuling area in 1993 to help to enforce the NP Law and
implement the plan of the Park.
• Resources. During this period, the Park gradually took over and financed most of
the Salmon conservation work. Through the annual research and recovery projects,
the Park (including staff in the Headquarters, wardens and policemen in the local
area) worked with scientists on investigation and monitoring, artificial
propagation, and habitat patrol and protection of the Salmon.
• Arenas. Like COA’s Standing and Technical Committees, the Ministry of Interior
also set up a National Park Advisory Committee comprising 16 representatives
from central and provincial government institutions^ and 5 scientists from
academic institutions. However, only a couple of issues of the Salmon
conservation had been brought into the Committee meetings. This was because the
Committee only discussed some ‘very important’ issues of the National Parks^
(Minister of Interior 1989). The Park undertook contact with the Farm, the
Forestry Bureau and other institutions on a more individual basis. The arenas for
discussion were restricted to some formal meetings on a case-by-case basis. The
Park did not set up a regular form of teamwork either formal or informal
mechanisms in which stakeholders could be involved in the planning and
management processes.
^ 16 official members include representatives from the Ministry of Interior, the Secretarial Sector of national Executive Yuan, the Council for Economic Planning and Development, the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Finance, the Bureau of Tourism, the Council of Agriculture, Taiwan Provincial Government, Taipei City Government, the Forestry Bureau, and the Bureau of Mining ^ Three missions of this Committee include to help the Park authorities to 1) designate, alter or abolish the NP areas; 2) review NP Master Plans; 3) review other ‘very important’ issues of NPs. 105
3.6.4. Outcomes
During this period, about 15 research and recovery projects of the Salmon were conducted by the Park, the Farm, the Forestry Bureau, and COA with cooperation of other scientific institutions (Appendix VIII). With the help of the Park’s police force, illegal fishing and recreational use of the streams were much improved. Through the
Park’s environmental education programmes, the conservation of the Salmon had become a public concern and often a focus of news. However, although additional money and people were involved in the Salmon conservation work, the Salmon still remained at risk. Scientists and the public generally took a pessimistic view about the Salmon’s future.
3.7. Conclusion: trends from stage I to stage IV
Several trends can be revealed from this historical review.
• The meanings and values of the Salmon changed over time and became more
diverse, including economic, academic, ecological, political, spiritual, educational,
and cultural importance. However, the dominant discourse of the Salmon
conservation was strongly influenced by officials and experts who formed a tight
community and placed emphasis on the Salmon’s biological, intrinsic, and
educational importance.
• Local people’s interests and local knowledge were marginalised in the planning
process of the Park. As a result, conflicts between local people’s livelihoods and
the well-being of the Salmon became more serious.
• The distribution of the Salmon contracted and became restricted to the 106
Chichiawan stream and its population generally declined. The scientific
community explained the factors contributing to the decline of the Salmon as a
combination of natural and human impacts but the Park authority put most
emphasis on man-made factors. However, to what extent each factor contributed
to the decline of the Salmon was unclear and had not been fiilly investigated.
• The strategy for Salmon conservation was based on a traditional, rational plaiming
approach that relied on legal regulation, scientific knowledge and technological
advance. Owing to the uncertainties about the causes of the Salmon’s decline, the
effectiveness of the Salmon conservation strategy was always likely to be limited
and highly experimental.
• Stakeholders increased in number and were more complex in composition.
However, local people were always excluded from decision-making processes
which were dominated by official and scientific communities.
• The working relationship was built on ‘top-down’, ‘hierarchical’ and institutional
arrangements and networks that relied on formal arenas, professional expertise
and technical understandings of the Salmon conservation. Due to widely different
standpoints and priorities about the well-being of the Salmon and livelihoods of
local people among different government authorities (notably between the Park
authority and the Farm authority), the working relationship and the mobilisation
capacity of the local area became worse by the end of stage IV.
• Although at the end of this stage, the Park authority drew up the Conservation
Project for the Salmon. This was basically a plan that was not put into practice
and the Park failed to make any significant progress in Salmon conservation work.
In the light of Healey’s collaborative planning approach, the problems for the Park 107 can be seen to stem from a lack of consensus and partnership-building as well as the absence of appropriate arenas in which discussions with all relevant stakeholders could take place. However, the Park authorities did not recognise these conditions as ‘the problem.’ At the end of this stage, people (mainly, including the Park, some scientists, and NGOs) looked to COA again to help to set up a Salmon Wildlife Refuge in the area using conventional ‘top-down’ planning process and justified by the authority of the WC Law. Taken together these issues formed the context in which the COA’s first official planning meeting of 2"^
March 1995 took place at the beginning of the next stage. This meeting was to prove a pivotal one in terms of moving towards a more collaborative approach. 108
' ' ^ &
"W-ZK,
Plate 3-1 The upper Tachia River Basin and the Techi Reservoir
#3
é ê
Plate 3-2 The Wuling farmlands along the Chichiawan Stream 109
; v â ; -
f '
Plate 3-3 A warden and his guard dog hired by the Farm were patrolling the stream at the stage III (source: Wuling Farm Office)
Plate 3-4 Veteran farmer Mr. Chang still keeps the armband and the whistle used for patrolling the stream at stage III 110
Chapter 4 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (1995-1997): Findings of the official planning meetings
4.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to explore the nature and characters of stakeholder participation in the planning of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (WR) at stage V from March 1995 to
Oct 1997. It was a transitional and pivotal stage in that, firstly, the planning processes shifted from a ‘top-down’ to a more ‘bottom-up’ approach. Secondly, the rationale underlying the planning processes shifted from ‘instrumental rationality’ to more ‘communicative rationality.’ Thirdly, the arguments in the planning processes shifted from the discussions about legal requirements and technical problems for the designation of the Salmon WR to the practical management and implementation issues on the ground. The objective of this chapter is to elaborate these transitions through a focus on the claims-making activities of stakeholders involved in the WR.
This stage in the establishment of the Salmon WR is characterised by a series of official meetings in which the Council of Agriculture (COA) played a pivotal role as the key convenor and mediator. COA convened 9 out of 11 meetings and the Taiwan
Provincial Government and the Taichung County Government convened the other two. These three institutions formed the planning authorities of the Salmon WR.
Their strategy was to employ these official meetings as political arenas for reconciling disagreements and achieving consensus about the planning and of the
Salmon WR.
In the following four sections, I employ Healey’s (1998a) approach to institutional Ill capacity-building (Chapter 2) and draw on the minutes of the 11 official planning meetings to explore this period of transition. The chapter is structured in four sections:
• First, I briefly review the background to the first official planning meeting to show
the initial institutional capacity of stakeholder community at the start of stage V.
• Second, I conduct a qualitative analysis of the first official planning meeting to
reveal the nature and character of the discussion and decision-making processes of
the official meetings. This first meeting proved to be influential in setting the
agenda for all subsequent meetings. For example, it determined the legal basis and
boundary of the WR, the zoning approach to the management of the WR, the
scope of stakeholders to be involved in later meetings and exposed the conflict
between the well-being of the Salmon and the livelihoods of local people.
• Third, I review the subsequent 10 official planning meetings to monitor how
stakeholders maintained agreements reached during the first meeting and worked
through the unresolved problems it raised.
• Finally, I evaluate the outcomes of these official planning meetings in terms of
institutional capacity-building of the planning system and associated practices,
and discuss unresolved problems.
4.2. Institutional capacity at the start of stage V
Figure 4-1 illustrates the three elements of institutional capacity, i.e. knowledge resource, relational resource, and mobilisation capacity, among stakeholder community (see Table 4-1) at the start of stage V. Livelihoods of Well-being of the local farmers; v.s. Salmon Interests of tourists
[/ \ Knowledge resources I Top-down designation of - the Salmon WR . Conflicting interests Mobilisation capacity y,s. . Unreconciled working relationship . Top-down planning approach Fann's Transformation Project Relational resources
I'arm authorities y.s. Scientists
National legislator
I ocal farmers Ihovineial assemblyman
louirsts I "ark authonties
Figure 4-1 Institutional capacity at the start of stage V 113
The population of the Salmon reached its lowest level in the period between 1987 and 1995 (Figure 4-2) and agricultural and recreational activities were thought to be the major factors contributing to its decline. Reducing the agricultural and recreational activities became the main strategy for saving the Salmon from extinction. The ‘sources of pollution’ identified by officials and scientists as being the Farm, local farmers, and tourists. Their livelihoods and interests would be greatly affected by any reduction of agricultural production and regulation of tourism. As a result, the well-being of the Salmon and the livelihoods and interests of local farmers and tourists represented two opposite poles of debate.
Table 4-1 Stakeholders groups at the start of stage V
Stakeholder National level Regional level Local level groups
M ed iato r
T he F arm •Veterans Affairs •Wuling Farm Authorities Commission
T he P a rk •Shei-Pa National •Ministry of Interior Authorities Park
Scientists •Academics from universities
•National Legislator and Provincial •Local farmers ‘P u b lic’ Assemblyman •Tourists
On one side, the Farm authorities’ strategy was to seek a ‘win-win’ solution and a
‘step-by-step’ approach to resolving the controversial issue about the conservation of the Salmon and the livelihoods of local farmers. As mentioned in the previous chapter, since the late 1970s the Farm had been working on transforming their agricultural business type into one based on tourism. Their efforts were reflected in the Farm’s two documents of the Integrated Planning for Recreational Development in 1988 and 1995 (Wuling Farm 1988a, 1995). Together these reports formed the 114 basis of the Farm’s Transformation Project (Wuling Farm 1997).
tm
% 15Ô0
1057
SéS
15S7S I9S«W I9SSS 19S9W 1989S 1990W 19903 Î991W 19913 1992 1993 19943 I994W 19953 Time of Survey (S: summer; W; winter)
Figure 4-2 Population change of the Salmon from 1987 to 1995 (Tzeng, 1995)
The Farm’s Transformation Project aimed to reshape the existing agricultural landscape into a scenic landscape for tourism as well as to satisfy the need to conserve the Salmon. The area along the Chichiawan stream was zoned into 6 subareas. There was a Nature Conservation Area, a Recreation Area, the Park
Administrative Area, a Wilderness Recreation Area, a Recreational Agricultural
Area, and a Farming Landscape Area (Appendix IX). Details of the Plan included the practice of reforestation and gardening, and the construction of some public facilities, such as road and drainage systems, areas for camping and outdoor leisure, tourist information centres, and a waste treatment facility.
The Park did not give approval to the Farm’s Transformation Project but also found it difficult to reject. The Park authority basically sought to remove the agricultural and recreational activities and the ‘sources of pollution’, i.e. the Farm, local farmers, and tourists, out of the Chichiawan stream watershed. According to the National 115
Park Law, the areas of the Wuling Farm were located in the General Protection Area and the Recreation Area of the Park. The original landuse of agriculture and recreation in these Areas was basically legal while all new construction projects needed specific approval from the Park. The Park could reject a project if it was shown to have unacceptable negative impacts on the natural environment. This was a matter of judgment guided by scientific knowledge. However, scientific knowledge was not always helpful. As shown in the previous chapter, the factors contributing to the population and performance of the Salmon were complex and were surrounded by many uncertainties. In particular it was unclear to what extent each factor, e.g. the agricultural activity, or natural climatic events, such as typhoons, contributed to the decline of the Salmon.
As a strategy to delay implementing the Farm's Transformation Project, the Park usually asked for more detailed investigations and evaluations about the potential environmental impacts of this proposal. This strategy led to an adversarial relationship between the Park and the Farm.
One problem underlying these disagreements was that the Park authority and the
Farm had different understandings about what ‘the problem’ was and gave priority to their own interests. The Park gave priority to the well-being of the Salmon and considered the ‘trouble’ to be the Farm, local farmers, and tourists. The Farm gave priority to the livelihoods of local farmers and the interests of tourists and considered the ‘trouble’ to be the Park. This called for a mediator to help reconcile opposing values and interests.
The Park authority initially approached their understandings of solutions to the 116 problem by recommending a ‘top-down’ approach to designating a Salmon WR.
They believed that under the Wildlife Conservation Law, COA should take responsibility for planning and managing the Salmon WR with support from a national legislator, a provincial assemblyman, and some scientists. Accordingly on
8^*^ Nov 1994, the Park invited COA, a few scientists and other government institutions to attend a meeting to discuss the Park’s Salmon Conservation Project
(Shei-Pa National Park 1995). At this meeting the Park authorities suggested that
COA be asked to establish a WR for the Salmon. This invitation was formalised on
23^^ Jan 1995, when the Park, together with a legislator Mr. Lao and an assemblyman
Mr. Kao invited COA, a few scientists and other government institutions to attend a public hearing on the Salmon Conservation in the local area (no local people were invited). COA was asked to play a mediating role with the goal of implementing a
Salmon WR as quickly as possible (China Times 24^ Jan 1995). In response, COA convened the first planning meeting to discuss the legal basis and possible boundary of the proposed Salmon WR on 2^^ Marl 995.
4.3. Qualitative analysis of the first planning meeting on 2"^ March 1995
This section presents the findings of a qualitative analysis of the transcript of the first official planning meeting (other official planning meetings at this stage are listed in
Table 4-3). The framework of analysis follows Healey’s five questions to examine the ‘processes’ of communication in the meeting (see Chapter 2). Questions include: who was involved? Where and when did the meeting take place? In what style did the discussion take place? How were the arguments sorted out and consensus created?
And how were the agreements to be maintained? 117
4.3.1. Who was involved?
‘Who was involved?’ was decided by COA since the meeting was convened and chaired by members of COA. Thirty-six people took part and most of them were members of government institutions. There were 20 from government institutions of central and regional levels (56%), 9 from government institutions of local level
(25%), 6 scientists (17%), and 1 provincial assemblyman (3%).
The government institutions can be further categorised as four groups in terms of their sectoral duties and networks in formal administrative systems (Table 4-2):
• The planning authorities of the Salmon WR: including COA, the Taiwan
Provincial Government and its affiliated organisations (the Forestry Bureau and its
Tungshih Branch, the Endemic Species Research Institute, the Soil and Water
Conservation Bureau, and the Fishery Research Institute), and the Taichung
County Government
• The Farm authorities: including the Veterans Affairs Commission and the Wuling
Veteran Farm
• The Park authorities: including the Ministry of Interior, the Shei-Pa National Park,
and the Taroko National Park
• Other government institutions: including the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the
Techi Reservoir Management Committee
4.3.2. Where and when did the meeting take place?
The meeting was held in the official meeting room of COA in Taipei city, at
9am-11 am on 2"^ March 1995. It was an ‘off-site’ meeting and far from the Wuling 118 area. It was not a convenient location for local people and, in fact, local farmers and tourists were not informed or invited to attend the meeting.
Table 4-2 Participants in the first official planning meeting at stage V
National level Regional level Local level
•Council of •Taiwan Provincial •Taichung County Government Agriculture (6) Government (1) (2) •Forestry Bureau (2) •Tungshih Branch of Forestry Bureau (2) Planning •Endemic Species Research Authorities Institute (3) •Soil and Water Conservation Bureau (1) •Fishery Research Institute (1) The Farm •Veterans Affairs •Wuling Farm (2) Authorities Commission (2) The Park •Ministry of •Shei-Pa National Park (2) Interior (2) Authorities •Taroko National Park (I) Other •Ministry of •Techi Reservoir Management Government Economic Affairs Committee (1) Institutions (1) •Academics from National Taiwan Univ., National Taiwan Normal Univ., and Scientists National Ching-Hua Univ. (6)
Public •Provincial Assemblyman (1) Note: (n): number of participants
4.3.3. In what style did the discussion take place?
The language and expressions dominating the discussions were official and scientific ones. This dominance is not unexpected. First, almost all participants were government officers and scientist. They were professionals who were used to official and scientific terms and a rational, instrumental approach to problem identification.
Second, the agendas for the meeting were mainly set to discuss the topics about the legal basis and boundary for the Salmon WR. Participants needed to have some understanding of, and expertise about, the associated nature conservation laws, as 119 well as the ecological, social, and economic issues of the local area.
4.3.4. How were the arguments sorted out and consensus created?
4.3.4.1. Method of data interpretation and analytical framework
The method of the transcript analysis of the meeting is based on Huberman and
Miles’ (1994) interactive model that comprises three subprocesses: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (see Chapter 2). Through data reduction- summarising, coding, emergent themes, and clustering- an analytical diagram for this meeting has been constructed and displayed as Figure 4-3. Six themes are revealed in the light of Healey’s three dimensions of institutional capacity as follows:
A. Dimension of knowledge resources
• Salmon conservation and negative factors
• Well-being of the Salmon vs. livelihoods of local farmers
• Effectiveness and efficiency
B. Dimension o f mobilisation capacity
• Legal systems
• Zoning approach
C Dimension o f relational resources
• Composition of stakeholders
• Working relationships 120
Well-being of Salmon the Salmon conservation Effectiveness v.s. and negative and efficiency Livelihoods of factors local farmers
Legal systems Knowledge
Current ISSUES: planning Outcomes and systems and . Legal basis for the tvni Mobilisation evaluation practices . Boundary for the —
Zoning Relation approach
Composition Working relationship stakeholders
Figure 4-3 Analytical diagram of the first official planning meeting at stage V
4.3.4.2. Salmon conservation and negative factors
Participants did not spend much time clarifying the meanings and values of the
Salmon. This is because as government officers and scientists their own understandings had dominated the discourse of Salmon conservation. For them, the legitimacy of the goal of the Salmon conservation ‘went without saying.’ The survival of the Salmon was their common concern. For example, they used several arguments to justify the Salmon’s conservation. The Salmon was construed as a well known, endemic and endangered species at great risk: It was the ‘National Treasure
Fish’ (Lines 169)^, ‘a species which has interested the public and mass media in recent twenty years’ (Lines 2), ‘an endemic, endangered, protected fish in Taiwan’
Line(s) of the transcript 121
(Lines 3), and a fish ‘on the edge of extinction’ (Lines 155).
The factors contributing to the population decline of the Salmon construed by the
Park and scientists were categorised as both natural and human. The former included the effect of ‘global warming’ (Lines 244-245) that could cause the rise of stream water temperature and damage the Salmon. The latter included ‘deforestation’,
‘extraction of stream water’, ‘tourism’, ‘check dams’, ‘forest fire’, and ‘dumping of waste soil.’ The Park blamed past deforestation along the banks of the streams for agricultural landuse as the cause of rising stream water temperature and increasing sedimentation of pools in the streams (Lines 200-202). Dr. Chen (academic) suggested that the decline in the volume of the upper Chichiawan stream water in winter was due to its extraction for the use of irrigation and drinking for agriculture and tourism (Lines 268-270). He also emphasised that rubbish and sewage from tourism would pollute the stream water quality (Lines 271-272). Dr. Lin (academic) cautioned that the Salmon would become extinct in 20 years if the check dams in the streams were not improved soon (Lines 381-382). Mr. Wu from the Park argued that the Wuling area was a sensitive area of forest fire and more regulations to control the behaviour of tourists were important (Lines 314-315). Dr. Tzeng (academic) criticised the Farm for recently dumping waste soil into the stream that had caused the loss of hundreds of the Salmon.
The Farm and the Forestry Bureau disagreed with these assessments of the impacts from agriculture and tourism. They argued that low discharge of stream in winter was because that winter was a dry season (Lines 321 and 323). Mr. Chung from the
Veteran Affairs Commission also argued that the Farm had made many efforts to work on the conservation of the Salmon, such as the maintenance of the Salmon 122
Restoration Centre and the patrol of the stream at stage III, and the implementation of soil conservation practices, including terraces and reforestation along the riverbanks. He claimed that these efforts were the reasons why the Salmon could still be found in the nearby areas of the Farm and not elsewhere (Lines 205-210). In an interview, the Director of the Farm, Mr. Huang, also argued that the Farm and local farmers should be praised for these efforts they had made. It was unfair for them to
‘get into trouble by holding a jewel only because the Wuling area is the only habitat for the Salmon (Interview with the Director of the Farm, Mr. Huang, on
4“’ July 1999).
4.3.4.3. Salmon conservation vs. local farmers’ livelihoods
The discussion about the management problems of the area focused on the agricultural landuse of the Farm and the farmers. In order to reduce the negative impact from agriculture, most scientists suggested that the Wildlife Conservation
Law (WC Law) be employed to purchase or expropriate the farmlands and resettle the farmers elsewhere. Scientists said:
Dr. Yang (academic): “Don’t put it off again. Use the Wildlife Conservation Law to designate the Salmon Wildlife Refuge as soon as possible. After the designation, the Farm or the Veteran Affairs Commission can make a budget to purchase the 30-hectare farmlands of local farmers with high compensation, or exchange their farmlands for another lands elsewhere. This is an emergency strategy.” (Lines 162-166)
Dr. Chen (academic): “I agree with Dr. Tzeng’s opinion about the farmland. The farmlands should be purchased in order to reduce the agricultural activity, reduce the use of pesticide and fertilizer. This will be helpful to the stream water quality.” (Lines 279-281) 123
The Farm and the Veteran Affairs Commission (VAC) disagreed with these suggestions and said:
Mr. Chung (VAC): “The farmlands were legally assigned to settle the veteran farmers by the government. If the lands are to be incorporated into the new protected area, we should consider which nature conservation law will be appropriate for dealing with this issue. Actually the Wuling Farm has been working on the transformation of their agricultural business type into tourism. They have also been working on reducing the area of agriculture, the use of fertiliser and pesticide. Therefore, we should work out an appropriate policy to balance the conservation of the Salmon and the settlement of the farmers.” (Lines 116-123)
Director Huang (Farm): “In planning for the Salmon protected area, we should consider the issue of the veteran farmers. The Farm has been working on the transformation of landuse type to reduce the area for growing vegetables as much as possible in the near future. In the past, we helped the veteran farmers to work on agricultural production. But now we don’t. Therefore, the transformation of their livelihoods should also be considered.” (Lines 125-129)
Mr. Chung (VAC): “In terms of the settlement of the veteran farmers, how to help them to adapt to new business and environment is a very important issue. This is not a pure economic problem that can be resolved by an administrative practice. We’ve learnt a lot of lessons from this in the past.” (Lines 214-216)
The exchanges show that scientists ‘assumed’ that by enforcing the law like the WC
Law and securing enough money to compensate farmers, conservation problems would be resolved. The existing farmlands could be expropriated or purchased for the conservation purpose and local farmers would be happy to move out of their place as long as they were fully compensated. However, Mr. Chung from VAC disagreed and argued that the settlement of farmers was not a purely economic issue and it could not be resolved only by money and compulsory purchase. More than this. 124 a ‘way of life’ was at issue. Coercive measures would only lead to an adversarial relationship between local people, the government, and the Park authorities. He said that government should have learnt many lessons about this on the basis of their experience elsewhere. Besides, he and the Director the Farm Mr Huang both argued that the farmlands were originally and legitimately assigned for agricultural landuse and for the settlement of veteran farmers in the area. They also argued that they had already worked on this solution through the Farm’s Transformation Project. This project aimed to help local farmers and the Farm transfer their business from agriculture into tourism and thereby reduce agricultural pollution. They argued that this Project should also be a material consideration in the planning for the Salmon
WR.
In the following two sections, I explore what political instruments (legal systems and planning approaches) participants employed in the discussion to deal with the controversial issue about the conservation of the Salmon and the livelihoods of local people.
4.3.4.4. Legal basis for protecting the Salmon’s habitat and the criteria of
‘effectiveness and efficiency’
There are three nature conservation laws in Taiwan: the Cultural Heritage
Preservation Law (CHP Law), the National Park Law (NP Law), and the Wildlife
Conservation Law (WC Law). Many participants in the meeting agreed that the WC
Law was the most suitable one on which to base a new protected area for protecting the Salmon’s habitat. The reasons that participants gave for employing this law to support their arguments were mainly rooted in concepts of ‘effectiveness and 125 efficiency.’
For participants who favoured the WC Law, including the provincial assemblyman, the Park authorities (Ministry of Interior (MI) and the Shei-Pa National Park), and scientists, ‘efficiency’ meant ‘saving time’, i.e. to set up the Salmon Wildlife Refuge through a ‘top-down’ approach as soon as possible. For example:
Mr. Kao (assemblyman): “We can use the Article 10 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, that is, ‘In an emergency or necessary situations, GOA may, with the approval of the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee, designate or modify Wildlife Refuges.’ Since the Salmon has become an endangered species, 1 think we can use the above law as the basis for planning the Salmon Wildlife Refuge.” (Lines 29-33)
Mr. Lin (MI): “According to the Article 10 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, the central authority can designate the Wildlife Refuge in an emergency condition, with the approval of the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee. This is to say, it is not necessary to plan for the protected area always from the local management authority.” (Lines 134-137)
Dr. Tzeng (academic): “This fish is now on the edge of extinction. It will disappear if the protected area is to be planned by the local management authority. I think it should be designated by the central authority for the sake of ‘emergency and necessity’ so that the planning process can be shortened.” (Lines 154-157)
For other participants who also preferred the WC Law, including the provincial assemblyman, the Park authorities, the Endemic Species Research Institute (ESRI), the Forestry Bureau’s Tungshih Brach (FBTB) and scientists, ‘effectiveness’ meant
‘imposing heavier penalties’, ‘employing a police force’, ‘implementing flexible conservation practices’, ‘delegating the Park as the management authority’, and
‘purchasing or expropriating the farmlands for conservation usage.’ For example: 126
Director Yen (ESRI): “The Wildlife Conservation Law is more feasible. Why? First, according to the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law, the landforms and landuse in the Nature Reserves cannot be changed. Second, the authority can implement active and flexible conservation practices according to the Wildlife Conservation Law. Besides, the penalty system is stricter. Third, the zoning approach of the National Park Law has some more shortcomings for implementing more flexible conservation practices.” (Lines 41-44)
Dr. Wang (academic): “The new protected area of the Salmon must be within the jurisdiction of the National Park. There will be some National Park police to enforce the law. The central authority can directly designate or change the protected area according to the Wildlife Conservation Law.” (Lines 288-290)
Mr. Lin (TBFB): “The frequency of forest fire in the Wuling area is high. According to the Wildlife Conservation Law, we can implement reforestation after a forest fire to help the forest recovery.” (Lines 260-262)
Dr. Lu (academic): “Though it makes sense to employ the Wildlife Conservation Law, we should also consider how effective it would help in practice. In terms of the management authority for the Salmon protected area, I think the Shei-Pa National Park could be more suitable because they have Park police to enforce the law.” (Lines 52-56)
Mr. Lin (MI): “According to the Wildlife Conservation Law, the local management authority can delegate the management of the Wildlife Refuge to other institutions or organisations. It means the Taichung County Government can delegate the management to the Shei-Pa National Park” (Lines 344-347)
Dr. Yang (academic): “I agree to use the Wildlife Conservation Law as the legal basis for designating the Salmon Wildlife Refuge. I also suggest we can consider to use the Law to purchase or expropriate the farmlands.” (Lines 49-51)
However, some of these reasons do not seem to be convincing. The area of existing habitat of the Salmon, i.e. the Chichiawan stream, had already been incorporated into 127 the Park’s jurisdiction under the protection of the NP Law since 1984. As mentioned in Chapter 3, there had been some Park police officers and wardens living and working in the local area to enforce the regulations and implement the Salmon conservation work. The Park police could also employ other associated laws, such as the WC Law, under which the penalty system was heavier than the NP Law, to charge offenders. Besides, the zoning systems of the Park’s landuse planning that divided the area into the Ecological Protection Area, the Recreation Area, and the
General Protection Area also provided a flexible way of managing the area. The NP
Law did not state that the Park could purchase or expropriate private lands for conservation purposes, but neither did it discount the possibility. In other words, it was not necessary to introduce a new Wildlife Conservation authority (the Wildlife
Refuge) to resolve the problems. Mr. Yang from the Ministry of Interior criticised this ‘overlap’ of jurisdiction:
Mr. Yang (MI): “The Wuling area has been designated as the Ecological Protection Area of the Shei-Pa National Park under the National Park. If we set up a Wildlife Refuge in the same area under the Wildlife Conservation Law and then designate the local county government as the management authority, I’m not sure this would be appropriate in terms of the system of the sectoral administration. I think we need some more discussion about it. Besides, the management of the Ecological Protection Area of the National Park Law and the Wildlife Refuge of the Wildlife Conservation Law, in my view, are no different. In fact we have been using the penalty regulations of the Wildlife Conservation Law to conduct the wildlife protection work.” (Lines 67-74)
However, Mr. Yang from the Ministry of Interior was the only one who gave this opposite opinion in the meeting. It is important to explore the reasons why many participants, including the provincial assemblyman, the Park authorities, the
Endemic Species Research Institute, the Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch, and 128 scientists, welcomed this ‘overlap’ of jurisdiction between the Park authorities and the planning authorities of the Salmon WR. The answer can be revealed in Mr. Pon’s
(deputy Director of the Park) complaint about the ‘dilemma’ that had given them
‘big trouble’:
Mr. Pen (Park): “Anyway, we can’t stop it if we depend only on the National Park Law!” (Lines 57-58)... “In the last two years the Farm has submitted 18 proposals of construction projects to the Park for our approval. How could we dare to approve them? We’ve tried to ask for instruction from our superior, the Ministry of Interior or the Council of Agriculture. After some on-site meetings, the conclusions were still difficult to put into practice. If we reject the Farm’s projects, it may greatly affect their business. If we approve the projects, the Salmon can be damaged by the construction. This is really a big trouble that has caught us in a dilemma. In terms of private relationship, we are all good friends with the Director of the Farm. But every time in the meeting, we are sitting on opposite sides, like two poles.” (Lines 171-177)
The ‘unstoppable trouble’ was about the Farm’s 18 proposals for construction projects in the last two years. Those projects were part of the Farm’s Transformation
Project that aimed to reduce the Farm’s agricultural landuse and to develop tourism.
The implementation of the Transformation Project was vital to the livelihoods of the
Farm and local farmers. However, the Park worried that these construction projects would damage the habitat of the Salmon. The Park generally stood for the conservation of the Salmon rather than the livelihoods of local farmers. As a result, the Park and the Farm usually defended their own interests in the meetings.
It seems that the Park did not manage to deal with this dilemma effectively even though they had powerful legal instruments to implement change, such as the NP
Law, the landuse zoning system, and the police force and wardens in the local area. 129
As a result, the Park and others, such as the assemblyman and scientists expected that an even more ‘powerful’ and ‘top-down’ planning approach would be required to resolve the ‘trouble’ i.e. the issue of agriculture and farmlands. This was why they argued that COA, the central authority of the WC Law, should take responsibility for setting up the Salmon WR through a ‘top-down’ planning process.
4.3.4.5. Zoning approach to the boundary of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge
The second topic on the agenda of the meeting was to discuss the boundary for the
Salmon WR. This issue was closely related to the legal basis for protecting the habitat of the Salmon. The Park authorities and scientists argued that the WC Law was more flexible than the NP Law and the CHP Law in the way in which it incorporated new habitats for the Salmon and different management zones. They also suggested that the boundary for the WR should be the whole watershed of the
Chichiawan Stream and the inner boundary for the Core Area should be 300m-or
60m-width from both banks of the stream. They said:
Mr. Wu (Park): “If we find some new habitats for the Salmon which are not in the jurisdiction of the National Park, the National Park Law does not help. For example, the Yousheng steam and the Hohuan stream are not in the National Park. So we can’t use the National Park Law to protect the areas.” (Lines 62-64)
Mr. Wu (Park): “The boundary for the protected area can be the whole watershed or, like the way in the Japanese colonial period, 300 meters from both sides of river banks. No logging or any change of landform can be allowed. I think the watershed as the boundary could be better.” (Lines 202-204)
Dr. Tzeng (academic): “I think we can use zoning approach to designating the boundary of the protected area. The management can be at three levels. 130
The first level is for strict protection, for the area within 60 meters. The second level is for the area within 300 meters, as people did in the Japanese colonial period. The third level is for other areas within the whole watershed.” (Lines 230-234)
Mr. Lin (Ministry of Interior); “According to the implementing regulations of the Wildlife Conservation Law, a Wildlife Refuge can be divide into the Core Area, the Buffer Zone, and the Sustainable Use Area. The regulation for the Core Area is very strict. Nobody can go inside except for some scientific research purposes. The area should be maintained in good natural condition, with a buffer zone surrounding it.” (Lines 334-337)
In terms of the boundary for the Core Area, the Farm argued that the suggestion of a
300m-width from both banks of the stream that leamt from the Japanese document in
1938 (as mentioned in Section 3.3) was unrealistic since the present landuse was very different from the situation in Japanese colonial period. They argued that the solution for reducing the pollution of agriculture should be a step-by-step approach to gradually expanding the core area from 30m, 50m, to 100m and more in the future.
The Farm needed time and money to conduct their Transformation Project:
Director Huang (Farm): “We admit that the quality of the stream water is not so good and should be improved. But what we can do is to improve the area step by step from 30m, to 50m, to 100m of width, rather than arguing ‘300m’ or ‘500m.’ The key issue is about how to get more funding for these conservation practices. If we expropriate their lands by force, it will bring about conflicts with local farmers.” (Lines 363-368)
The argument that the WC Law was flexible and could incorporate new habitats for the Salmon through zoning the Chichiawan stream watershed into a Core Area and a
Buffer Zone for different purposes of management, was not very convincing. First, according to the NP Law, the Park could also expand its boundary and jurisdiction to incorporate new habitats for the Salmon. Second, the Park’s landuse zoning approach 131 under the NP Law was similar to the zoning approach of the WC Law, as already mentioned by Mr. Yang from the Ministry of Interior in the previous section. In fact, under the NP Law, the Chichiawan stream had already been designated as the
Ecological Protection Area while the surrounding farmlands had been designated as the General Protection Area since the establishment of the Park (as mentioned in section 3.6.3 and Figure 3-7). The management of both Areas were principally similar to the Core Area and the Buffer Zone of the WC Law. Therefore, a new
Salmon WR in the same region would cause an overlap of jurisdiction between the
Park authorities and the WR authorities.
Interestingly however, the Park, the assemblyman and scientists welcomed this overlap. It seemed that they believed the introduction of the WC Law and the presence of a central authority, COA, in the area would help the Park to have more power and resources to resolve the ‘trouble issue’ of agriculture and the farmlands. It seemed that their ultimate objective was to remove all the agricultural activity and the associated people i.e. local farmers and the Farm out of the area. They saw
COA’s direct involvement as a means (‘strategic behaviour’ (Lu 2000)) of securing funds to compensate the farmers.
There was another issue associated with the boundary of the Salmon WR. Many participants criticised the lack of conservation research or recovery projects in the past which might successfully introduce the Salmon into other habitats elsewhere of the Chichiawan stream. Research effort had been focused too much on the area of the Chichiawan stream watershed. It was a matter of urgency to find new homes for the Salmon in the areas which had historically supported Salmon, for example, other reaches of the upper Tachia River and streams in nearby mountain areas. They said: 132
Chair (COA): “There has been lots of research carried out in the past. But most of them were restricted to the Wuling area.” (Lines 3-4)... “It’s necessary to find some new homes for the Salmon to reduce the danger of species extinction. Hope we can make some efforts together.” (Lines 15-17)
Mr. Chung (VAC): “We should do some more research in other potentially suitable streams for the Salmon. Rather than only focusing our efforts on the issues of the Chichiawan stream.” (Lines 216-218)
Dr. Lin (academic): “We’d better not put all the efforts in the Chichiawan stream. We should also consider the impact of the global warming. The global temperature will increase 3 degrees by 2050. But the reforestation along the banks of the stream will take several decades to make a good plant cover. It will be useless to have any protected area since the Chichiawan stream water temperature is increased. We should make some efforts in some other streams.” (Lines 244-247)
Dr. Wang (academic): “The Forestry Bureau has considered some other places before. I’ve done two-year research in the Kasir stream before...It may be suitable to be a new home for the Salmon.” (Lines 300-305)
The strategy advocated by the Park authorities and scientists for resolving conflicts relied heavily on a regulatory framework that imposed zoning and restrictions on existing landuse activity in the proposed WR. They seemed to ignore the consequences of these activities for local people.
4.3.4.6. Composition of stakeholders and their working relationships in the planning
process
As mentioned above, the dominant discourse held by the assemblyman, scientists, and the Park in the meeting was to employ the third item of the Article 10 of the WC
Law to stand for the ‘top-down’ approach to achieving effectiveness and efficiency.
In this way, there would be mainly three planning and management authorities for the Salmon WR: 133
• COA as the central planning authority
• The Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee as the consultant
• The Shei-Pa National Park as the management authority
Mr. Kao (assemblyman): “According to the Article 10 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, the central authority, in case of lack of management personnel, can delegate the management of the Wildlife Refuge to other institutions or organisations. There are three nearby institutions. The first is the National Park. It is more suitable because it aims to protect the environment. The second is the Forestry Bureau, which is an affiliated institution of the Taiwan Provincial Government. The third is the Wuling Farm but it aims to make a profit...After the designation, the protected area can be legally delegated to another institution. But COA should be responsible for the whole budget for implementing the Conservation Project. In terms of the issue of farmlands, the lands can be purchased or expropriated by COA and then transfer them to the management authority.” (Lines 76-87)
Mr. Pon (Park): “It doesn’t matter which law COA decide to use. IF COA decide to delegate the Shei-Pa National Park to be the management authority, all staff and police of the Park will do their best to cany out the conservation work.” (Lines 59-61)
Mr. Wu (Park): “According to the Wildlife Conservation Law, the role of the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee is very important. They can play a supervision role...Every year the Salmon conservation work can be reviewed in the Committee meeting to monitor the outcomes.” (Lines 145-149)
Based on the ‘top-down’ approach, the planning procedure for the Salmon WR and the working relationships among the above three institutions would be:
• COA designates the Salmon WR with the approval of the Wildlife Conservation
Advisory Committee (WCA Committee) under the third item of the Article 10 of 134
the WC Law;
• COA prepares the budget for implementing the Conservation Project of the
Salmon and expropriates or purchases the farmlands from the Farm and local
farmers;
• COA transfers the ownership of the farmlands to the Shei-Pa National Park and
delegates the Park as the management authority of the WR;
• COA finances the Park to implement the Conservation Plan of the Salmon
• The WCA Committee plays the advisory role to monitor and evaluate the
outcomes of the Conservation Plan
Though this ‘top-down’ planning approach could lead to an adversarial relationship among the Park authorities, the Farm authorities, and local farmers, some thought that it was legally correct and ethically right. For example:
Mr. Kao (assemblyman): “Last month, that is January, I once talked to Dr. Tzeng about the delay of the planning for the Salmon protected area by COA. I told him that I and the central legislator Mr. Lao, we both were thinking to go to the local court and sue the Veteran Affairs Commission and the Wuling Farm. But Dr. Tzeng stopped me. He said in case that some staff of the Farm {...f Because at that time it was in dry season. In case they poured some pesticide into the stream, the Salmon would all die. So he hoped that we could negotiate with each other about the problem.” (Lines 426-430)
The above quote reflects a deep mistrust by the assemblyman and scientists of the
Farm authorities and local farmers. They invoked the possibility of the threat of
‘deliberate sabotage’ by farmers to support their claim. However, there was no evidence to show their suspicion was justifiable.
^ Untimed pauses 135
Though strongly recommended by the Park authorities, the assemblyman, and scientists to adopt the ‘top-down’ plaiming approach, COA did not make a decision in this meeting and left their position open. It seemed that COA still hesitated to apply this recommended ‘top-down’ approach. Equally they were uncertain whether it would be better to adopt the general ‘bottom-up’ planning procedure to fulfil the requirement of the WC Law in which the Taichung County Government (TCG) was assigned to be the planning and management authority for the Salmon WR, that is:
‘Local management authorities may establish Wildlife Refuges for major wildlife habitats with special conservation needs, as well as formulate and carry out Conservation Projects in those areas.’ (the first item of Article 10 of the Wildlife Conservation Law)
4.3.5. Outcomes of the meeting and how the agreements were to be
maintained?
At the end of the meeting the chairman drew two conclusions:
• The WC Law will be the legal basis of planning for the Salmon WR.
• In terms of the boundary for the Salmon WR, COA will sort out the opinions in
the meeting and inform every participant. COA will actively contact and negotiate
with related institutions about associated issues.
That is to say, people only achieved consensus in the meeting about the WC Law as the legal basis for planning the Salmon WR. This left three important unresolved issues:
• Main responsible planning authority: It remained unclear whether, ‘in case of
emergency’, COA should take responsibility for designating the WR through a 136
top-down process (under the third item of the Article 10 of the WC Law) or
whether the local county government should be the planning authority through the
‘normal’ bottom-up procedures (under the first item of the Article 10 of the WC
Law).
• Boundary of the Salmon WR: It remained unclear whether the Salmon WR should
only cover the existing habitat of the Salmon, i.e. the Chichiawan stream
watershed, or should also incorporate other potentially suitable areas, such as
historical habitats in the upper Tachia River.
• Boundary of the Core Area: Several suggestions were proposed in the meeting,
including 30m-, 50m-, 60m-, or 300m-width from both banks of the Chichiawan
stream.
In order to maintain the agreement and deal with the unresolved problems, COA,
TPG, and TCG held another 10 official meetings (Table 4-3) from ICf^ July 1995 to
24^ July 1997 before the establishment of the Salmon WR, which are discussed in the next section.
Table 4-3 Official planning meetings for the Salmon Wildlife Refuge at stage V
No. Date Meeting Chair Where Participants PWR*® (COA, TPG, FB, FBTB, ESRI, 2 Discussion meeting of Taipei SWCB, FRI, TCG); Park (MI, SPNP, 1 March planning for the proposed COA city TNP); Farm (VAC, WF); 6 scientists; 95 Salmon Wildlife Refuge Others (MEA, TRMC) On-site visit and negotiation PWR (COA, TPG, FB, FBTB, ESRI, 10-11 COA meeting of planning for the Wuling SWCB, FRI, TCG); Park (MI, SPNP, 2 July & proposed Salmon Wildlife area TNP); Farm (VAC, WF); 6 scientists; 95 TCG Refuge Others (MEA, EPA, TRMC) 30 Periodical meeting of the Committee: 2 scientists, 9 conservation Taipei 3 Nov COA’s Wildlife Conservation COA NGOs, 5 government institutions (COA, city 95 Advisory Committee MI, EPA, ME, ESRI, Taipei CG,
PWR: Planning authorities for the Salmon Wildlife Refuge 137
Kaohsiung CG); Others (VAC, SPNP, WF, TPC, FB, FBTB, TCG) Preparation meeting for the PWR (COA, TPG, FB, ESRI, TCG); 11 Jan Working Panel and planning Taipei 4 COA Park (MI, SPNP); Farm (VAC, WF); 2 96 schedule for the proposed city scientists; Others (MEA, TRMC) Salmon Wildlife Refuge The first Working Panel PWR (COA, TPG, FB, ESRI, TCG); 30 Jan Taipei 5 meeting for the proposed COA Park (MI, SPNP); Farm (VAC, WF); 3 96 city Salmon Wildlife Refuge scientists The second Working Panel PWR (COA, TPG, FB, ESRI, TCG); 29 Feb Taipei 6 meeting for the proposed COA Park (MI, SPNP); Farm (VAC, WF); 2 96 city Salmon Wildlife Refuge scientists 01 The third Working Panel PWR (COA, TPG, FB, ESRI, TCG); Taipei 7 Apr meeting for the proposed COA Park (MI, SPNP); Farm (VAC, WF); 1 city 96 Salmon Wildlife Refuge scientists 23 On-site meeting of planning PWR (TPG, FB, FBTB, ESRI, SWCB, Wuling 8 July for the proposed Salmon TPG FRI, TCG); Park (SPNP); Farm (WF) area 96 Wildlife Refuge and others Discussion meeting on 02 compensation scheme for the PWR (COA, TPG, FB, FBTB, TCG); 9 Nov COA Taipei proposed Salmon Wildlife city Park (MI, SPNP); Farm (VAC, WF) 96 Refuge Committee: 2 scientists, 9 conservation 28 Periodical meeting of COA’s NGOs, 5 government institutions (COA, 10 March Wildlife Conservation COA Taipei MI, EPA, ME, ESRI, Taipei CG, city 97 Advisory Committee Kaohsiung CG); Others (VAC, SPNP, WF, TPC, FB, FBTB, TCG) Discussion Meeting on the 24 PWR (COA, TPG, FB, FBTB, ESRI, Designation Plan for the Taichung 11 July TCG SWCB, TCG); Park (MI, SPNP); Farm proposed Salmon Wildlife county 97 (VAC, WF) Refuge Note: Abbreviations in Table 4-3 COA: Council of Agriculture SWCB: Soil and Water Conservation Bureau EPA: Environmental Protection Administration Taipei CG: Taipei City Government ESRI: Endemic Species Research Institute TCG: Taichung County Government FB: Forestry Bureau TNP: Taroko National Park FBTB: Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch TPG: Taiwan Provincial Government FRI: Fishery Research Institute TRMC: Techi Reservoir Management Committee Kaohsiung CG: Kaohsiung City Government VAC: Veteran’s Affairs Commission ME: Ministry of Education WCAC: Wildlife Conservation Advisory MI: Ministry of Interior Committee SPNP: Shei-Pa National Park Headquarters WVF: Wuling Veteran’s Farm 138
4.4. Review of other official meetings from 10*** July 1995 to 24^ July 1997
COA did not accept the suggestion made in the first meeting to ignore the ‘normal’ planning procedures and designate the Salmon Wildlife Refuge for the sake of
‘emergency.’ There is no general agreement on a standard definition of ‘in case of emergency’ since the WC Law does not provide such a definition. As a result, the
WC Law offers considerable discretion on how it may be interpreted locally.
There were some discussion and debates within COA about whether COA should accept the suggestion by the Park, scientists, the legislator, and the assemblyman to designate the WR ‘in emergency’ or should follow the ‘normal’ procedures^’’. Some officials considered that COA was under pressure to act and should compromise by accepting the above suggestion in order to release the pressure. Others argued that the WC Law was so recently amended in Oct 1994, only five months before the first meeting that to ignore the normal procedures would set an unacceptable precedent that would influence the designation procedures of all subsequent WRs. At that time
COA had just started to promote local community participation in nature conservation and had asked local county governments to take more responsibility for planning and management of the protected areas (Lu 2000). Accordingly, COA officials argued that COA should stick to the normal procedures as set out under the newly amended WC Law.
The normal procedures place the authority and responsibility for planning and managing the WRs on local management authorities rather than the central authority
COA. Normal procedures also require public participation, including an on-site
I was working for the Conservation Division of COA from 1994 to 1997. 139 public hearing meeting on the WR plan, the prior approval of the WR plan by the
WCA Committee (in which NGOs and scientists should comprise more than two-thirds of the total committee membership, see Appendix I), and the delegation of the WR management to other public or private organizations if necessary.
Finally, in order to set an example, COA decided to enforce the newly amended Law through the normal procedure and asked the Taichung County Government (TCG) in
April 95 to start planning for the Salmon WR following a process that included opportunities for public participation. In order to help TCG deal with the large number of stakeholders likely to be involved and to address the unresolved issues identified in the first meeting, COA cooperated with TCG by holding an on-site meeting in July 1995 for deciding the boundary and the basic management principles for the Salmon WR (Plate 4-1). The composition of participants involved in this meeting however was similar to the first meeting. Participants spent two days in the local area, the first day for reconnaissance and the second day for discussion.
Important conclusions of the meeting included:
• To designate the Chichiawan stream watershed as the boundary of the Salmon WR
• To designate the area of 30m-width from the both banks of the stream as the
boundary of the Core Area of the WR
• To incorporate the Farm’s Transformation Project to stop planting vegetables and
to implement reforestation along the stream banks
• To incorporate other off-site streams into the WR in the future when and where the
releasing projects of the Salmon become successful 140
• To suggest the Farm authorities and the Park authorities to further negotiate the
Regeneration Project of local farmers’ villages, and
• To ask TCG to draw up the Conservation Plan as the legal requirement for the
designation of the Salmon WR
On this basis, it seemed that the unresolved problems of the first meeting about the boundary of the WR, and the responsible planning authority (COA or TCG) and the procedure (top-down or bottom-up) were all settled in this second meeting. However,
TCG found themselves a ‘newcomer’ who lacked experience, expertise, and good working relationships with other stakeholders. They were not able to take the full responsibility for drawing up the Conservation Plan of the Salmon WR because this would involve working with a large number of relevant stakeholders ranging from central, regional, to local levels. In other words, TCG lacked sufficient knowledge and relational resources to carry out the necessary duties delegated to them under the
WC Law, though COA promised to help the TCG by giving financial and administrative support (i.e. political instruments) to assist them in this role. As a result, the planning work needing to be undertaken by TCG was put off for a few months.
In Jan 1996, six months after the second meeting, the Wildlife Conservation
Advisory Committee (WCA Committee) criticised the delay in planning the Salmon
WR and urged COA to ‘immediately’ designate the Salmon WR. The majority of members in the Committee were scientists and conservation NGOs (Appendix I).
Like those scientists, the assemblyman, and the Park in the first meeting, they argued that the ‘top-down’ approach was the most effective and efficient way of saving the
Salmon. However, since this Committee acted as an ‘advisor’ to COA under the WC 141
Law, their decisions were not binding on COA.
In response to the suggestions of the WCA Committee, COA made a compromise between the ‘top-down’ and the ‘bottom-up’ approaches by recruiting a Working
Panel and holding four meetings (from Jan 1996 to Apr 1996) to help TCG draw up the Salmon Conservation Plan. The composition of the Working Panel included:
• Planning authorities of the WR, including members from COA, the Taiwan
Provincial Government, the Forestry Bureau and its Tungshih Branch, the
Endemic Species Research Institute, and TCG;
• The Farm authorities, including members from the Veteran Affairs Commission
and the Wuling Farm;
• The Park authorities, including members from the Ministry of Interior and the
Shei-Pa National Park, and
• Biological scientists, including 3 academics. Dr. Wang, Dr. Tzeng, and Dr. Lee,
from of the National Taiwan Normal University, the National Chinghwang
University, and the National Taiwan University
The Conservation Plan for the Salmon WR drawn up by the Working Panel embraced many of the ideas present in the Shei-Pa National Park’s Conservation
Project of the Salmon (1995) as well as many of the conclusions and suggestions made in earlier meetings. A Task-division Agenda with short-to-long-term objectives was established and responsible authorities identified for implementing the associated conservation work (Appendix X). 142
The Working Panel did not work out all of the problems. Though the Panel had tried to incorporate the Farm’s Transformation Project into the Conservation Flan for the
Salmon WR, three issues about the Project still remained unresolved:
• The regeneration project of the farmers’ villages
• The development of tourism
• The compensation for the Farm’s loss of income due to the conservation practice
of stopping vegetable planting in the Core Area along the Chichiawan stream
The implementation of the Regeneration Project of the farmers’ villages required prior approval from the Park authorities since according to the NP Law they were the landuse regulation authorities. In Oct 1995, the Ministry of Interior (MI) invited the
Farm authorities, the Park, COA, and other associated institutions to discuss the
Regeneration Project. As a result of discussions, the Farm was asked to prepare a
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the Regeneration Project and submit it to the Environmental Protection Agency. This issue remained unsettled because the
Farm needed time to prepared the EIS.
The only issue of the Farm’s Transformation Project that was resolved at this stage was the compensation for the Farm’s loss of income from the farmlands in the Core
Area along the Chichiawan stream. About four months after the final Working Panel meeting, the Taiwan Provincial Government (TPG) invited the Park and Farm authorities and other institutions to attend an on-site meeting for reviewing associated issues of the Conservation Plan for the proposed Salmon WR. One of the conclusions of this meeting was to suggest COA to expand the proposed boundary of 143 the Core Area from 30m-width to 5Cm-width. A larger core area was thought to have a more beneficial effect on the Salmon habitat in which agriculture would be stopped and reforestation would be implemented. About three months later, in order to determine the compensation budget to fund the Farm’s loss of income from stopping agriculture in the proposed wider core area, COA invited the Park, the Farm, and other planning authorities to attend a meeting on 2"^ Nov 1996. Important conclusions of the meeting included:
• The boundary of the Core Area would be expanded to 50m-width from the both
banks of the stream;
• The planning authorities would compensate the loss of income of the Farm (for 34
million Taiwan dollars, i.e. about 700 thousand sterling). COA would compensate
half of this sum while TPG and Taichung County Government (TCG) would fund
the other half;
• From the following Feb, the Farm should stop planting vegetables and the
Forestry Bureau should conduct reforestation in the area between the stream and
the Wuling road (generally wider than the 50m-wide Core Area) (Plate 4-2, Plate
4-3).
COA and the WCA Committee finally approved the designation plan of the Salmon
WR on 28* March 1997. TCG invited the Farm, the Park, and other planning authorities to attend a meeting on 24 July 1997 for a final check of the Conservation
Plan of the Salmon WR. On Oct 1997, TCG legally designated the Salmon WR under the WC Law. It took 2 years and 7 months to complete the planning and designation processes. 144
4.5. Evaluation of institutional capacity-building at the end of stage V
This section aims to evaluate the outcomes of the institutional capacity-building among stakeholder community at the end of stage V. I employ Healey’s three dimensions of institutional capacity, i.e. the dimensions of the knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity, to discuss the achievements they had made and the problems remaining unresolved.
4.5.1. Outcomes
During this stage, the planning authorities of the Salmon WR came to adopt a more collaborative planning approach to settling disputes between the Park and the Farm.
COA played a key role as a mediator between the ‘two adversarial sides’ (Figure 4-4 and Table 4-4). The Park authorities, scientists, the assemblyman, and conservation
NGOs represented one side that emphasised the well-being of the Salmon. The Farm authorities represented the other side that emphasised the livelihoods of local farmers and the interests of tourists.
At the start of this stage, the Park found it difficult to either accept or reject the 18 proposals of the Farm’s Transformation Project. The Park authorities looked to a more ‘powerful’ authority and ‘effective’ political instruments to help to resolve these ‘troubles.’ As shown in many meetings of this period, the Park officials, scientists, the conservation NGOs, and the assemblyman basically preferred a
‘top-down’ approach by which the central institution, COA, was asked to designate the Salmon WR under the authority of the WC Law. COA was also asked to expropriate the farmlands and then delegate the management of the Salmon WR to the Park authorities. 145
Table 4-4 Stakeholder groups at the end of stage V
Stakeholder groups National level Regional level Local level
•Taiwan Provincial Government •Taichung County Planning Authorities Government •Council of Agriculture •Forestry Bureau of the Salmon WR •Tungshih Branch of •Endemic Species Forestry Bureau Research Institute
The Farm Authorities •Veterans Affairs Commission •Wuling Farm
•Shei-Pa National The Park Authorities •Ministry of Interior Park
Scientists •Academics from Universities
•NGOs (as members of the •Provincial •Local farmers Public Wildlife Conservation Assemblyman Committee) •Tourists
This ‘top-down’ approach was shown to be problematic for three reasons, each referring to Healey’s three dimensions of institutional capacity respectively:
• First (the knowledge dimension), it tried to simplify the complex management
problems on the ground. It gave priority to the well-being of the Salmon but
excluded the importance of local farmers’ livelihoods and tourists’ interests. It
also ignored the complicated and indeterminable nature of the ecological system.
The ‘top-down’ approach relied on ‘good’ scientific knowledge to set thresholds
and boundaries, such as boundaries for core areas and regulations of landuse,
designed to achieved desirable conservation outcomes. However, it was shown
that scientific knowledge could not provide answers about which factors were
contributing most to the decline of the Salmon. As a result, the ‘top-down’
approach was not convincing and acceptable to the Farm authorities and local
farmers, whose livelihoods would be greatly affected by these conservation
regulations. 146
• Second (the relational dimension), it excluded the participation of local farmers
and tourists. In practice COA was asked to take responsibility for designating the
WR to forgo the on-site public hearing that would have involved local people. The
Park authorities, conservation NGOs and scientists did not consider this to be
improper because the interests and participation of local people and tourists were
not ‘the goals.’
• Third (the political dimension), the ‘top-down’ approach worked with a
conceptual model of landuse that tried to exclude any ‘human interference’ and
make the area a more ‘natural place’: a ‘human-free’ National Park. In order to
achieve the goal of becoming a ‘natural place’ more ‘effectively and efficiently’,
the approach tended to impose legally binding penalty systems and zoning
regulations on the Farm and local farmers. As a result, the top-down approach
generated an adversarial relationship between the two sides.
By holding the public meetings and the Working Panel meetings, the planning authorities of the Salmon WR introduced a more collaborative approach. Unlike the previous stage it sought to mediate between interests of the conservation of the
Salmon and the interests of local farmers and tourists in the following ways (Figure
4-4):
• First (the knowledge dimension), the planning authorities made an effort to deal
with the complex management problems on the ground. It also recognised the
importance of local farmers’ livelihoods and tourists’ interests by incorporating
the Farm’s Transformation Project into the Conservation Plan o f the Salmon WR,
though the overall emphasis was still placed on the well-being of the Salmon. Livelihoods of local farmers. Reconciling Well-being of the Interests of tourists Salmon
Knowledge resources
More . More reconciled interests Mobilisation collaborative . More collaborative working relationship capacity planning . More inclusionary and communicative instruments approach . Local farmers and tourists still marginalised
Relational resources
Farm authorities Scientists
Provincial Planning assemblyman; Local fanners authorities NGOs
Touirsts Park authorities
Figure 4-4 Institutional capacity at the end of stage V 148
• Second (the relational dimension), the planning authorities adopted a more
inclusionary approach to involving more stakeholders than the previous stage into
the planning processes, including the planning authorities, the Farm authorities
and more scientists and conservation NGOs (as members of the WCA Committee).
The planning authorities, especially the COA, played a pivotal role as a mediator
in helping to reconcile the conflicts and build up better working relations between
the two adversarial groups of stakeholders.
• Third (the political dimension), the planning authorities employed a series of
public meetings and recruited a planning committee (the Working Panel) as key
arenas for mobilising the two adversarial sides of stakeholders to work on
consensus building. Together they worked out a Conservation Plan for the Salmon
WR in which a task-division agenda was dravm up and responsible authorities
identified for implementing the associated conservation work.
4.5.2. Unresolved problems
In the planning processes of this stage, stakeholders did not settle all the issues of the
Farm’s Transformation Project in which the regeneration of local farmers’ villages and the development of tourism still remained unresolved. This was for two reasons.
First, the planning authorities were under pressure from the Park authorities, the assemblyman, the conservation NGOs, and scientists to plan the Salmon WR
‘efficiently and effectively.’ This meant designating the WR under the WC Law ‘as soon as possible.’ The Park authorities, the assemblyman, the conservation NGOs, and scientists, seemed to believe that after the legal designation and establishment of the Salmon WR under the WC Law, all remaining problems could be resolved by these ‘political instruments’ (i.e. the law, the regulations, the plans, and the financial 149 resources). It did not really matter to them if every issue of the Transformation
Project was sorted out or consensuses achieved about the planning processes.
Second, the beneficiaries of the Transformation Project, i.e. the farmers and the tourists, were absent in the planning processes. The Farm authorities were thought to be the ‘taken for granted’ representatives of local farmers. Though the Farm did seek to speak for local farmers in many meetings, local farmers could not appear in the meetings and speak for themselves. Their absence from discussions meant that as stakeholders who were to carry out the Transformation Project, the outcomes of decision-making process were likely to be compromised. The authorities could either make decisions on behalf of the farmers or put off making any decision that would greatly affect the livelihoods of the farmers. One way forward was to adopt a more deliberative and inclusionary planning process in which local farmers would be directly involved.
Tourists are members of the general public and their composition as a stakeholder group is complex. It was difficult to say who were their ‘representatives.’ As noted above, tourists were important beneficiaries of the Transformation Project to the
Farm and local farmers. The Farm and local farmers generally welcomed tourists because they were ‘a source of income.’ On the other hand, the Park’s policy was to regulate tourist activities since the Park considered that the recreational activities could have negative impacts on the ecology of the WR. As a result, though the Park and the Farm had spoken ‘for tourists’ in the meetings, their legitimate interests were only represented indirectly. As is the case for local farmers, the absence of tourists from the decision-making process meant that the outcomes of the planning process could also be compromised. 150
In addition to the issue of the Farm’s Transformation Project, there was another unresolved problem about the complexity of ecological system and uncertainty of science. For example, the Farm authorities and local farmers generally did not accept the criticism of the agricultural pollution as a major factor since the scientific community had not been able to identify to what extent each factor contributed to the decline of the Salmon. The boundaries (30m-, 60m-, or SOOm-Avidth from both sides of the stream) suggested by scientists for the Core Area of the proposed Salmon WR also lacked ‘good’ scientific grounds. The problem of the scientific uncertainty had not yet been seriously dealt with.
In sum, absent from the decision-making process was any detailed consideration of those stakeholders, such as local farmers, whose lives would be most affected by the management proposals or of those other stakeholders, such as tourists, who might be expected to benefit from these proposed changes, as well as the problem of science that underpinned traditional, rational planning approaches. In the following two chapters, I will explore these issues using a more deliberative and inclusionary approach that is based on my own research activity undertaken in the field. 151
Plate 4-1 The on-site negotiation meeting in the WuLing area in July 1995 (source; Council of Agriculture)
. )» v-x
Plate 4-2 The Farm grew cabbages along the stream before the meeting of compensation scheme in Nov 1996 (source: Council of Agriculture) 152
i
i
Plate 4-3 The same farmland shown in Plate 4-2 has been reforested by trees after the implementation of the compensation scheme 153
Chapter 5 Stakeholder Participation in the Management Process of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (1997 onwards) (1): Findings of the fieldwork and the group meeting with local farmers and local management authorities
5.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to explore the management problems of the Salmon Wildlife
Refuge (WR) in associated with local farmers’ livelihoods at stage VI. The objective is to identify what local farmers think ‘the problem’ is as well as to evaluate what a more collaborative planning approach can contribute to securing a more sustainable solution to future of the WR. One unresolved problem in the previous stages was the absence of local farmers from the decision-making processes and the failure of traditional, rational planning approaches to resolving the practical problem of their livelihoods. All decision-making in the previous stages was made in formal meetings without any involvement of local farmers, whose lives would be most affected by the management proposals. Most formal meetings were conducted outside the local area and lacked a detailed understanding and consideration about what actually happened on the ground. This chapter aims to explore these ‘gaps’ of knowledge, based on my empirical studies in the field.
This chapter outlines the processes employed in my fieldwork, the findings of the meeting convened by myself as part of the research study with local farmers and local management authorities, and some interviews conducted with individuals. The fieldwork was undertaken about one year after the Salmon WR was finally designated on Oct 1997. In-depth interviews and group discussions were combined with ethnographic observations in the field to reveal and explore the full dimensions of 154
‘the problem’ in the light of Healey’s (1997, 1998a) framework of institutional capacity, i.e. knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity.
The chapter is structured in three sections:
• First, I briefly review the fieldwork processes, including a 40-day pilot study from
2"^ Oct to 15* Nov 1998, and a 5-month fieldwork from 14* Apr to 18* Sept
1999.
• Second, I provide a qualitative analysis of the group meeting convened with local
farmers and local management authorities (hereafter the farmers group meeting)
conducted on 12* July 1999 to explore the problems associated with the
livelihoods of local farmers.
• Third, I employ Healey’s institutional capacity-building as external criteria as well
as participants’ opinions as internal criteria to evaluate the outcomes of this
meeting. The overall objective is to explore what contribution a more deliberative
and inclusionary approach can offer as means of better understanding what local
people believe ‘the problem’ of natural area management to be.
5.2. Processes of the fieldwork
I interviewed 31 people during the first field phase (Appendix XI). The interviews were carried out in an unstructured, free-form conversational way. Notes were made when convenient and as soon after the meeting as possible. Most respondents were met in their workplace, some in restaurants. All interviews were accomplished with the purpose of familiarising myself with those key stakeholders and the ‘problems’ they perceived. All respondents accepted that I would wish to speak with them again 155 during my second phase of fieldwork.
Most interviewees were governmental officers, local wardens, and academics. I kept in touch with them through letters or emails before I went to Taiwan. Most of us knew each other before we met. This is because I was involved in the planning process from March 95 - Aug 97 while employed by the Council of Agriculture
(COA). I did not plan to visit local farmers in the first fieldtrip since it would take a long time to get acquainted with them.
The five-month second phase of fieldwork took place in the study area from 22"^ Apr
- if^ Aug 1999, which is outlined in Appendix XII on an event-by-event and day-by-day basis. The following sections present the processes of participant observation, interviews, and preparation for the group meeting held with local farmers and local management authorities.
5.2.1. Participant observation
My first two months, from 22"^ Apr - 22"^ June 1999, were spent as a participant observer in the Wuling area so that I could get to know local farmers, staff of the local management authorities and familiarise myself with their activities. I started recruiting local people for a group meeting towards the end of this orientation period.
Important issues involved in my participant observation include: the role of researcher, access to specific locations and places, and access to people.
5.2.1.1. The role of researcher
Cook (1997) divides the role of the researcher into four categories: overt observer. 156 overt participant, covert observer, and covert participant. He suggests that researchers may move between roles as their research progresses and as they contact with different people. I decided to adopt an overt role before I went into the field since it would be unnecessary and impossible to adopt a covert role. Honesty and openness were the best policy because I had met some people in the Farm and the
Park during the first phase of fieldwork in 1998. However, the boundary between
Cook’s (1997) participant and observer is not clear-cut. A researcher not only may move between participant and observer as Cook describes but also, as I experienced in the field, plays two roles at the same time. I actually deliberatively immersed myself in the everyday lives of the community and, at the same time, adopted a reflexive attitude by sitting back and watching activities.
In the field, I also realized that my presence as an observer was a social event, so were the interviews and focus group meetings. These social events inevitably brought more or less interactions between the community members and myself, even if I just asked questions and acted as a good listener. The interactions usually happened in conversations between the researcher and the researched. Two examples illustrate the point as follows.
The first example of interactions between the researcher and the researched occurred when people asked me who I was, what I was doing there, or what my research topic was? I usually replied that, “I am a PhD student studying in London and now back here to do my fieldwork. My research topic is collaborative planning and management for natural protected areas and I am looking at ways of managing the area that allows both the Salmon and local people to live together.” This simple answer might have suggested that research on people-park relationships was worth 157 doing, that a solution for both the Salmon’s (nature’s) and local people’s welfare was worth discussing, and that people with less power in the past should have more chance of participation. In practice my response might also have raised public expectations about what could be achieved in the Park.
Another example of the interactions occurred when I asked people questions.
Questions, such as “What do you know about the Salmon Wildlife Refuge?” “What are your opinions of the management of the Park, the Farm, the Forestry Bureau, or the Taichung County Government?” “What’s the relationship between you and ...?”
“For the issue of ...what do you think the possible solutions are?” etc. From an interactionist’s point of view, the questions and answers are not supposed to be ‘out there’ (Silverman 2001). The conversation is situated in a process of interaction and reconstruction. Some people may or may not have thought about these questions before. My questions might have prompted them to rethink or construct their ideas and answers. In turn, they might have become more conscious of some issues than before.
Since the objective of participant observation was to understand people and their activities in context, I tried to be a good listener so that I could learn from people and eventually gain some sense of place. I was also conscious of my interactions with the researched whilst in the field. Keeping a diary and writing down the events and the interactions was an important way of keeping myself aware of the interactions prompted by my own actions. 158
5.2.1.2. Gaining access to places
The second issue associated with participant observation concerned gaining access to local places. A researcher in the field can be seen as a research tool, an information sensor. The location of the sensor may influence information received.
With the help of the Farm, I lived in its dormitories, took meals with the staff, and borrowed a motorcycle from the Farm. I lived with the Farm’s Hotel staff from April
22"^ - July 5^^, with the Farm Office staff from July 5^*^ - 21*, and with the Farm’s garden and farmland workers from July 21* - August 11*. I usually had my meal at the table with the Farm’s senior staff. These all helped me gain several opportunities to meet and talk to people who worked in different sectors of the Farm.
Thanks to the motorcycle, a single trip without stop from the Wuling Farm’s Hotel to the Forestry Bureau’s Tourist Lodge took only fifteen minutes. Therefore in the field,
I could frequently travel along the Stream and the Road and could conveniently visit or encounter people living, working, or sightseeing in Wuling area.
The Chichiawan Stream and high mountain area are designated as the Ecological
Protection Areas by the Park. No resident houses or offices are inside the Area.
Access to this Area requires advance permission from Park authority. I applied for permission and received a one-year permit into the field programme. It helped me gain access to the Stream to observe research work on the Salmon (e.g. counting of the Salmon population), and allowed access to the trails leading up to the high mountain area to meet and talk with some mountain climbers. 159
5.2.1.3. Gaining access to people
The third issue of participant observation was about how to get access to local people.
At the beginning of the fieldwork, I already knew quite a few academics and professional people in the central governmental organizations through my previous work experienced^. However, I knew very few people in the local area - in practice I knew only five people in the Farm’s Office and the Park’s Wuling Warden and Police
Offices. In the field, therefore, my focus was on talking with local people, staff employed by local management authorities, tourists, and other people visiting the local area for business, research, or other interests. I sought to explore each local stakeholder’s interests and interactions among them.
At the very beginning, I relied on my few acquaintances in the Farm and the Park’s
Warden and Police Office to introduce me to other people and to direct me to information about the local area. After these initial introductions, I began to meet people on an informal basis in the Wuling area. It was very important to observe or meet people frequently so that I could both get to know them and eventually capture the rhythm and routine of the place.
The daily fieldwork schedule for the first two months was quite flexible and often decided by what I could see or whom I could meet. In order to keep up to date with the latest information of local activities, I visited the Farm Office and the Park’s
Tourist Centre almost everyday.
Those who lived, worked, or visited Wuling area can be categorized into five groups as follows:
I was working for the Conservation Division of GOA from 1994 to 1997. 160
A. Local management authorities group
• Staff of the Wuling Farm (WF), including 20 office staff, 41 Farm hotel staff, and
43 garden and orchard workers
• Staff of the Shei-Pa National Park (SPNP), including 10 staff in the Wuling
Warden Office and 10 staff in the Wuling Police Office
• Staff of the Forestry Bureau (FB), including 6 staff in the Wuling Tourist Lodge
• Staff of the Taichung County Government (TCG), including 3 staff of the TCG’s
Nature Conservation Sector (The office is about 110 km away form the local area)
B. Local farmers group
• Veteran farmers, including 20 legally registered households of whom about 10
households usually lived in the Wuling area; others lived in the lowlands.
• Renters working for veteran farmers’ land: 5 people
• Renters working for the WF’s farmlands: about 8 people
C. Tourists group
• More than 200,000 tourists visit the area per year
D. Scientists group
• Academics from universities who had collaborative research projects with the
Park
E. Others
• People from other government institutions and visiting the local area for business 161
The majority of people in the local management authorities group had face-to-face contact with visitors to the area and were involved in the day-to-day management of the Park and the Salmon WR.
I employed different approaches for gaining access to these stakeholder groups. For example, I had many chances to talk to staff of the Farm because I lived in their dormitory and took my three meals with them. I frequently visited the Park’s Tourist
Centre, Police Office, and Warden Office where I could meet and talk to their staff, police officers, tourist interpreters, aboriginal wardens, and also some tourists. I visited staff of the Forestry Bureau’s Tourist Lodge at reception desk and chatted with them. During the period of my fieldwork, staff from the TCG visited the Wuling area about four times. I met them three times in the Wuling area and once in their
County Government office.
Harrison et al (1998) argue that farmers’ meanings, values and knowledges of the natural world are different from the understandings of experts. This calls for special methods to explore their concerns and opinions. For local farmers, the best way of meeting them was to walk around their villages and across the farmland. It was not necessary to make appointments. They preferred informal talks and chats. The conversation was not often one-to-one. I sometimes joined to a group who were chatting or sometimes somebody joined a group I was already talking with. The conversation often proceeded naturally since it took place in local people’s territory.
Tourists often clustered at places, including the Farm’s hotels. Tourist Service and camping grounds, the Park’s Tourist Centre, the Forestry Bureau’s Tourist Lodge, several scenic spots along the Wuling Road, and the Tao-Shan and Shei-Shan hiking paths. I often walked or rode my motorcycle travelling between these places to 162 observe or chat to tourists I met.
5.2.2. Interviews
Before going into the field, I had prepared a schedule of the structure of interviews, based on Healey’s framework (in Appendix XIII). These questions were regarded as a very general guideline or direction for interviewing. In the field, interview questions were put largely depending on interviewees’ experiences, understandings and concerns. For example, it was relevant to ask the Director of the Farm, Mr.
Huang, many detailed questions about the history and events of the Farm and the
Salmon conservation works in the area since he had been working there for twenty years. On the other hand, it was appropriate to ask the Director of the Park, Mr. Lin, many detailed questions about the Park’s current policy and works, but would be difficult to ask too much about the past situation since he had just transferred to be
Director and had been in post for only a year. Furthermore, it was difficult to ask local farmers about their participation in the planning process of the Salmon WR since most of them did not know about the WR or its designation. However, it was suitable to ask them their opinions about not being able to participate in the planning process of the area.
The interviews generally began with exploring the interviewees’ experiences of their lives or work in Wuling area. This introduction provided the guide upon which further specific aspects of understanding and opinions were sought. The duration of interviews varied from three minutes to three hours, depending on the topic, availability of time, and knowledge of interviewees. The interviews took place in a variety of locations, such as interviewee’s house, office, farmland, or other outdoor 163 places.
5.2.3. Recruitment of the farmers group meeting
About two months after I arrived in the Wuling area, I had gained a general idea about the issues and problems in the area. Following the original schedule, I started recruiting two group meetings, one for local people and the other for members of local management authorities. To test the feasibility of this plan, I started to ask the opinions of local farmers. One local farmer Mr. Huang replied:
“It will be impossible! There’s no incentives for local people to come...You’ve known the problems, so why bother a group discussion to bring us together? Besides, we've known each other for ages! What else are we going to talk about?” (Interview, 22'^'* June)
I thought he was right, and to my knowledge, there would be little incentive for local farmers in the Wuling area to attend a meeting composed by themselves. This made me think of an alternative way to recruit the group meetings.
My fieldwork objective was to explore ‘what local people think the problem is and possible solutions are’. After two months of participant observation and interviews, the basic issue between local farmers and local management authorities (especially the Park) appeared to revolve lack of communication and collaboration between them. A group meeting bringing together local farmers and local management authorities could be mutually beneficial and a possible way of forging a solution.
When approached with this suggestion, local people were broadly in favour of such a meeting. 164
The meeting was recruited and convened by myself. I adopted two ways of reducing bias in my dual role as researcher and group facilitator:
• My role in the focus group discussion: My role was to recruit participants and
facilitate discussions in a forum that brought two groups of people together to
exchange ideas (opinions or solutions) about their concerns. I explained this role
to every likely participant and pointed out I would not act as a judge or a referee
arbitrating conflicts between both sides. As a convenor, my role was to keep the
meeting to task and to moderate proceedings so that they were conducted in an
orderly way.
• The function of the meeting: The meeting was to provide an arena for bringing
two groups of stakeholders together and to exchange opinions. It would be a rare
chance to engage in face-to-face discussion. Mutual understanding and some
solutions could be expected through the process; however, not all the problems
would be resolved in such a short meeting. I explained this to every likely
participant. The purpose and procedure of the meeting and names of participants
were all listed on the invitation letter in which I also explained that the meeting
was part of my research.
I spent two weeks recruiting participants. To ensure that the meeting focused on local people’s concerns, I talked to local farmers and local management authorities and used their ideas and interests to construct an agenda for the meeting (Table 5-1).
On 26^ June 1999, 18 days before the meeting, I talked to the Director of the Park,
Mr. Lin, about the idea of holding a meeting in the local village. Mr. Lin said that he would be happy to send his colleagues to join the meeting and he asked me to give 165 him some background information of the local issues for his reference. Appendix
XIV lists the five questions and their background information for discussion in the meeting, based on the findings of my two-month participant observation. The appendix is also the same material that I faxed to Mr. Lin on 5^*’ July. One day later, to my surprise, Mr. Lin told me that he would attend the meeting in person. Later I heard from his colleagues that, on the day he received the background material I faxed to him, Mr. Lin read it to his senior staff in an internal meeting and said, ‘The problems are there. Should we walk away, or face it and deal with it?’ As a result, my background material made him decide to attend the meeting and his anticipated presence subsequently motivated more local people to attend the meeting.
Table 5-1 The agenda for the farmers group meeting
1. Introduction of participants by convenor (10 mins) 2. Brief address by representatives from local management authorities (15 mins) 3. Topics of discussion (60-90 mins) a. Question about the widening of the existing Wuling road and the construction of some more parking lots b. Question about the Regeneration Project of farmers villages c. Question about the roadside stalls d. Question about the expropriation of farmland e. Question about the connection between the agricultural activity and the population decline of the Salmon f. Question about other associated issues 4. Suggestions for the ways of future communication (20 mins) 5. Brief conclusions by representatives from local management authorities (12 mins) 6. Brief conclusion by convenor (3 mins)
5.3. Transcript analysis of the farmers group meeting
This section presents the findings of a qualitative analysis of the transcript of the farmers group meeting. The framework of analysis follows Healey’s five questions 166 to examine the ‘processes’ of the discussion in the meeting (see Chapter 2).
Questions include: who was involved? Where and when did the meeting take place?
In what style did the discussion take place? How were the arguments sorted out and consensus created? And how were the agreements to be maintained?
5.3.1. Who was involved?
Table 5-2 shows numbers of participants and their backgrounds. Twenty-eight participants took part including: 15 local people, 9 representatives from local management authorities, 1 convenor (myself) and 3 assistants (to take photograph, oversee tape recording, and observe the process of the meeting).
Table 5-2 Composition of participants of the farmers group meeting
Participants Backgrounds No. of People Local people 15 Farmer Cheng: veteran farmer Farmer Chih: veteran farmer Renter_Huang: renter of the Wuling Farm Farmer Huang: veteran farmer Farmer Sheng: son of veteran farmer Farmer Fang: veteran farmer Farmer Tsung: veteran farmer Farmer Chang: veteran farmer Renter Huang: renter of the Wuling Farm Farmer Tien: veteran farmer Wife Chih: wife of Farmer Chih Daughter Chang: daughter-in-law of Farmer Chang Renter Tsai: renter of veteran farmers Renter Ho: renter of veteran farmers and also the representative of veteran Farmer Tang Farmer Chien: veteran farmer Local management authorities 9 NP Lin: Director of the Shei-Pa National Park WF Lee: chief of Production and Sale Sector, Wuling Farm 167
TCG Lee: chief of Nature Conservation Sector, Taichung County Govern FB Cheng; staff of Forest Bureau Tungshih Branch NP Yao; chief of the Wuling Police Office, Shei-Pa National Park NP Chiu: chief of the Wuling Warden Office, Shei-Pa National Park NP Huang: staff of the Wuling Warden Office, Shei-Pa National Park NP Liu: chief of the Planning Sector, Shei-Pa National Park WF Liu: staff of the Wuling Farm Convenor 1 KG: convenor Assistants 3 Assistant_Lotus: KC’s assistant (as an observer) Assistant Lee: KC’s assistant (as an observer) Assistant Yeh: KC’s assistant as a photographer Total 28
5.3.2. Where and when did the meeting take place?
The decision about where to meet takes into account the needs of participants, including the best time for them to meet. Since local people were the primary stakeholders for the project, the meeting place needed to be convenient for them.
Traditionally, the time and place for official meetings are set in the daytime working hours and in official buildings. The nearest official meeting rooms to the local villages was about 3 km away and there was no public bus for local people to get there. Besides, many local people needed to work in their farmlands during the daytime. Therefore, the meeting place and time would be better in their local villages in the evening.
The meeting room was chosen to be in the Chung-Shan Room^^ of the Ming village
(Plate 5-1). All participants sat in a circle around the tables (Figure 5-1). The meeting room used to be the dining room and the ‘classroom’ for all veteran farmers in the village in the early years and now became some local people's dining room
Chung-Shan is the Chinese first name of Dr. Yat-sen Sun, the founder of the Republic of China. 168 and a space for them to play cards and chat in their leisure time. To use Healey's term, the room was a daily 'forum' for local people. Local people could feel freer to speak about their opinions in their own familiar territory whereas they might not in a formal and official meeting room. The duration of the meeting was set to be 2-2.5 hours. It actually took 2 hours and 20 minutes, including a 10-minute break in the middle.
5.3.3. In what structure and style did the discussion take place?
There were 7 topics for discussion and each was in principle allocated 15 minutes. In practice some topics took longer while others took shorter. It was important to keep the discussion to task in an orderly way and to finish on time. The meeting started with an introduction by each participant. Introductions were necessary since most local people did not know the members of the Park, the TCG, and the Forestry
Bureau, and vice versa (Plate 5-2).
Each topic of discussion started with one-minute brief introduction from myself, based on what I had learnt from local people about what they thought ‘the problem was.’ The discussion was then open to local people to speak about their opinions
(Plate 5-3). Usually the members of local management authorities would wait and listen to local people opinions and questions and then gave their responses. Local people were free to argue and debate with them while the members of local management authorities were speaking, as for example in the discussion about property rights, transport, and roadside stalls. 169
Meeting Agenda poster Tape Recorders A ssistant -L otus
Convenor -KC
N P -L iii -L ee
TCG Table -L ee -C hen
I' .ii inci -Ciieiig
Table
Table
Parmer -T sung
Farm -Yeh Farmer -F ang
Front Door
Figure 5-1 Seating arrangement map of the farmers group meeting 170
Every participant could speak fluent Mandarin so language was basically not a problem. However, some local people who came from the Mainland China had a strong accent and in these cases, I briefly repeated their key points for the audience.
5.3.4. How were the arguments sorted out and was a new discourse created?
The method of the transcript analysis of the meeting is based on Huberman and
Miles’ (1994) interactive model that comprises three subprocesses: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (see Chapter 2). Through data reduction- summarising, coding, emergent themes, and clustering- an analytical diagram for this meeting has been constructed and displayed as Figure 5-2.
There are three main topics for discussion in the meeting:
• Livelihoods of local farmers, including expropriation of farmlands, housing, and
transport, and roadside market stalls
• Agricultural pollution and the Salmon conservation
• Future ways of communicating among stakeholders
Five themes are revealed through data analysis of the above three topics in the lights of the three dimensions of Healey’s institutional capacity:
A. Dimension of knowledge resources
• Livelihoods of local farmers
• Salmon conservation and negative factors 171
B. Dimension of relational resources
• Composition of stakeholders and working relationships amongst them
C. Dimension of mobilisation capacity
• Current planning systems and practices
• Suggestions of future ways of communicating
Salmon Livelihoods of conservation local farmers and negative factors
Future ways of communicating K now ledge
ISSUES: Current . Livelihoods of local farmers planning Outcomes and . Agriculture pollution and Mobilisation systems and evaluation practices the Salmon conservation . Future ways of communicating
R elation
Composition of stakeholders and their Working relationships
Figure 5-2 Analytical diagram of the farmers group meeting 172
5.3.4.1. Livelihoods of local farmers
A. Expropriation o f farmlands, housing, and transport
Farming, housing, and transport are key questions underpinning the livelihoods of local veteran farmers. However, they complained that the Park was the
‘troublemaker’ who had imposed many restrictions on their livelihoods. They thought that the Park proposed to expropriate their farmlands and as a result had deliberately delayed the Regeneration Project for rebuilding their villages and the project for widening the Wuling road.
In 1996, under a national policy of the central Veteran Affairs Commission, the Farm invested the ownership of land with every veteran farmer. Since then, veteran farmers in the Wuling Farm have become private landowners. A married farmer could have 0.45 hectare farmland while a single farmer could get 0.3 hectare. Most of them thought that they would lose the ‘basis of their lives’ if their lands were expropriated. Many local farmers also complained about their out-of-date,
‘corrugated iron houses’ (Plate 5-4, Plate 5-5) and the narrow Wuling road that was usually congested with traffic jam on holidays. They wondered why the
Regeneration Project and the road-widening project had been delayed for so long.
The space for parking lots in the north valley was also insufficient. These poor transport facilities created feelings of insecurity for local farmers as they tried to go about their daily lives. For example:
Farmer Cheng: “In terms of purchasing our lands, well, after we retired from the army, we’ve worked here for more than fifty years. At the beginning, there were all mountains in this area. We worked very hard to develop the area. Now you want to purchase the land. Surely we won’t agree. This is 173
my opinion. KC: “OK! So Mr. Cheng will never agree.” Farmer Cheng: “Never!” KC: “Mr. Fang please.” Farmer Fang: “From sixty...some of the older might arrive here from sixty-three (1963), we developed the area with hoes by hand for many years. Now we’re old men. Now you say you want to purchase the land. Unless you want our lives (...)'"* It means you want our lives. My life and my next and next generation will be ‘rooted’ in this area. Now you say you want to purchase the land. This land is our economic dependence. Where do we go on with our lives without it?” KC: “OK! So Farmer Fang: “[Never! Never agree! [” KC: “ [Never agree!” Farmer Fang: “Unless you kill us, force us!” (Lines 1091-1108)'^
And:
Farmer Fang: “Our old, corrugated iron houses...! think, even in the Mainland China, the regime of communism, no body would live in houses like ours. Go there and see (if you don’t believe it). (...) When typhoons come, these corrugated iron houses may be blown apart. Which government institutions will take the responsibility if someone dies? Who’s going to compensate us if ours houses are tom down by typhoons? I think this is an issue for the area, isn’t it? This is a real problem, the real problem! This is not for talking without any action. This is not (...) I cannot but complain that the Park’s new buildings that could be constmcted within a very short period. On the other hand, why should our new village (...) the promise has been made for ages. Now it’s still a question under discussion. I really don’t know why?” (Lines 478-486)
Local farmers regarded these issues as central to the security of their lives. They argued and justified their right to live on the land because they were ‘developers’ and
Untimed pauses Left brackets indicate the point at which a current speaker’s talk is overlapped by another’s talk Line(s) of the transcript 174
‘stewards’ of the land in the past and also because their lives were dependent on the land economically and emotionally. However, now they felt undervalued. They felt confused and unfairly treated because they had had to wait for improvements for so long. They compared the delay of the Regeneration Project with the speed with which the Park’s new Wuling Warden and Police Office building had been built.
In repose to these questions, the Farm firstly verified local farmers’ suspicion and fear of the Park’s proposal for expropriating their farmlands. The Farm and the Park had had serious disagreement and quarrels on this issue in the past that were pointed out by the representative of the Farm, Mr. Lee:
WF_Lee: “In the associated meetings held in the Council of Agriculture and in the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, the former Director of the Park, Mr. Lin and the executive secretary Mr. Wu once made such a suggestion. They argued that most veteran farmers were veiy old. So why didn’t the government resettle them to the areas nearby the cities or somewhere they could more ‘enjoy their lives?’ Let them go, well (...) and then the government could expropriate their lands. The Park proposed this idea in the meetings. And because of this, we had serious disputes with each other....I think this is where the issue came from.” (Lines 1117-1131)
The Park ‘thought’ it would be good for local farmers to resettle to some more
‘enjoyable’ and ‘convenient’ places outside the jurisdiction of the Park, such as cities because they were old. Though the Park had never asked local farmers’ opinions directly, they thought that to move out local farmers to city areas would be a
‘win-win’ solution for the Salmon and the farmers. WF Lee argued that local farmers’ livelihoods were dependent on their farmlands and they had family to help work on the farmlands. Farmlands were the basis of their livelihoods and were not 175 replaceable.
Second, WF Lee explained that the Farm had worked with the Park and the
Taichung County Government (TCG) on the Regeneration Project and the road-widening project but it would take time due to the complex planning and transaction processes. WF Lee underlined the legitimacy of these projects by pointing out that these projects had already been incorporated into the TCG’s
Conservation Plan o f the Salmon WR and NP’s Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area
(Shei-Pa National Park 1999). He explained that the Regeneration Project had been approved by the national Executive Yuan (on Nov 1997) on condition that it needed to be further approved by Environmental Protection Agency through the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) since the area was in the ecological sensitive areas of the Park and the Salmon WR. The Project was currently in the process of undertaking this EIA. Since the associated environmental data in the
Farm’s Environmental Statement (ES) about the Regeneration Project were insufficient, the Farm was currently doing the associated survey and this was not yet finished. WF Lee claimed that construction of the new village would hopefully start in Dec 1999.
In response to the questions from local farmers and the Farm, the Park and the TCG replied that they did not plan to expropriate the farmlands and would like to support and cooperate with the Farm in implementing the Regeneration Project and the road-widening project. These replies suggested that the Park authorities had changed their strategy and were prepared to take a more positive attitude to the livelihoods of local farmers. This change was associated with the arrival of the new Director of the
Park who took up his appointment in May 1998 and the preparation and 176 implementation of the Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area that was drawn up by the
Park staff and two academics from the Chinese Culture University in July 1999. The zoning map of the Integrated Plan (Appendix XV) shows that the Park has tried to incorporate the zoning plan of the Farm’s recreational development of the area
(Appendix IX). The Park’s new Director, Mr. Lin, advocated the Integrated Plan as being the solution to the problems in conjunction with the Farm’s Regeneration
Project and the road-widening project, since these problems could not be dealt with individually. Other associated works, e.g. the rearrangement of telephone lines, electric power lines, and sewer lines also needed to be considered together.
B. Roadside stalls
Though the basic means of livelihoods for local farmers was agriculture, some of them, about five households, set up roadside stalls and sold some agricultural products and drinks to supplement their income. These people, such as Farmer Chih
(Lines 653-662), complained that before the establishment of the Park they could set up roadside stalls but after the establishment of the Park the roadside stalls had been officially prohibited. They wondered why they were not allowed to run such a small business that would not damage the environment. They felt unfairly treated because on other Veteran Farms people could set up roadside stalls in scenic places. They were keen to know if there would be fixed market stalls set up for them in the future village. They also suggested that the Park and the Farm should allow them to set up temporary stalls to sell agricultural products and fruits to tourists before the new village was constructed.
A serious quarrel arose between Renter Tsai, Renter Ho, and Wife Chih 177
(Farmer_Chih’s wife and Renter_Tsai’s sister) during the discussion of roadside stalls. They questioned the fairness of the Park when enforcing rules on the ground.
For example:
Renter Tsai: “May I say something. Both the Park and the Farm keep prosecuting us for setting up roadside stalls, right? But after we cooperated with the Park, we took the stalls away, this Mr. Ho, this ’big brother’ Ho, he could still keep the stalls. I wonder if this was because the Park and the Farm gave HIM some privilege, wasn’t it? Otherwise, WHY couldn’t we set up stalls in the front of our houses while HE could set up several stalls by the roadside that often caused traffic jams? Why could HE set up several and we couldn’t set up any one? May I ask the Park and the Farm to answer my question please? Furthermore, the Park has claimed to remove Mr. Ho’s truck trailer (as a stall shop) but hasn’t been able to do it so far. Why? Please give me an answer!” KC: “OK! Mr. Tsai, OK, let’s confine our discussion to the matter at issue. You meant that if nobody could set up roadside stalls, nobody should be allowed to [” Renter Tsai: “ [That’s right! They said it was prohibited... [” KC: “ [There seems to be a situation that the policing of roadside stalls is incomplete. Later wewill invite our Farm and Park authorities to answer this question. (Renter Ho is raising his hand) Well, Mr. Ho, have you got something to say?” Renter Ho: “Yes!” KC: “OK, everyone can have a say.” Renter Ho: “Hi, everyone! I’ve got something to say. My opinion is why the Park and the police (...) IN FACT, you know in fact (...) the fact was that sometimes our chief of the Park Police patrolled the area at about 7 in the morning, 7 in the morning, but, he only came here once in the morning then didn’t come again. Then I found it’s HIM (pointing toward Renter Tsai) set up the stall first (...) I just followed him and set up the stall later on. So how can he criticise me for setting up the stall? You know, in fact, according to the Farms’ regulation, we can’t set up stalls in the public land. Nobody can set up stalls in the public land. However, about setting up stalls in our private lands, if the Park doesn’t stop us, our Farm 178
has no right to stop us because the land has been transferred to us. Furthermore, it’s not illegal if the stall isn’t fixed in my private land, is it? Therefore, I think, the best solution of the roadside stall is to plan out a public place for local people to sell agricultural products.” (Lines 673-707)
And:
Renter Tsai: "He said he did not use the public land. He is actually planting carrots and putting bee boxes on the roadside. Isn’t he using the public land? Why hasn’t the Farm stopped him? The Farm... [” Wife Chih: “ [That’s right! The Farm didn’t prosecute him, but turned a blind eye!” (Lines 770-774)
Renter Tsai, Renter Ho, and Wife Chih criticised the Park and the Farm for not enforcing the rule consistently and for giving some people ‘special privileges.’ They also criticised each other in terms of setting a precedent- ‘who breaks the rule first?’
In fact, they had all broken the rule. In order to clarify a number of ambiguities, I asked the local management authorities to respond to questions including: How to deal with roadside stalls in public land and in private land? Is there any plan to put all stalls together in a specific area in the future?
NP_Lin replied that the existence of roadside stalls in the public and private lands needed to be improved:
NP_Lin: “My opinion is not to have roadside stalls...if everybody sets up roadside stalls (...) Of course, this income for you, as I said before, between sympathies and rules, sometimes we can agree a compromise at this transitional stage. But it’s absolutely not what we want ideally...I think our living standards have made progress to a certain extent. I believe that tourists also hope to visit a better environment. When they buy, they like to go to a comfortable and beautiful place to buy.” (Lines 858-896) 179
The Park’s solution was to plan a specific zone for market stalls in the future village, i.e. an instrumental approach. All market activities would be restricted in this zone in the future. However, at the present time, there were still ambiguities in the implementation of the rule of roadside stalls at ‘transitional stage’- before the establishment of the new villages.
The Farm’s policy was to cooperate with the Park to stop roadside stall in public lands but did not prohibit it in private lands:
WF Lee: “Director Lin has just explained that the stalls in the private land still can be stopped under the National Park Law. It’s not free to do that. Director Lin has just explained this point already. Well, but based on my position, as long as you are in private lands, the Farm wont’ interfere.. .The Farm’s principle is: no stalls in public lands.” (Lines 982-1005)
It has been shown from the discussion that the ‘rule’ on roadside stalls was very much a ‘grey area’: there was inconsistency in both interpreting policies and enforcing the rule between the Park and the Farm. The Park did not allow any roadside stalls in the public and the private lands while the Farm did not allow the stall in the public land but did not prohibit it in the private land. Furthermore, the
Park seemed to agree a ‘compromise between sympathies and rules’ as a ‘transitional stage.’ This suggests that nobody was really sure how to deal with the problem or who was responsible for it.
5.3.4.2. Salmon conservation and negative factors
Though the meanings and values of the Salmon conservation were not overtly discussed in the meeting, they were embedded implicitly in every issue since issue 180 was, to some extent, about the conflict between economic development and environmental protection in the local area. The environmental protection of the local area had been focused on the conservation of the Salmon. For this, the Salmon can be seen as ‘a symbolic representation of the environment.’ For example, the idea of expropriating farmlands initially came from the Park’s concern about the need to conserve the Salmon. The delay and the long transaction processes of housing and transport issues were also, to some extent, due to the Park’s conservation policy which sought to restore the area into a more ‘natural’ environment which, the Park believed, would be better for the Salmon. The agricultural activity, more obviously, had been criticised for damaging the habitat of the Salmon.
As Chapters 3 and 4 have shown, the meaning and value of the Salmon is not ‘fixed’ but change over time. In the past, the Salmon was not regarded as being as important as other ‘original’ functions of the stream, such as hydraulic electric power, drinking, and agricultural irrigation in the Tachia River Basin. For example, the check dams in many branches were initially built up for protecting the Techi Reservoir from siltation and hence protecting the ‘originally’ functions of the stream. In this meeting,
Farmer Chih raised an interesting question about the past and present roles of check dams:
Farmer Chih: “The construction of the Techi Reservoir has both benefits and shortcomings. The reservoir was of course an important reservoir. We must build the reservoir. However, at the time when we built the reservoir there was no National Park. People at that time ignored the Salmon and therefore damaged the Salmon. Now we think the Salmon is also important. The question is: do you want to protect the fish or protect the water? The water is also very important for the residents downstream in the Taichung area, isn’t it?” (Lines 1240-1246) 181
The construction of the Techi Reservoir and the consequent check dams reflects the dilemma about whether to promote the well-being of people or to conserve the
Salmon. This dilemma is rooted in the changing meanings and values of the Salmon.
The reservoir and check dams were built up in the 1970s long before the establishment of the Park, at that time the Salmon in the stream was actually ignored by most people. Now the Salmon had become very important for nature conservation interests and the check dams were regarded as ‘killers’ of the Salmon. In the past people valued the check dams and ignored the Salmon while now people value the salmon and devalue the check dams. There are no ‘absolute’ meanings and values of the Salmon, rather the Salmon has a range of symbolic representations relating to the environment as a whole.
So what does the Salmon mean to local farmers? Local farmers generally still regarded themselves as ‘stewards’ and ‘protectors’ of the Salmon. This stewardship came from the experience of patrolling the Salmon’s habitat at stage III in the history of the WR (see Chapter 3):
Farmer Chih: “Well, the Park has just come here for 2 or 3 years. Before the Park came here, there were four villages of us responsible for patrolling the area. We were on duty by turns to watch the area from the interference of tourists and fishing. At that time there were still some tourists went into the stream. But we kept watching and patrolling. Today my village was on duty, and tomorrow yours. We thought it was important. We thought the protection of the Salmon was important. We were not ‘destroyers.’ When we saw illegal fishing activity, we all ran to stop them.” (Lines 1227-1235)
Local farmers were still proud to have participated in activities to protect the Salmon and patrolled its habitat in the past. They did not think they were ‘killers’ or 182
‘destroyers’ of the Salmon. Therefore, local farmers were very angry about the accusation that their agricultural activity was criticised for killing the Salmon. So who actually killed the Salmon? Here Farmer Chih’s argument in the meeting was typical of farmers’ view:
Farmer Chih: “I came here in 1971, came to the Farm. At that time the Salmon were many. Why were there still many in the past? Well, in the past there was plenty of water in the stream. Let’s talk about the problem of the stream water. The fish need water to live. They need water in order to produce their next generations. But since I came here, it was about 1974, since then, in 1974 or 75, the check dams started to be constructed. The fish, the fish was swept downstream by typhoons and floods. The fish needed to swim back, must swim back to the upstream area but they couldn’t. They couldn’t jump across the check dams, no way. As a result, many were lost.
Second, about the breeding. The stream water was plenty in the past. The water depth could be 2 meters or 1 meter. There were many deep pools. The Salmon need water for breeding. But now the water depth becomes only 10 or so centimetres. The areas for breeding are not suitable now.
Third, about the negative impact from agriculture. This is nonsense! The journalists and newspapers were talking nonsense! They didn’t really study the question but just blamed the agricultural pollution for killing the Salmon, such as the use of fertiliser and pesticide. To be honest in the early years, the quality of pesticide was not good. Compared to the present pesticide, at that time the duration of effect of the pesticide could be, the longest could be 19...could be one month, sometimes could be more than 20 days. The present pesticides are all imported. The duration of effect is only about three days. In fact, in terms of environmental protection, we all (...) Well, the local Society of Agriculture also regulates our use of pesticides, all by rule. The organic manure, in the past we used chicken manure; now we used organic fertiliser. We leaven it before we use it in order not to pollute the environment. Things have been improved now.
Fourth, about the farmland. In the early years, the land was steep. Now the 183
slope of the farmland is gentle. Therefore, the soil erosion into the stream has become less...Therefore, we should figure out the reason: why on earth does the Salmon become less? But instead some people just blame agriculture for damaging the Salmon and suggest stopping the agriculture. Even if we stop agriculture, there would be no fish. I can guarantee there would be no fish: No stream water, no fish. The fish cannot breed without enough water. Therefore we need to figure out the main factors.” (Lines 1198-1240)
Farmer Chih gave his detailed explanation about why the population of the Salmon became declining. He had confidence in his own observations and explanations and did not really trust the findings of the scientist community. He defended agricultural practices against the charge of damaging the Salmon by noting that the use of pesticides and herbicides had been strictly regulated and some soil conservation practices like agricultural terraces had been implemented. He also criticised the news or reports written by some journalists for being unable to do a genuine study on the problems.
In response to local farmers’ complaints about the accusation of being ‘killers’ of the
Salmon, the Park’s new director, NP Lin, acknowledged the contributions the local people had made to both the development of the area and the patrolling work of the
Salmon’s habitat in the past. He based his responses on the scientific findings and explained that the factors contributing to population decline of the Salmon were many, including check dams, typhoons and floods, the clearance of riverbank forest, and agricultural practices. He gave a recent example to show the impact of the combined factors of typhoons, floods and check dams on the Salmon:
NP Lin: “In fact, three years ago there were still about 2000 population of the Salmon. Why does it become 600 now? This was because the Salmon was 184
swept downstream by the floods during the Ho-Po typhoon. The Salmon could not JUMP (...) FLY over the check dams even if it could fly! And the downstream water temperature was too high for the Salmon to survive. As a result, the Salmon gradually became less and less...We’ve started to make a breakthrough, that is, to remove the check dams. Because the check dam is...in fact is the killer to the Salmon. The other one would be the riverbank forest.” (Lines 1346-1379)
Instead of criticising the agricultural activity as a main negative factor as the Park did in the previous stages, the new Director NP Lin avoided this sensitive issue by not arguing against the agricultural impact in more details (a ‘strategic behaviour’ here). He again advocated the Park’s on-going Integrated Plan for the Wuling area as the solution to the Salmon conservation. He explained that the Park’s current conservation strategy was to remove the check dams and to reforest the riverbanks along the farmlands because these two factors, check dams and deforestation, were
‘killers.’ Here the Park had apparently changed their discourse by trying to reconcile their management practices with the opinions held by the Farm and local farmers.
Though NP Lin explained that the new riverbank forest would help improve the
Salmon’s habitat by shading the stream to lower the stream water temperature, increasing the aquatic insects in the stream, and acting as a buffer zone to reduce the impact of the use of pesticides and fertiliser of nearby farmlands, the Farm official,
Mr. Lee, thought differently. Like the local independent farmers, Mr. Lee did not really trust the scientific findings and discourses but had his ovm explanations for changes in the Salmon population.
This section of discussion was characterised by claim and counter claim, in which scientific knowledge was challenged by local knowledge. These debates were 185 backed up by a sense of uncertainty about the role of agricultural practices and other factors in the decline of the Salmon. Scientists believe their professional knowledge is universally applicable. But their scientific knowledge may conflict with local people’s everyday experiences in their local area (Harrison 1995). In this meeting, local farmers and the Farm authority had their own explanations and conclusions that were opposed to the scientific claims advanced by scientists and the Park authority.
Local farmers confidently expressed their long-term observations of the complexity and changes of the local environment. They believed that the factors contributing to the decline of the Salmon were many and uncertain and hence they criticised the
Park and scientists for blaming their agricultural practices for killing the Salmon.
This also reflected a fundamental problem of the Park’s conservation policy that was based on instrumental rationality and scientific knowledge. To implement this policy required law enforcement, land use zoning, and public education. Local people did not trust the ‘rationality’ of the scientific knowledge the Park was based on and hence the Plan was regarded as a ‘one-way’ effort that had not been and could not be
supported by local people.
5.3.4.3. Relational resources: working relationships
In this section, the working relationships among stakeholders revealed in the meeting is discussed.
A. Relations between local farmers and local management authorities
Communication between local farmers and the two local management authorities, the Park and the Taichung County Government (TCG), was very rare before this meeting. Lack of communication reinforced the adversarial relationship between 186 local farmers and the Park authorities. My two-month participant observation had revealed that many local farmers complained that the Shei-Pa (# # ) National Park was very "Pa (#)% which means ‘arrogant’ in Chinese. Local farmers felt that the
Park always imposed restrictions and kept their distance from local people. In this meeting, local farmers complained that the Park and scientists usually regarded them as ‘enemies’ of the environment and accused them of being self-interested and fighting against the Salmon. Local farmers did not like this adversarial relationship between people and the environment and thought that the Park and scientists were planning to get rid of them out of the area:
Farmer_Fang: “I often wonder something in my mind: In this democratic county, WHY (...) in the past they talked about what ‘people fighting against people’, what ‘people fighting against fish’, what ‘people fighting against animals’, always talking about somebody fighting with somebody. They’ll never give up unless they get rid of all these old veteran farmers.” (Lines 1596-1600)
Local farmers generally knew little about the role and work of TCG though the
Salmon WR had been established in local area by TCG for more than one year before this meeting. For example, Farmer Huang said, “I knew they (TCG) set up a noticeboard with some information of the Salmon WR by the road. That’s it”
(Interview on 22"^ May). The TCG had not managed to play an active mediating role in the management of the Salmon WR as they were delegated to by the WC Law and the Conservation Plan o f the Salmon WR.
In 1996, under a national policy, the Farm invested the ownership of land with veteran farmers. This policy led to a dramatic change of the relationship between the 187
Farm and veteran farmers. Once veteran farmers became private landowners they were no longer ‘subordinates’ of the Farm. The Farm still had a moral obligation to take care of the livelihoods of veteran farmers but had a much looser legal duty to them than before (Interview with Mr. Huang, the Director of the Farm, on 13^^ July
1999). The relationship between Farm and veteran farmers had become more like
‘friends’ rather than ‘superior/subordinate.’
Both the Farm and veteran farmers needed to adapt to this new relationship.
However, both of them had not adjusted to it very well. Many veteran farmers still relied emotionally on the Farm to help them deal with every problem of their livelihoods. Some farmers complained that the Farm had become a ‘private company’ that was only concerned with its own self-interest rather than looking after local farmers as was usually the case (Interview with Farmer Chang on 19^ May
1999). On the other hand, the Farm also felt themselves facing a ‘dilemma’ and their relations with local farmers was like ‘a ballplayer playing referee:’
WF Lee: “I am now like a ‘ballplayer playing referee’: As a staff of an authority, I need to act like a referee. I need to enforce the law. According to the associated laws, roadside stalls are prohibited. Everyone got to know that it is prohibited according to the law. One the other hand, however, I also need to act like a ballplayer to assist and guide veteran farmers. Why? It’s also a part of the Farm’s duty. We need to assist veteran farmers as much as possible. I am in a dilemma now.” (Lines 948-957)
B. Relations among local management authorities
The adversarial relationship among the Park, the Farm, and the Forestry Bureau at previous stages seemed to have improved with the arrival of new Director of the
Park in May 1998. At the end of the meeting, WF Lee praised the Park’s new 188
Director NP Lin for having improved communication between the Farm and the
Park:
WF Lee: “Here I’m very happy to say that since the Director Lin came here, the channel for communication and negotiation has been improved. For example, I’m only a chief of a sector and Director Lin is much senior to me. However, I could just walk in his office and talk to him and negotiate with him face to face. We can discuss everything. He’s open-minded. Well, during the past one more year, many things of local area have been discussed and negotiated.” (Lines 1649-1657)
C. Relations among local people
The relationship among local people had become more complex and adversarial since 1996 when veteran farmers were invested with ownership of their farmlands.
In this meeting, 15 local people were present at the meeting. Eight were veteran farmers, three were veteran farmers’ family, and four were renters under contract with either the Farm or veteran farmers. Veteran farmers had lived in the local villages for 15 to 28 years and shared the same background as retired soldiers and farmers. The farming system used to be run as a cooperative in the villages where farmers lived and worked together. The sense of belonging to a community among them was quite strong. They also shared similar opinions about the issues of land expropriation, housing, transport, and agricultural pollution in this meeting. However, in the discussion of the roadside stalls, a serious quarrel arose between two renters and one veteran farmer’s wife. These three people were new members of the local community. One of the renters, Mr. Ho, had bought a piece of land from one veteran farmer since after 1996 the veteran farmers had the right to bequeath, transfer, or sell their property rights to their family, relatives, or other people. Mr. Ho had become a legal landowner of the area and he exemplified how the relationship among local 189 villagers would become more complicated in the future. The sharing of sense of place and the mutual trust that existed amongst traditional veteran farmers was likely to be eroded by this new set of institutional and social relations.
In the next two sections, I discuss Healey’s dimension of ‘mobilisation capacity’
(Figure 5-2) about how stakeholders employed associated political resources to base their arguments about the current planning systems and practices of the local area, and to help to mobilise stakeholders on the consensus in the future.
5.3.4.4. Current planning systems and practices of the local area
The planning and management of the local area had changed into a more participatory way than the previous stages since the Park’s new director, NP Lin, was in post in May 1998. In his first year, NP Lin had made several changes to the ways in which the Park authority worked with other local management authorities.
For example;
• A three-monthly Local Periodic Meeting was initiated by the Park and the Farm in
Sept 1998. Since then this meeting had served as a formal and regular new arena
in which all the associated local management authorities, including the Park, the
Farm, the Forestry Bureau, and the Taichung County Government (TCG),
discussed local affairs of the Wuling area. These four local management
authorities proposed the issues for discussion and chaired the meeting in turn.
• The Park authority drew up the Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area and started to
implement it from July 1999. The Integrated Plan served as a new blueprint for
the associated local management authorities to work together on local issues. 190
• NP Lin was willing to join the meeting set up as part of the research project in
which the Park could communicate with local farmers face to face, which the
former Director of the Park had never done this way before.
However, the Park’s planning and management of the area was still ‘instrumental’ rather than ‘communicative. ’ The Park seemed to believe that the desired end could be achieved through a logical and systematic means of planning and management based on instrumental rationality and scientific knowledge. For example, in the discussion of the meeting, NP Lin quite often referred to the Park’s Integrated Plan and the Local Periodic Meetings as solutions to the problem. He explained to local people that the Integrated Plan had already been dravm up and agreements among local management authorities had been achieved through working together in the
Periodic Meetings. He claimed that the local management authorities would contribute efforts and money to put the Integrated Plan into practice.
However, there were two problems with the Park’s Integrated Plan and the Local
Periodic Meetings:
• Although the Taichung County Government (TCG) was designated as the
responsible management authority of the Salmon WR under the Wildlife
Conservation Law, TCG had not been until recently regarded as a necessary
member of meetings convened with the Park, the Farm, and the Forestry Bureau.
These latter organisations claimed to be the ‘union of three’ for the local area. For
example, TCG was not invited to attend the two planning meetings of the
Integrated Plan convened by the Park or the first two Local Periodic Meetings
convened by the Park and the Forestry Bureau. During the fieldwork in June 1999, 191
I had a chance to audit the second planning meeting for the Integrated Plan held
in the Park’s Headquarters. I noticed that TCG was absent so I talked to the
Director of the Park and the Director of the Farm about this ‘problem.’ At first
both of them replied that the role of TCG was not very important to the local
affairs. But later on they said they would consider inviting TCG to join the
subsequent meetings. Finally, TCG was invited to attend the third Periodic
Meeting convened by the Farm and became a member of the local management
authority ‘union.’
• Local farmers were still marginalized in the planning processes. They had not
been able to participate in the planning process of the Integrated Plan and the
Periodic Meetings in which many decisions made by local management
authorities would have an influence their daily lives. For them, the Park’s
Integrated Plan was only a ‘thing’, a ‘plan’ to be implemented rather than a
‘process’ in which as local stakeholders they could directly participate and have a
say.
5.3.4.5. Future ways of communicating
Towards the end of the meeting, a discussion took place about the ways in which future communication between local farmers and local management authorities could be improved since the earlier approaches had failed to provide opportunities for local people to participate in the planning and management process.
Representatives from the four local management authorities offered their suggestions first. Their opinions were expressed in official terms: local people were welcome to contact with the government through either official or non-official channels. This 192 basically meant that the government was passively waiting to serve local people rather than actively improving the design of existing infrastructure of communication.
For example, the Director of the Park, Mr. Lin, said that there were basically three channels through which the local people could communicate with the Park: the local
Joint Warden and Police Office, the Shei-Pa National Park Headquarters, and himself.
Contact could be made in person, or by telephone and fax. Mr. Lin said that he would also like to join other similar meetings in the future. The Farm’s representative, Mr. Lee, said that the Farm Office had been the most familiar channel for local farmers and they were welcome to contact the Farm at any time. The TCG’s representative, Ms. Lee, said that TCG established a Nature Conservation Division
last year. She gave local farmers the Division’s telephone number and invited them to contact her or her colleagues. FB Cheng said the Forestry Bureau’s Tourist Lodge was just nearby and local farmers were welcomed to talk to staff of the Lodge.
Apparently these official responses did not satisfy local farmers whose past
experience did not lead them to use or trust these official channels of communication.
For example, Farmer Fang criticised the role of scientists and local management
authorities and complained that local farmers had been regarded as ‘a thorn in the
flesh’ by them:
Farmer Fang: “When I came here in the 1960s, the Salmon were so many, really many. We cultivated just alongside the river but the Salmon didn’t die. Later on there were some Dr. Salmon or, or undergraduate students or something came here. They all claimed that the farmland should be 30 meters apart from the stream and that should be enough. Later on it became 50 meters and now it becomes at least several hundreds...Our farmlands have already been moved up to several hundred meters away from the river now. However, they still asked us to behave like this and 193
behave like that, to do this and don’t do that. They probably thought we were still here and (...) Well, the whatever PhD research always sees us as ‘a thorn in the flesh.’ It seems to be, as long as we live here, we will absolutely damage the Salmon. I don’t understand. I REALLY don’t understand. They were all research experts. In the past, they said 30 meters was enough. Later it became 50 meters. Now it’s already several hundred meters away. But it’s still NOT enough! They still said something, something like ‘people fighting against fish’, still said that we shouldn’t live here, we can’t live here. Actually, we want a life and the fish want a life too.” (Lines 1582-1600)
Farmer_Fang’s opinion revealed two key issues. First, the scientists who worked for the conservation authorities had always changed their advice. There was no
‘objective truth.’ Local farmers did not trust scientists and their scientific knowledge that underpinned traditional, rational planning approaches. Second, achieving a balance between managing the livelihoods of local people and conservation of the
Salmon was a fundamental issue. Local farmers also valued the ‘life’ of the Salmon and advocated a ‘win-win’ solution to the problem based on their continuing activities in the Salmon WR.
In response to criticism by Farmer Fang, the new Director, Mr. Lin, declared that both the livelihoods of local farmers and the conservation of the Salmon were important. He even gave the priority to the former. This earned him immediate appreciation from local people:
NP Lin: “Today we love the fish. We even love fish, how could we not love people? If we don’t love people, why do we draw up the Integrated Plan for this area? Why do we approve the Regeneration Project? So don’t worry please! We love both!” Local people: “Yes! (and clapping)” 194
NP Lin: “Therefore, we hope to make this area a better environment. The well-being of people is the prerequisite for the well-being of the Salmon. Only then could we have the ability to protect the Salmon [” Local people: “ [Yes!” (Lines 1615-1622)
Mr. Lin announced that the Park authority loved both the Salmon and local people because the Park had prepared and conducted the Integrated Plan at the moment and would approve the Regeneration Project in the future. However, as noted above, local people had been marginalized and still had no say in the planning process of the Integrated Plan. Besides, at stage V, the Park’s initial policy was to stop the
Regeneration Project proposed by the Farm authority. The argument between the
Park and the Farm about the Regeneration Project was reconciled by their superior authority, the national Executive Yuan, in Nov 1997. Both the Park and the Farm had to follow the instructions of the national Executive Yuan. Though local people were happy to know the Park had taken a more positive attitude to these plan and project, without new communicative practices involving local people in the planning process, it would be questionable whether local people could maintain their confidence in the
Park authority in the future.
5.4. How to maintain the agreements and critique: outcome and
evaluation
This section aims to evaluate the outcomes of the institutional capacity-building
among stakeholder community in this meeting. I employ Healey’s three dimensions
of institutional capacity, i.e. the dimensions of the knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity, as external criteria as well as participants’
opinions as internal criteria to discuss the achievements they had made and the 195 problems remaining unresolved.
5.4.1. External evaluation
First, in terms of local farmers’ livelihoods issues about land expropriation, housing, and transport, this meeting helped to achieve a mutual understanding of local farmers’ opinions and local management authorities’ policies, as well as promises from local management authorities to help resolve associated problems. Without the explanations from local management authorities in this meeting, local farmers would
still be worried that their lands would be expropriated someday. They would also still be questioning the Park about deliberately putting off the Regeneration Project and the road widening project. Local people would not have known that the Park had
adopted a more positive attitude to the policy on their livelihoods than the previous
stages. These new understandings could help stakeholders achieve a basis for building consensus among stakeholders.
Second, the meeting provided local people with a rare opportunity to express their
knowledge of the Salmon conservation and their active contribution to conserving
the Salmon habitat by assisting with local patrols. Local farmers had intimate contact
and direct, long-term observations of the Salmon’s local environment. They were
generally confident about their understanding of the local environment. They did not
trust experts’ scientific knowledge since experts had usually changed their advice.
They also thought of themselves as protectors of the Salmon rather than as its killer.
At stage III from 1984 to 1992, local people were directly involved in the patrol and
protection work of the Salmon’s habitat. As shown in this meeting, local farmers still
regarded their active participation in the past as stewards of the Salmon a worthwhile 196
and honourable experience and memory. They valued a means of enabling them to
coexist with the Salmon in the area. This new understanding about local farmers revealed in this meeting would help local management authorities, especially the
Park, change their typical mentality that usually regarded local farmers as a ‘negative
agent’ to the Salmon conservation.
Third, this meeting helped stakeholders to achieve a basis for consensus-building
about sustainable livelihoods. Local farmers used to be regarded by the Park staff as
‘killers’ of the Salmon. During the meeting it became clear that Director of the Park ,
Mr. Lin, was prepared to acknowledge that farmers’ livelihoods were important- Mr.
Lin ‘loved both (local people and the Salmon)’ and even put people’s livelihoods
first. However, it is worth noting that local farmers generally did not want to
sacrifice the Salmon to achieve their self-interests- as Farmer Fang said, ‘We want a
life and the fish want a life too.’ Local farmers would like to achieve a balanced way
of coexisting with the Salmon in the area. In fact, ‘people and the fish coexist with
honour’ has become a local slogan which I often heard whilst speaking with local
people during my fieldwork.
Fourth, this meeting helped to explore a basis for putting in place an effective
working relationship between local farmers and local management authorities,
between local management authority and local management authority, and between
local farmer and local farmer. It was shown in this meeting that the new Director of
the Park had helped to improve the working relationships between the Park and the
Farm and local farmers due to his more cooperative and communicative policy.
However, the social relationship among local people was also being eroded by the
changing composition of local people associate with new land ownership 197 arrangements. Local farmers had become private landovmers and were free to sell or transfer their lands. New landowners could erode the sense of a shared community if they did not maintain a good relationship with other local people.
Fifth, the preparation and structure of this meeting differed from the arrangement of traditional official meetings. It provided an example of a more communicative forum to help to supplement the limitations of traditional planning instruments, such as the
Local Periodic Meetings, in which local farmers had never been able to participate.
This meeting had been arranged so that it was nearby and convenient for local
farmers. Local farmers could also express their feelings and opinions more freely
since they were in their familiar ‘territory’ rather than in some remote official meeting room. The agenda of this meeting for discussion was based on the findings
of my two-month participant observation and interviews that aimed to reveal the
problems of concern of local farmers’ livelihoods from their viewpoints. The role of
chair was to help the meeting keep to task rather than being a decision-maker as was
usually the case in traditional official meetings. As a result the conduct of the
meeting provided more opportunities for local people to speak about their opinions
directly to the members of local management authorities.
5.4.2. Internal evaluation
Soon after this meeting, I employed three ways of helping me to evaluate the process
of this meeting. First, I checked the recording of the meeting to examine how
participants had assessed the value of the meeting. Second, I invited two tfiends,
Assistant Lotus and Assistant Lee, as observers in the meeting. They had nothing to
do with local people or local management authorities. Immediately after the meeting. 198 we had a one-hour discussion about how the meeting had progressed and my role as a convenor. Third, in days following the meeting I interviewed fourteen attendants
(two from the Farm, three from the Park, and nine local farmers) about their opinions of this meeting. I asked them: What did they learn from the meeting? What were the benefits and shortcomings? Do they think my role in the meeting was neutral? etc.
The four local management authorities basically appreciated this kind of communicative, face-to-face meeting. For example, the Farm’s representative, Mr.
Lee, who had worked for the Farm for more than 20 years, pointed out at the beginning of this meeting that this meeting was a rare chance for the Park and TCG to meet with local farmers for the first time since the establishment of the Shei-Pa
National Park and the Salmon WR. Most participants from the Farm and the Park thought that I managed ‘the quarrel of roadside stalls’ and other issues in an equitable way. The Farm’s official, Mr. Liu, was also impressed by the enthusiasm of every participant. He said he learnt a lot about local affairs from this meeting and it was especially helpful since he had only recently come to work for the Farm. The
Park’s official, Mr. Chiu said the meeting could be held longer so that local farmers and local management authorities could have a more thorough discussion.
Assistant Lee’s and Assistant Lotus’ general impression was that this meeting was successful because it gave local farmers a communicative channel with the Park authorities and allowed them to express their feelings. However, they had also noted four problems of future planning and management of the local area. First,
Assistant Lotus said that this success was also influenced by the friendly attitude of the Park’s Director, Mr. Lin, who dealt skilfully with some sensitive issues, such as negative impacts of agricultural activity on the Salmon conservation. She felt that 199 most local farmers were ‘simple-hearted’ and could be easily compromised by the
friendly attitude of the Park. However, she had doubts about the practical work that the Park would undertake in the future. Second, Assistant Lee and Assistant Lotus
both noticed the ambiguous policies that the Park and the Farm employed to address
the problem of roadside stalls. As a result, local people would not know what policy
to follow. Third, two assistants noticed that the TCG and Forestry Bureau did not
speak much in this meeting. It was unclear what role these two institutions should
play in the local area. Fourth, Assistant Lotus observed that in this meeting the
Farm’s representatives were like ‘bureaucrats’ and ‘governors’ while local farmers
appeared to be ‘subordinates.’ They did not really behave like a ‘family.’ This also
showed that the Farm had not adjusted well to the new relationship with local
farmers who had become private landowners.
Most local people were generally happy about this meeting for communicating with
people from the local management authorities and thought my role was neutral in the
discussion. For example, soon after the meeting, Farmer Fang came to me and gave
thanks for the arrangement of this meeting. He said that in the past local farmers had
had no voice and as a result suffered a lot. However, local people also felt they could
not fully express their feelings and opinions in this one-off, 2-hour, public meeting.
They suggested that there should be some other forms of meetings for them to
participate in the discussion of their local affairs. For example, Wife Chih said she
was excited about this meeting but found herself too angry to express her complaints
in the discussion of the roadside stalls. But interestingly, she had a happy
conversation with NP Lin during the time of middle break, when she felt freer to
talk individually. Farmer Tsung and Renter Tsai said this meeting was constructive 200 and helped local farmers and local management authorities enhance understandings of each other. However, Farmer Tsung said that he was not so comfortable to express his complaints in a public meeting because he was afraid of ‘offending’ someone in public. Renter Tsai picked up this point and said that local farmers were not easy to understand because most of them were conservative and unable to express their true feelings in public. There should have some informal ways of understanding of and communicating with local people. Renter Huang said that one meeting was not enough to achieve consensus and should have some subsequent ones.
There were also a couple of local people who were pessimistic about the meeting.
For example, Farmer Fang, who came to me to express his excitement and happiness soon after the meeting, talked to me on the next day that he did not think this meeting could make a big difference. He was still suspicious of the existing bureaucratic systems. “Let’s wait and see”, he said. Renter Ho was angry about the accusation against him made by Renter Tsai and Wife Chih in the meeting. He said the meeting did not help and it was better to let everybody do his or her own business. “Don’t bother me”, he said.
5.4.3. Unresolved problems
First, the dominant approach of local management authorities about how to provide
solutions to the problems in the future was instrumental. Local management
authorities seemed to have rather fixed institutional values of governance. It was not
easy to make a change by one meeting. Healey (1997) refers to these as
‘taken-fbr-granted routines and styles’ of governance and Forester (1989) refers 201 these as ‘rituals’ of policy discussion. As shown in the meeting, the Park and the
Farm often advocated the Local Periodic Meetings, the Integrated Plan, and the
Transformation Project as the means of solving the problems. However, these instruments had been mainly regarded as ‘things’ rather than ‘processes of communication’ in which a collaborative relationship among stakeholders could be built up. For local farmers, it may not be necessary for them to participate in every official meeting, such as the Periodic Meeting. However, they clearly welcomed some appropriate forums, such as this group meeting, which were designed to foster communication between themselves and local management authorities in a more direct and communicative way. Unfortunately, no such forum had been provided in the existing planning systems and practices.
Second, though local management authorities generally appreciated this meeting and
said they would like to attend similar meetings in the future, no one has considered
involving and formalising this kind of meeting into the their planning systems and practices. Furthermore, though local management authorities encouraged local
farmers to contact them through formal and informal channels, local farmers basically felt alienated about the existing channels and informal channels were
actually quite limited. There was only the Farm Office where local farmers could visit regularly.
Third, in order to ‘maintain the agreements’ of this meeting, local management
authorities would need to make several changes. The Park needs a genuine change
from the previous hostile attitude towards local people to a new communicative working relationship. The Farm and TCG also need to clarify their roles in the management of the area. The Farm needs to clarify their new relationship with 202 veteran farmers rather than continuing their difficult role as a ‘ballplayer playing referee.’ TCG needs to play a more active role as being delegated by the Wildlife
Conservation Law to be the management authority of the Salmon WR in which an changes in management that would affect local people’s livelihoods would also need to be addressed.
Fourth, it depends on local management authorities to actively involve local people’s knowledge and working resources in the management of the area. For example, the patrol of the Salmon’s habitat along the stream needs ‘many eyes.’ Most local
farmers and staff of the Farm lived and worked close to the stream. The policing work could be undertaken by local people and could be more efficient and effective than when undertaken by a few policemen employed of the Park. As a Farm’s garden worker criticised the guarding work of the Park:
“The Park doesn’t work. Our Farm’s eyes are big. Their eyes are small.” (Interview, 10th July 1999)
Fifth, the meeting did not help to achieve a clear and feasible agreement on the issue
about roadside stalls, because this was a ‘grey area’, an inconsistency of its policy
implementation between the Park and the Farm, which could not be resolved in such
a short time of the meeting. Moreover, the Park and the Farm seemed to agree a
compromise ‘at this transitional stage’ which meant they could sometimes ‘turn a blind eye’ to this issue. The ambiguity was still present after the meeting.
5.5. Conclusions
• This meeting provided an inclusionary and communicative arena appreciated by 203 most participants. Unlike traditional planning meetings it helped to build knowledge and relational resources. The meeting included a range of issues based on local knowledge previously not addressed in the traditional planning meetings and initiated a dialogue between local knowledge and scientific knowledge. The meeting also included local people previously not being involved in the traditional planning processes. It brought together local people and the local management authorities in a face-to-face, consensus-building process. It hence helped to improve the existing adversarial relationship between local people and the Park authority.
This meeting provided a new political instrument. It built on knowledge and relational resources among stakeholders, and helped to mobilise collaborative actions associated with the management of the local area, such as the Park’s
Integrated Plan, the Farm’s Transformation Project, and the Taichung County
Government’s Salmon Conservation Plan.
This meeting helped to expose the existing policy inconsistencies amongst the
local management authorities, which had caused some unresolved problems such
as roadside stalls. These policy inconsistencies basically came from the
institutional norms and values of the local management authorities and their
inconsistent practices. This called for a redesign and transformation of both the
hard and soft infrastructures.
This meeting also helped to reveal the limitations of this kind of one-off, public
meeting even though it was evaluated as being more collaborative. It called for more subsequent meetings to help to achieve consensus about how to resolve problems. It also called for more informal forums to help local people to express 204 their feelings and opinions, such as individual interviews and observations of daily group chatting as I had conducted during my two-month participant observation in the local area. To date this kind of ‘outreach approach’ had not been entertained as part of the institutional norms or practices of the main Park authorities and other nature conservation institutions. 205
I - ' . '= •
V *A * "
-X^r £j -
Plate 5-1 The farmers group meeting was held in the local Ming village
Plate 5-2 Self-introduction in the farmers group meeting 206
t1 M * i 1 4 -— I J >111» ini
Plate 5-3 Discussion in the farmers group meeting
Figure 5-4 Some ‘corrugated iron houses’ in the Ming village 207
Plate 5-5 Veteran farmer Mr. Chien in his living room 208
Chapter 6 Stakeholder Participation in the Management Process of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge (1997 onwards) (2): Findings of the group meeting with tourists and local management authorities
6.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to explore the management problems of the Salmon Wildlife
Refuge (WR) from the perspective of tourists. The objective is to first explore what tourists identify as ‘problems’ and second to discuss what contributions a more collaborative planning approach can provide for addressing these problems. One unresolved problem in the previous stage was the absence of tourists in the decision-making processes and the failure of traditional, rational planning approaches to address practical problems associated with their interests. All decision-making in the previous stages was made in formal meetings without any involvement of tourists, even though their interests would clearly be affected by management proposals. Most formal meetings had been conducted outside the local
area and lacked a detailed understanding and consideration about what actually
happened on the ground especially with regard to the growing population of the WR
for tourists. This chapter aims to explore these knowledge ‘gaps’ and is based on my
empirical study in the field.
This chapter presents the findings of the group meeting held with tourists and local
management authorities and a numbers of some interviews with tourists and staff of
local management authorities (hereafter the tourists group meeting) conducted in the
field. It has three sections: 209
• First, I briefly review the preparation and recruitment processes of the tourists
group meeting conducted on 9^^ August 1999.
• Second, I provide a qualitative analysis of the group meeting to explore the
problems associated with the tourists’ interests.
• Third, I employ Healey’s institutional capacity-building as external criteria to
evaluate the outcomes of this meeting as well as participants’ opinions about the
process as internal criteria. The overall objective is to explore what contribution a
more deliberative and inclusionary approach might offer as means of better
understanding what tourists understood to be ‘the problem’ of natural area
management as well as to discuss what contribution a group meeting such as this
can offer to a more sustainable solution to the management of the Salmon WR.
6.2. Recruitment of the tourists group meeting
About three months after I arrived in the Wuling area, I had gained a general idea about the issues and problems in the area (see Section 5.2). The problems mainly came from lack of collaboration among local management authorities, especially between the Farm authority and the Park authority. It appeared that a more
collaborative way of management needed to be developed. Based on Healey’s (1997)
collaborative planning, this called for an approach involving all stakeholders and with each having an equal voice. However, traditional ways of research and planning
for tourism in the area lacked appropriate forums for involving tourists directly in the planning process. Tourists’ voices were mediated through questionnaire surveys or through the perceptions or judgments of planners. The function of the group meeting
I convened, therefore, was to create a forum in which tourists could meet with staff 210 from local management authorities, in order to explore mutual concerns and to work out some suggestions for the future management of the WR and the Park.
Participant observation also helped to identify which stakeholders should be involved in the meeting. The title of the meeting was: 'Tourists needs and experience in the Wuling area: current situation and future vision ofplanning for recreation and interpretation.^ Initially, three key stakeholders were to be involved: tourists, local management authorities, and scientists.
Tourists were ‘shared’ stakeholders for the four local management authorities- the
Wuling Farm, the Shei-Pa National Park, the Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch
(FBTB), and the Taichung County Government (TCG). From 1995-1998, about 200 thousand tourists visited the Wuling area each year (Table 6-1). Tourist activities concentrated on the north and the south areas of the Chichiawan Stream. The south area was designated as a Recreation Area by the Park authority, and a Wuling Hotel,
some tourist lodges, campsites, a Tourist Service of the Farm, and a Tourist Centre of the Park were located there (Plate 6-1). The north area was a Recreation Area managed by the FBTB and contained a Tourist Lodge of the Bureau and a hiking path to the Yeh-Sheng Waterfall. The Chichiawan Stream was designated as the
Ecological Protection Area by the Park in 1992, and as the Core Area of the Salmon
WR by the TCG in 1997 (Figure 6-1).
Table 6-1 Tourist population in the Wuling area from 1995 to 1998
Year Population 1995 237,962 1996 165,057 1997 177,145 1998 211,061 Source: Lai (1999) 211
Recreational area of the Forestry Bureau ______i i i r 3384 ,.n h A
TAIWAN
2717
Yousheng Stream f
Recreational > area of the Park i
1 km 2 km Tachia River
Scale
Legend 0 Yen-Sheng Water Fall © Bus Stop and Parking Lots Salmon Wildlife Refuge 0 ) Parking Lots © Wuling Farm Office 0 ^ Forestry Bureau Tourists Lodge A Peak and Height (m) Proposed New Salmon Hatchery Stream 0 ) Wuling Farm Tounsts Lodge Wuling Farm Tourist Service
Wuling Road 0 ) Salmon Restoration Centre National Park Tourist Centre
Hikmg Path 0 ) Fish Watching Stand Wuling Farm Tourist Hotel
Central Trans-island Highway National Park Warden and ^ 2 / Police Joint Office © Entrance Ticket Box
Figure 6-1 Tourists interests of the Wuling area 212
Understanding tourists’ interests, therefore, is very important to the planning and management of the area. Four questionnaire surveys have been conducted by researchers in the Wuling area done by scientists to explore the composition of tourist groups, their activities, preferences, and needs, etc. (Kao 1995, Wuling Farm
1995, Chen 1996, Lai 1999). All provide basic knowledge of tourists but lack a deeper understanding of their opinions, attitudes and key concerns. For example,
Chen (ibid.) reveals that on the one hand most tourists want to see the construction of new facilities such as hiking paths (93%), car roads (66%), hotels (73%), and parking lots (70%). On the other, however, in order to protect the Salmon, many tourists accept simple food and restaurants (90%), changes to existing roads into hiking paths (80%), and the transformation of existing tourism into eco-tourism
(83%). The survey is unable to provide an in-depth explanation of these seemingly contradictory attitudes.
The recruitment of this group meeting took four weeks. The main difficulty lay in recruiting tourists since they were a diverse and large population. It was difficult to
determine how tourists could be represented in a group meeting. Therefore, in
addition to tourists, I decided to invite ‘front-line staff’ who had frequent and direct
contact with tourists and people who were in charge of tourism facilities in the Park, the Farm, and the FBTB. These included tourist guides (interpreters, desk
receptionists), and wardens from the Farm, the Park, and the FBTB. It was hoped that these individuals could express tourists’ needs and opinions well because they
had frequent contact with them. Since the management of the newly established
Salmon WR might influence tourists’ activities, the responsible authority, TCG, was
also invited. One academic. Dr. Kao, of the Chinese Culture University was invited 213
since he had prepared a report for the Park on the Integrated Plan o f the Wuling Area in June, which addressed tourists’ needs.
Before sending an invitation letter to the local management authorities, I contacted the directors of the Farm, the Park, the FBTB, and the chief of the Conservation
Division in TCG to explain the purpose and framework of the meeting, the list of
proposed participants, and to ask for their help and opinions. Then I contacted
‘front-line’ staff on an individual basis and sent invitations to attend letters to their
agencies.
Tourists were invited to attend this meeting voluntarily on the meeting day. Most
tourists visited and stayed in the area for one or two days (Lai 1999). They went
sightseeing during the daytime and stayed overnight in the Farm’s Hotel and tourist
lodges in the south Recreation Area. I put up posters about the meeting, and placed
introductory materials and booking forms on the reception desks in the Farm’s Hotel
and the Tourist Service. From 4pm on the day of the meeting, I approached tourists
and explained about the meeting and invited them to attend.
6.3. Transcript analysis of the tourists group meeting
This section presents the findings of a qualitative analysis of the transcript of the
tourists group meeting. The framework of analysis follows Healey’s five questions to
examine the ‘processes’ of the discussion in the meeting (see Chapter 2). Questions
include: who was involved? Where and when did the meeting take place? In what
style did the discussion take place? How were the arguments sorted out and
consensus created? And how were the agreements to be maintained? 214
6.3.1. Who was involved?
Table 6-2 shows numbers of participants and their backgrounds. Twenty-four participants took part including: 9 tourists, 5 tourist guides (interpreters and receptionists) from the Farm and the Park, 7 wardens from the Farm, the Park, and the FBTB, 1 convenor (myself) and 2 assistants (to take photograph and oversee tape recording). The representative of TCG and the academic. Dr. Kao, could not attend due to a storm in lowland area on the day of the meeting.
Tourists’ ages were between 15 and 52, with an average of 31. Eight out of nine tourists came from nearby areas, including Taichung, Singtzu, Nantao, and Taipei counties, and Taipei city. There were 3 students, 2 civil servants, 2 freelance workers,
1 businessman, and 1 labourer.
Table 6-2 Composition of participants of the tourists group meeting
No. of Participants Backgrounds People Tourists 9 Tourist_Hsing: female of 40 from Singtzu county, civil servant Tourist Hsuan: female of 15 from Singtzu county, student Tourist Jung: female of 52 from Taipei city, labourer Tourist Ting: female of 25 from Taipei county, freelance worker Tourist Wen: female of 23 from Taipei county, freelance worker Tourist Yu: male of 46 from Taipei city, businessman Tourist Yang: male of 32 from Taichung county, civil servant Tourist Yaun: female of 22 from Nantao county, student Tourist Sung: male of 22 from Taitung county, student Local management authorities 12 Farm warden Jen: staff of the Farm Farm warden Sheng: deputy manager of the Farm’s Wuling Hotel Farm guide Yin: receptionist of the Farm’s Wuling Hotel Farm guide Huai: tourist interpreter of the Farm Farm guide Yun: tourist interpreter of the Farm 215
Park warden Ming: chief of the Park’s Warden Office of the Wuling area Park guide Jui: previous tourist interpreter of the Park, now staff of the Interpretation Division of the Park Park guide Jane: tourist interpreter of the Park Park guide Chin volunteer tourist interpreter of the Park FB warden Nan: staff of the Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch FB warden Lun: staff of the Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch Farm warden Jen: staff of the Farm Convenor 1 KC: convenor Assistants 2 Assistant Fen: KC’s assistant (oversee tape recording) Assistant Liu: KC’s assistant as a photographer Total 24
6.3.2. Where and when did the meeting take place?
The decision about where to meet took into account the needs of participants, including the best time for them to meet. Since tourists were the primary
stakeholders for the project, the meeting place needed to be convenient for them. As mentioned above, most tourists went sightseeing in the daytime and came back to the
south Recreation Area for dinner and accommodation in the evening. The meeting place and time, therefore, would be better in the south Recreation Area and in the
evening. There were two suitable meeting rooms: one in the Park’s Tourist Centre
and the other in the Farm Office (Figure 6-1). I decided to hold the meeting in the
Farm Office because there was a round table, in the middle of which was a three-dimensional model of the local area, which would be helpful in the discussion.
6.3.3. In what structure and style did the discussion take place?
A suitable structure and style of the meeting needs to consider who gets involved, where and when to meet, and what and how gets discussed. All participants, as 216 mentioned above, had interests and experience of tourism. They were also drawn from a more ‘grass-root’ background. The absence of high-ranking officials might be expected to be reflected in a more open discussion because participants were likely to feel freer to use different kinds of reasonings and arguments.
The meeting was held in the building of the Wuling Farm Office in the evening. All participants sat in a circle around the tables (Figure 6-2, Plate 6-2, Plate 6-3). The time and place were convenient for all participants. Ninety minutes was thought to be suitable for an evening meeting. With this time limit, the structure and style of the meeting needed to achieve a balance between being too tight and too loose. Too tight a discussion might hinder open discussion and inspiration. Too loose might lead to a rambling and unfocused discussion. As the convenor of the discussion, the strategies
I employed were, first, to talk to participants before the meeting so that I could give them an introduction to the purpose and agenda of the meeting. Second, at the beginning of the meeting, I briefly repeated the meeting’s purpose and agenda. Third,
I explained that my role was not a formal chairman but to bring back the focus of discussion to task in cases when discussion strayed from the topic. Fourth, I only intervened in discussion in order to move the discussion on. Fifth, at the beginning of discussion, I used an entrance ticket as an example to reveal the issue of tourists’ expectations and reality of their experience. I also provided every participant with two free leaflets, one from the Farm and the other from the Park. These materials were used to initiate a discussion on tourists’ real problems, and as a means of prompting a review of planning and management situations of local management authorities. 217
Fa mi Chair Jen
rami Huai
Fami ^ un
FIl Nan
I I A ssistant I
FB Fun A ssistant Liu
I nil list
I'ourist I'nuiists llsuan Yuan
Tourist Tourist I ou list Tourist Ting Yu Door
Meeting Agenda poster
Figure 6-2 Seating arrangement map of the tourists group meeting 218
The meeting took just under 2 hours. It began with introduction to the meeting, followed by introductions from each participant, problem identification and discussion, suggestions and conclusion. In total, I spoke for 15% of total time while participants spoke for 80% of the overall time. 5% of time was spent in a short break for refreshment.
Every participant could speak fluent Mandarin so communication was not a problem.
Participants frequently used their local knowledge (experiences, local phenomena through observation, etc.), moral and emotive reasonings to back up their arguments.
Scientific and technical knowledge, based on the findings of scientific research, was less frequently employed than in the traditional formal meetings.
6.3.4. How were the arguments sorted out and was a new discourses created?
The method of the transcript analysis of this meeting is based on Huberman and
Miles’ (1994) interactive model that comprises three subprocesses: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (see Chapter 2). Through data reduction- summarising, coding, emergent themes, and clustering- an analytical diagram for this meeting has been constructed and displayed as Figure 6-3. There are five themes in the arguments:
• Institutional values of the Salmon
• The gap between tourists’ interests and their experiences
• Role of guides as intermediaries between tourists and local management
authorities
• Current planning systems and practices
• Future ways of planning and management Institutional Gap between tourists' values of the interests and reality Salmon
Current Natural Future ways of inconsistent Information environmental planning and planning systems distortion Mobilisation constraints management and practices to
gelation
Challenging roles of tourist guides as intermediaries between tourists and local management authorities Y: % contributing to the problem Y
-> Z: Achieving goal Z by improving the problem F
Figure 6-3 Analytical diagram of the tourists group meeting 220
6.3.4.1. Institutional values of the Salmon
For tourists, the meanings of the Salmon were many. They regarded the Salmon as a
‘news’ item in mass media and something to learn about (scientific interest), as an
‘attraction’ they expected to see (spiritual interest) and had rights to see, experience and learn about (moral reasoning). The following extracts illustrate these different meanings:
Tourist Hsing: “I’ve seen too many, and heard too many from the newspapers and magazines.” (Lines 424-425)^^
Tourist Yu: “Based on our impression of the Wuling Farm, (...)’* for me. I’ve seen Mr. Wu’s TV programme, ‘Nien-Chen’s Impression of Taiwan.’ He once introduced the Salmon. It was very impressive and I got an idea that people could find the Salmon in the Chichiawan area.” (Lines 596-601)
Farm guide Huai: “As a tourist guide, I would like to represent tourists’ opinions. Well, (...) the Formosan Landlocked Salmon is really the most (...) important expectation for (...) everybody who visits the Wuling area.” (Lines 715-719) Tourist Yu: “We also hope to have some education in the Park. The purpose of education for us is to understand more about the importance of conservation. For example, the National Precious Formosan Landlocked Salmon has been, has been considered seriously by many government authorities. It’s also a very important conservation work. Therefore we also hope to (...) learn about some basic knowledge of (...) how to (...) maintain, (...) protect or restore the Salmon, This is also one thing that tourists want to learn, and the rights to learn...We hope to learn some more for ourselves and for our children.” (Lines 1148-1167)
Park warden Ming: “Well, in general, after watching the introduction programme of the Salmon in our Tourist Centre, tourists always ask our
Number of lines in transcripts of this group meeting Untimed pauses 221
interpreters about how to get to the Fish Watching Stand. They are keen to see the Salmon in the field after watching the programme.” (Lines 1198-1202)
Tourism is a legal duty for both the Farm and the Park but is given a different emphasis by each organisation. For the Farm, Salmon was an ‘obligation’ to let tourists see (moral reasoning), because the Salmon, as an main attraction for tourists, was ‘a source of income’ (economic interest). The economic base of the Farm, especially after it had been incorporated into the area of the Shei-Pa National Park in
1992, was changing towards tourism. Since the Farm was a self-sustaining governmental organization, the loss of income from a reduction in agricultural production needed to be balanced by a rise in income from tourism. The Farm ran a
Hotel, 3 tourist lodges, some camping areas, and a Tourist Service. Income from tourism was important for the Farm and, therefore, the Farm tried to address tourists’ interests and attract them to the area. For example:
Farm warden Sheng: “Many tourists were very keen to see the National Precious Fish. They came from far away but failed to see the Salmon. When tourists told us their expectations, to be honest, we really hoped to fulfil their wishes.” (Lines 656-660)
Farm warden Sheng: “The interest of the Wuling Farm is to attract more tourists to visit here, to keep the Wuling business sustainable.” (Lines 1070-1073)
Farm warden Sheng: “I would like to make a request here that our related authorities should promote the conservation work of the Salmon, so that tourists visiting here for sightseeing can see and get close to the Salmon in the future.” (Lines 1301-1304) 222
By contrast, the Park’s recreational service focused on the public education of nature conservation, especially the Salmon conservation (conservation interest). The
Salmon was more of a ‘duty’ to conserve (moral reasoning). The Park’s priority for the area was conservation rather than tourism. The Park did not run any tourist hotels or lodges. Instead efforts had been made to propagate the Salmon, monitor and restore its habitat, promote information about the Salmon conservation, and to reduce the negative human impacts on the Salmon, such as agricultural activity and check dams. Especially since the establishment of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge in
1997, the Park had shared with the Taichung County Government more responsibility for Salmon conservation. As a result, restrictions were imposed on tourism for the sake of conservation. For example:
Park warden Ming: “I think the Salmon (...) the conservation works are not easy to do. In practice, we may (...) we must put some restrictions on tourists. Therefore (...) I think it’s not easy to do the conservation works. The Formosan Landlocked Salmon seems to be (...) a bit shy and fragile. Its habitat requirements are restricted.” (Lines 876-882)...“I know (...) our tourists always want to see the Salmon. But (...) based on the consideration for conservation, because its population is still small. If it were like the situation in the Yu-Shan National Park where the Formosan Rock-monkeys has been recovering to a large amount (...) sometimes the monkeys even running into the roads. It is still difficult at the moment to see the Salmon.” (Lines 1182-1188)
Due to their conservation priorities, the Park imposed restrictions on tourists by
designating the Chichiawan Stream as the Ecological Protection Area in which
tourists could not gain access. As a result, the Salmon became an object difficult to
see by tourists. These inconsistent values of the Salmon among tourists, the Farm
authority, and the Park authority caused a gap between tourists’ interests and their 223 experiences of reality.
6.3.4.2. The gap between tourists’ interests and their experiences
As noted above, one factor caused the gap between tourists’ expectation and their
experiences of reality was the restriction imposed by the Park authority. Other causes
of the gap were also revealed through the discussion to be associated with
information distortion, and natural environmental constraints.
A. Distorted information
First, participants argued that the information for tourists was insufficient and
out-of-date (factual reasoning). The Farm’s guide, Yun, gave the example of the Fish
Watching Stand while the Farm’s warden, Jen, shared his experience of the Salmon
Restoration Centre. They both argued that many tourists were attracted by the
information of the ‘Fish Watching Stand’ and the ‘Salmon Restoration Centre’ on the
entrance ticket but often failed to find the places because there was no information
board or sign set up locally:
Farm guide Yun: “These three words, Fish Watching Stand, on the ticket is the biggest headache for tourist interpreters. Because many tourists were so impressed by these three words, they went to find the Fish Watching Stand. I’ve explained hard to them many times about how to get there...We hope these three words can be put on an information board out there. Otherwise please do not print these words on the entrance ticket. It has really made us a lot of troubles. (...) Well, this is how I feel.” (Lines 322-341)
Farm warden Jen: “Not only this Fish Watching Stand is an issue, but also the Salmon Restoration Centre. Where I live is close to the Salmon Restoration Centre. Among eight of ten tourists who tried to find the Restoration Centre would come and ask me. Now I’ve got used to it: As 224
long as tourists came to me, I asked whether they were trying to find the Centre. They normally replied ‘Yes.’ Therefore, I think both sides (the Farm and the Park)’^ need to do something. For the Farm, the tour map may need to be revised, since the Salmon Restoration Centre is not doing artificial breeding, but being refurbished at the moment. Tourists cannot see any Salmon in the Centre.” (Lines 369-381)
Second, participants argued that information for tourists was even ‘illegitimate’
(moral reasoning). For example, tourist guide of the Park, Chin, questioned whether the Farm’s information of ‘picking maple leaves’ was a legitimate activity in the
National Park:
Park guide Chin: “It is also a problem about ‘picking maple leaves’. Based on what I leamt from the training of the Park, things cannot be taken away from the National Park.” (Line 529-531)
Third, participants argued that information for tourists provoked value conflicts and
caused confusion and distrust (moral and emotive reasonings). Tourist Hsing
questions the information provided by the Farm to be against the norms:
Tourist Hsing: “It is said on the leaflet for tourists: ‘The Wuling scenic spot is a wonderful natural amusement park for paddling in water, picking fruit and picking maple leaf’. 1 felt confused when I saw ‘paddling in stream.’ I wonder whether (...) Hasn’t the paddling activity been (...) Based on the information we leamt, we were told not to (...) damage its environment. Here these three words ‘paddling in water’ are shown in large print. Can we enter the stream and play or not? Where is the area of the stream that people are allowed to visit?” (Lines 430-439)
Tourist Hsing had leamt about the area from the mass media that the stream habitat
of the Salmon should be protected from human interference. ‘Paddling in stream’ on
Parenthesised words are author’s descriptions rather than transcriptions 225 the Farm’s leaflet apparently conflicted with this conservation idea. Though the
Farm’s tourist guides, Yun and Huai, explained to her that the current location of paddling zone was below the main habitat of the Salmon, she still felt confused and could not trust the information. She further recalled the experience of her last visit:
Tourist Hsing: “I feel that ‘paddling in water’ can confuse people. During my last visit, I saw a guy fishing out there by using elec- (...) electricity. Later I saw the police pursuing the guy. I thought if I didn’t know the situation, I would have gone down the bridge and played in the stream because the water was so clean...But now here points to the ‘paddling in water’. I think (...) for us, we (...) still don’t know much about the regulation. But because ‘paddling’ is printed, I would like to go down into the stream.” (Lines 472-483)
Due to this kind of information ‘distortion’, tourists felt disappointed and dissatisfied with the gap between their expectations and experiences. They complained of being unable to get access to places and resources they expected to find. Tourist Yu shared
similar experience with tourist Hsing and argued that tourists had good moral and
emotive reasons for wanting to go paddling in the stream: They loved being close to
nature and their children were on summer vacation to have some fun. However,
though following the information leaflets, Yu’s family found the stream inaccessible
(Plate 6-4). Yu said:
Tourist Yu: “My family and friends arrived here at about 2 o’clock this afternoon. After checking in (at the Farm’s Hotel), I went to my room directly. I also got some information leaflets in my room. But I didn’t know, well, where to go paddling. I kept looking along the road. But every place (...) nearby the stream, we could see some information boards showing: ‘No entrance without permission.’ Well, (...) because we love being close to nature very much, we also have children on their summer vacation; we 226
hope there can be a section of stream where we can get close to. But we don’t know where it was permitted. What we could find were the information boards showing: ‘No entrance without permission.’ My children kept asking me whether they could go down and play since the stream was so beautiful... We spent our whole afternoon seeking the Fish Watching Stand, but finally failed.” (Lines 574-602)
B. Natural environmental constraints
The gap between tourists’ expectations and their experiences was interpreted by wardens from the Farm and the Park as being mainly caused by natural environmental constraints (scientific reasoning), when they responded to the above criticism from tourists and tourist guides. Farm’s warden Jen and Park’s warden
Ming explained:
Farm warden Jen: “The problem is about the location of the Fish Watching Stand. The Salmon prefer staying in deep pools. The current location of the Stand is closer to the road than before (due to impacts of typhoons and floods). And (...) in general the Salmon’s mating season is in autumn. Therefore it’s not easy to see the Salmon on ordinary days” (Lines 362-367)... “The Salmon could only be seen when the stream flow was not too high and not too, too turbid.” (Lines 390-391)
Park warden Ming: “The Salmon seems to be (...) a bit shy and fragile. Water temperature is a restriction on its habitat. The suitable temperature is between 14 and 16 degrees (Celsius) and cannot be too high or too low. The Salmon need to eat plankton in the stream, which is now not enough.” (Lines 880-885)
Park warden Ming: “The population of the Salmon has declined from thousands to the present hundreds due to the impacts of several Typhoons. Therefore, (...) there will be (...) some practical difficulties for tourists to see the Salmon in the near future.” (Lines 1189-1193) 227
Drawing on their scientific understanding of Salmon ecology, the wardens of the
Farm and the Park argued that tourists had to wait with patience (Plate 6-5). For example:
Farm warden Sheng: “I often came across many tourists seeking the Salmon. I usually stopped and looked the Salmon for them. It really needed patience. Sometimes it took hours to find out.” (Lines 684-687)
As revealed by these responses, wardens from the Park and the Farm believe that natural causes are the main reasons why the Salmon ‘is difficult to see’ (Plate 6-6).
However, as shown in many research papers, the causes of decline are complex and also include human factors such as check dam, agricultural pollution, tourism, and interactions between them (Tsao 1995, Lin et al. 1990a, 1990b, Day 1992, Day et al.
1993, Chen 1996, and also Chapter 3). However, when talking with tourists, these complex ‘stories’ are simply ignored. This raised a social and moral issue for the
guides: Should they act as a ‘mediator’ of information or not? Should they simplify
complex explanations for the Salmon’s decline or not?
6.3.4.3. The role of guides between tourists and local management authorities
Tourist guides, including interpreters and receptionists, served as purveyors of
information and mediators to fill the ‘gap’ between tourists’ expectation and their
experiences. Because of the difficulty of seeing the Salmon due to conservation
restriction, information distortion, and natural environmental constraints, the jobs for
guides was highly challenging. For example:
Farm guide_Yun: “I’ve explained hard to them many times about how to get there (the Fish Watching Stand). Well, sometimes I even lied to them. I 228
told them that we took the information board away because (...) many people liked to, to feed the fish. This has really bothered me a lot. I once reported this situation to the Farm on the daily report. I also suggested the Farm to convey (...) convey my opinion to the Park. Why? Because I wasn’t sure whether this information board should be, (...) be prepared by Shei-Pa or by Farm? Since we are only tourist guides, we don’t have kind of authority of conduct. We cannot tell tourists about what will be improved in the future.” (Lines 338-326)
In this case, the Farm’s tourist guide, Yim, tried to serve as mediator of information between tourists and her employer, the Farm. The problem was she did not know why there was no information board and who, the Farm or the Park, should take the responsibility. She was confused about this ambiguity and felt powerless to make a change. In order to solve the problem, she told a Tie.’ The Farm’s tourist interpreter
Huai and receptionist Yin shared with Yun the sense of powerlessness of being guides:
Farm guide Huai: “In many circumstances, it’s not decided by tourist guides and (...) Because we interpreters have no authority of management, you know, we are not in a position to explain the administrative affairs, either. The only thing we can do is to write down our opinions on the diary reports.” (Lines 781-786)
Farm guide Yin: “About this (...) well, traffic issue, we have already made some suggestions before. But it (...) depends on our superiors to (...) They may have some other considerations (...) 1 am afraid we could (...) only give them more suggestions and tell that them our tourists have these kinds of problems.” (Lines 1420-1425)
Since tourist guides had little power to improve the problem, they found Their own ways’ of filling the ‘gap’ between tourists’ interests and their experiences. The 229 situation was like ‘working in the dark’ in the front line:
Farm guide Huai: “So far we interpreters have been always (...) working in the dark, in the dark, you know. We found ourselves the (...) map for bird watching, and
Farm guide_Yun: “ [Maple leaf!”
Farm guide Huai: “[the information of maple leaf, and so on. We collected them by ourselves, by ourselves. Because you know why? It’s funny, you know, as interpreters, we need to tell the same story several times a day. It’s boring, you know, ha! (People laughing) Therefore, we hope to keep our interpretations up to date as much as we can. But the problems are still there. Why? (...) Because the books we collected are similar, no one with comprehensive information... We work in the front line. We’ve heard both kind critique and unreasonable attacks from tourists. To whom (...) to whom can we go to complain then? It is not right. (...) We’ve asked for instructions from here and there, (...) including our superiors. In the end no answer was comprehensive.” (Line2 789-821)
According to Huai, tourist guides collected materials for interpretation on their own and worked hard to keep the data up-to-date. However, this did not resolve the problem because information was not comprehensive. Sometimes when they followed their superiors’ instructions, the problem became worse:
Farm guide Huai: “Well, one year ago, before I took the Shei-Pa (National Park’s) training course, I knew little about the Salmon. After I came back from the training (...) I learnt from the course that Mr. Wu (the Executive Secretary of the Park) told us the oncoming new salmon hatchery centre would be more modem than Japan’s. Therefore, every time I met tourists I told them this news. One year later, I was proved to be (...) a ‘big liar who ate his words and got fat (^"a A t^A ).’ So far (...) you know our
Left brackets indicate the point at which a current speaker’s talk is overlapped by another’s talk 230
tourists are very lovely. Our (...) Don’t ignore our influence. Tourists are very impressed by us. (...) One year later, some came back here to find the Salmon and came across me again. They asked ‘Interpreter, didn’t you tell us before? Why is here still no change?’ We still handed in a blank exam paper ( # 6 # ) again! We also told tourists that we would set up some (...) some (...) aquariums, and tourists would be satisfied before they left. But at last, so far, I am still a ‘yellow cow’ (#4^, boaster).” (Lines 719-734)
Owing to this embarrassing experience, tourist guide Huai knew he could not simply trust the instruction from local management authorities. Like guide Yun had argued above, ‘we cannot tell tourists what will be improved.’ The ways of management of
local management authorities were also complex and uncertain. However, since tourist guides could not escape from the front line, they had to use their own ‘talents’ and created their own stories to serve as mediators between tourists and the local management authorities that they worked for. Tourist guide Huai gave an example
about tourists’ inquiry of the reason of Salmon population decline:
Farm guide Huai: “Using all my talents, I told them the reason why the Salmon population dropped from 3 thousand to 6 hundred was because there were 2 uncles ( # # ) and 1 lady took them away. What does it mean? Two uncles (uncle pronouncing Po fâ in Mandarin) mean the Ho-Po ( # # ) Typhoon in 1996 and the Jui-Po ( ^ # ) Typhoon in 1998. ‘Lady’ means the Iris Typhoon. Two uncles and one lady took the Salmon away. I also told them that after we complete the recovery programme (...) Well, we were planning to remove the number (...) number-something check dam and it would help produce a deep pool. And after the whole (...) stream was gradually restored to its original condition, we would hopefully be able to see the Salmon.” (Line 734-747)
Explanations for the decline of the Salmon, as discussed in the previous chapters, are
many and problematic. However, as ‘front-line’ interpreters, tourist guides also 231 needed to give answers to tourists. In his explanation the tourist guide, Huai, did not mention any human factors but only blamed natural hazards, i.e. the typhoons and floods. He used an interesting popular analogy, ‘two uncles and one lady’, to explain the decline in order to make tourists happy with this explanation. In addition, the tourist guide Huai also told tourists that recent conservation efforts involved removing a check dam. This too was an optimistic explanation to reassure the tourists about the future of the Salmon and the effectiveness of conservation work. It seemed that he could not afford to let tourists down because, as he claimed, ‘to see the Salmon’ was tourists’ greatest hope. As a tourist guide, he wanted to make tourists as happy as he could.
As seen from this discussion, the role tourist guides had to play was highly challenging one. They had to struggle in their roles between ‘telling truths’ as information conduits and ‘telling lies’ as mediators to bridge the gap between tourists’ expectations and their experiences. Furthermore, they did not even know what truths to tell, since information and ways of managing the area were often
conflicting and confusing. This was especially the situation for the Farm’s
interpreters. That was why the Farm’s interpreters, Huai and Yun, expressed more
complaints about their difficulties in the meeting than did the Park’s guide.
6.3.4.4. Current planning systems and practices
The gap between tourists’ expectations and their experiences was mainly caused by the inconsistent planning systems and practices among the local management
authorities. Many participants argued that the recreational systems of three local management authorities had been working separately and lacked coordination. As 232
Park warden Jui pointed out:
Park guide Jui: “Let’s (...) let’s take these two leaflets you’ve got to hand as an example, it reveals a question: Why do these leaflets with different interests coexist in this area? The content of them, I think, shows very different things.” (Lines 964-968)
The Farm’s leaflet for tourists showed different interests from those of the Park.
Tourists, as tourist Hsing previously claimed, could find that the materials provoked value conflicts and were confusing and untrustworthy. The current recreational systems of different local management authorities were not consistent with each other. One of the Farm’s tourist guides, Huai, gave another example:
Farm guide Huai: “When we go to the place nearby the Wan-Shou bridge and Ying-Bin bridge, we can see in front of us standing different information boards in various forms such as rectangular, square, and other strange shapes. Can the Shei-Pa National Park unify (...) them to be one beautiful form so that we can work in cooperation? Why? I’ve visited I’m not saying (...) I’ve visited many foreign National Parks. All information boards I saw looked very harmonious. As Chin (the Park’s interpreter) just said that it is not allowed to pick maple leaves (in the Park). What about our apples? (...) Some tourists picked up apples and went to ask the Shei-Pa (the Park). Shei-Pa told them the apples were planted by the Farm (not Shei-Pa’s business). Then I would like to ask what sort of stuff Shei-Pa has planted? In such a situation, we’d better (...) work together so that we can say the same story. Don’t let our tourists confused by different stories. We’d better plan for the whole Wuling area.” (Lines 762-780)
Soon after tourists pass the entrance to the Park, they came across several information boards set up by the Farm, the Park or the Forestry Bureau in various shapes and colours, and providing information and directions (Plate 6-7). This 233 confusing display showed that three local management authorities operated separately. As a result, it was up to tourists to make their own decisions about what is
‘proper conduct.’
6.3.4.5. A new discourse: future ways of planning and management
In the meeting, participants’ suggestions focused on ways of dealing with the ‘gap’ between tourists’ expectations and their experiences, as well as on the challenging role of tourist guides. Many participants called for new ways of planning and management. A new discourse, i.e. a more inclusionary and communicative planning approach especially suggested by ‘front-line staff’, emerged during the discussion.
First, wardens from the Park and the Farm emphasised a ‘rational’ planning approach that relied on traditional instruments such as ‘plans’ and ‘formal meetings.’
However, they also suggested other more communicative approaches, such as introducing informal communication and adjusting management roles among the local management authorities. For example:
Farm warden Sheng: “If (...) we want an integrated kind of management, we need to, as Jen said before, sit down and discuss with related authorities together. Then we can plan for an (...) unobstructed space (Al%#60 ^ ^ ) for recreational environment. What I called ‘unobstructed space’ means we have an integrated planning for traffic, for sightseeing, for all the information boards, and all the other aspects. So that tourists can meet no obstacles wherever they go. They can know whatever they want to know. They can easily go wherever they want to go.” (Lines 508-517)
Park warden Ming: “Now the four authorities of the area hold a Local Periodic Meeting every three months. The issue of the information boards has been discussed in this periodic meeting...We’ve cooperated with (...) Dr. 234
Kao... worked out an Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area. We have started implementing the Plan now. It will be completed within one or two years. We’ve also invited related authorities of the area to join every briefing meeting on the Plan...The Plan includes the whole Wuling area. In the future (...) about the road maintenance we’ve just mentioned, the road maintenance, and the future locations of parking lots, and public toilets, and many other issues (...) are all involved in this Plan. Well, now the question is about when this Plan can be completed. Basically, with the help of everybody’s efforts, we will do our best to complete the Plan in two years.” (Lines 895-926)
Farm warden Sheng: “Basically I think Shei-Pa (the Park) and Wuling (the Farm) should (...) reciprocate and complement each other. Why? (...) For some resources, the Park’s resources are more than the Farm’s. For others, the Farm’s are more than the Park’s. Basically I think we need to make a new adjustment so that all resources can be planned on a reciprocal and complementary basis...but not restrain each other on a threshold. Make our resources attractive to tourists...We should let our tourists know the meaning of the existence of these two authorities. The Farm attracts tourists to come here while the Park shows tourists its resources and its importance. This is a very important issue.” (Lines 1063-1106)
Farm warden Jen: “Now the remaining issue will be how our related authorities can negotiate together. I think the daily negotiation works among our related authorities is not enough...I think for many issues we didn’t negotiate enough. In addition to the three-monthly Local Periodic Meeting, actually we may also negotiate more informally. For the Farm, its business used to base on agricultural production. Now it has gradually transferred into tourism. Though it is transferring, we still need to protect the Salmon...After we complete the Six-Year Transformation Project, there will be no agricultural cultivation along the Wuling road. This will benefit the Salmon’s habitat.” (Lines 1517-1542)
Just as was the case in the farmers group meeting (Chapter 5), the Park and the Farm in this meeting advocated continuing with existing planning practices, including the 235
Local Periodic Meeting, the Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area, and the
Transformation Project, as key instruments for solving the problems of tourism. By contrast, the ‘front-line staff’, i.e. the tourist guides of the Park and the Farm, called for a more ‘inclusionary’ and ‘communicative’ approach to the problems they encountered. For example:
Farm guide Huai: “We’d better (...) work together so that we can tell the same story. Don’t let our tourists confused by different stories. We’d better plan for the whole Wuling area.” (Lines 776-780)
Park guide Jui: “Problems can be many... The one-off resolution for each individual problem is only a stopgap measure...Therefore (...) I would like to suggest that we discuss the issue from a boarder viewpoint. The first priority is to understand tourists’ (...) their (...) We may employ a questionnaire, a comprehensive and in-depth questionnaire, so that members of so-called ‘four local management authorities’ can understand the questions that tourists really want to ask. (...) Then we may figure out different ways of resolutions for their problems. That is to say, we can base on tourists’ needs to provide our guide tour service, to design our tourist interpretation boards and leaflets, and the information service in our Tourist Centre...Therefore, our four authorities had better to do an in-depth planning for this software issue. And this will be a more fundamental way.” (Lines 960-1060)
These front-line staff argued that traditional instruments lacked detailed understanding and consideration of tourists’ interests. The Park’s tourist guide Jui suggested a more inclusionary approach for addressing this ‘software issue’ by arguing that recreational policy needed to base on an in-depth understanding of tourists’ needs and problems. At the same time the Farm’s tourist guide Huai suggested a more communicative approach would help tourist guides to construct the same ‘story’ so that tourists would not be confused by distorted information and 236 inconsistent, institutional values.
6.4. How to maintain the agreements and critique: outcomes and
evaluation
This section aims to evaluate the outcomes of the institutional capacity-building among stakeholder community in this meeting. I employ Healey’s three dimensions of institutional capacity, i.e. the dimensions of the knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity, as external criteria as well as participants’ opinions as internal criteria to discuss the achievements of the meetings.
6.4.1. External evaluation
First, this group meeting is an innovative experiment that provides a more inclusionary approach than a traditional planning approach to the management problems of the natural protected areas. It provided the first opportunity for involving direct participation of ‘front-line’ level of stakeholders, i.e. tourists and guides, who were marginalized in the conventional planning process. It also involved local knowledge of tourists and front-line staff, which was generally ignored in traditional rational planning processes. The inclusion of previous ‘voiceless’ people and their knowledge formed a basis for consensus-building among tourists and staff of local management authorities.
Second, the preparation and structure of this group meeting differed from the arrangement of traditional planning meetings. It provided a more communicative forum than traditional official meetings and instruments, such as the Local Periodic
Meeting and questionnaire surveys. Unlike the traditional questionnaire surveys 237
(Kao 1995, Wuling Farm 1995, Chen 1996, Lai 1999), this group meeting served as a ‘forum’ of public argumentation in which stakeholders came face to face, interacting and debating with each other. Participants were free to employ different types of reasonings, i.e. scientific or factual reasoning, moral reasoning, and emotive reasoning, for supporting their arguments. As shown in this meeting, participants frequently employed moral reasonings and emotive reasonings to back up their arguments rather than privileging scientific knowledge and instrumental reasoning as is usually the case in traditional official meetings. These interactions helped to lead to a social and consensus-building process in which relational networks among stakeholders were reinforced and a consensus on a more collaborative planning approach to the management problems of the area was achieved.
Third, this group meeting provides as an innovative instrument that can supplement the limitations of traditional official meetings and helps stakeholders to achieve a basis for mobilise existing political instruments, such as the Park’s Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area and the Farm’s Transformation Project. By building up knowledge and relational resources, this group meeting helped stakeholders to collectively identify their problems, reinforce their working relationships, clarify their duties and roles, and select relevant political instruments to deal with the problem. For example, through the discussion, stakeholders identified there did exist a ‘gap’ between tourists’ interests and their expectations. This problem mainly came from the uncoordinated planning systems and practices among the local management authorities and called for a more integrated planning for dealing vsdth these issues.
They also suggested each local management authority should play a complementary role with each other. They valued the existing planning practices, such as the Local 238
Periodic Meeting, the Integrated Plan, and the Transformation Project but they also pointed out the need to introduce more informal and inclusionary ways of communicating.
6.4.2. Internal evaluation
Soon after this meeting, I employed three ways of evaluating the processes and outcomes of this meeting. First, participants were given an opportunity to write down their responses at the end of the meeting. Most tourists returned their written opinions, some of which were about their feelings and evaluation of this meeting.
Second, I checked the recording of the meeting to examine how participants had assessed the value of the meeting. Third, in days following the meeting I interviewed eight participants (one warden and two guides from the Park, two warden and one guide from the Farm, and two tourists) about their opinions of this meeting. I asked them: What did they learn from the meeting? What were the benefits and shortcomings? Do they think my role in the meeting was neutral? etc.
Generally speaking, most participants appreciated this meeting for the way in which it was conducted as a communicative, learning, and neutral process. First, wardens from the Farm and the Park thought that this meeting was productive. For example, the Farm’s warden Jen said that he enjoyed this meeting in which people could share their problems and opinions with each other and could find some solutions collectively. Second, tourist guides from the Farm and the Park thought this meeting was innovative and productive. For example, the Park’s guide Chin and the Farm’s guide Yun both thought the meeting offered them a forum in which they could speak out about the problems they faced in the front line and to leam from each other’s 239 knowledge and experiences. Third, tourists also thought that this meeting was productive. For example, tourist Wen and tourist Ting said that they leamt a lot about information of sightseeing and management problems of the area from this meeting which had helped them to make better arrangements for the next day’s trip. Tourist
Wen said she also leamt more about intellectual concepts about nature conservation and had achieved some spiritual growth of mind. Tourist Yuan said, before this meeting, she had never thought about that recreational service was a serious topic and tourists had rights to ask for a better recreational environment. This meeting helped her to realise her rights. Fourth, many participants thought this meeting was conducted in a smooth and robust way. For example, the Park’s guide Jui said that, as the convenor, I did not speak much and always intervened in the right time to keep the discussion to task. The Park’s guide Chin, the Farm’s guide Yun, and tourists
Wen and Ting all felt that this meeting went smoothly with a good focus on topics.
People involved themselves in a focused discussion.
6.4.3. Unresolved problems
Several unresolved problems are revealed by their meeting. These include the ‘gap’
between tourists’ interests and the reality of their practical experiences, the
challenging role of tourist guides, both of which were often associated with the
changing meanings of the Salmon, and the difficulty of transforming planning
systems and practices associated with the management of the Park and the WR
(Figure 6-3).
First, the gap between tourists’ interests and the reality of their practical experiences
can be partly filled but cannot be fully bridged through a collaborative planning 240 approach. This is because the gap is influenced by many factors, such as both human and natural constraints on the Salmon population itself, information distortion, and inconsistent institutional values (Figure 6-3). Planning and management cannot for example fully solve the problem of natural constraints. For example, the Farm’s warden Sheng suggested an ‘unobstructed space’ for tourists to freely enjoy whatever they wanted to see and experience. The problem is: to what extent can a recreational space offer such an experience? An ‘unobstructed’ space in which tourists could see or even touch the Salmon in the field is not achievable in the foreseeable future. The interaction between natural and human impacts on the
Salmon population is complex, and uncertain, so too is the outcome of its recovery programme.
Second, the challenging role of tourist guides is always likely to be testing due to the
‘unbridgeable’ gap between tourists’ interests and the reality of their practical experiences. The role of guides is to serve as information conduits and, more importantly, to serve as mediators to fill the ‘gap’ between tourists’ expectation and their experiences. First, as ‘information conduits’, guides have to leam to introduce
scientific, moral, and spiritual meanings associated with Salmon ecology and conservation, which need quite a lot of expertise to explain. These multiple meanings
are also controversial. For example, the reasons for the decline in the Salmon population are many and uncertain. Second, as ‘mediators to fill the gap’, guides need to achieve a balance between the meanings of the Salmon as ‘an obligation of tourism’ and as ‘a duty to conserve.’ This is always likely to be a controversial topic.
Tourist guides have to position themselves between tourists on the one hand and their employers (local management authorities) on the other. This tension was most 241 acutely expressed in this meeting by the Farm’s tourist guides, Yun and Huai, and the
Park’s guide Chin. Yun and Huai had to struggle between the obligation of the
Farm’s interest in tourism as an economic activity and the Park’s interest in conservation. Chin on the other hand ‘placed’ himself as needing to support conservation whilst also needing to respond to tourists demands for ‘accessible’ nature.
Third, due to the various and changing meanings of the Salmon, tourist guides can
hardly ‘tell the same story’, as suggested by the Farm’s guide Huai in this meeting.
The meanings of the Salmon are diverse for tourists, guides, and local management
authorities. A more collaborative approach can help to explore different interests of
stakeholders and achieve a mutual understanding of each other’s concern. However,
the ‘story’ may not be a single one but several ‘stories.’ Furthermore, the meanings
of the Salmon are always changing. For example, recent archaeological discoveries
at Chichiawan prehistorical sites (Liu 1997 and 1998) suggest fishing and hunting
activities were dominant in the area about four thousand years ago. It is believed at
this time the Salmon was basically ‘a source of food’ for indigenous people. In the
1980s, Salmon only came to have value for scientists and conservation authorities.
Since then, Salmon has been protected as ‘an endangered species’ under related
nature conservation laws. After two decades of publicity and education, the Salmon
has become well known and many people now know it as ‘National Precious Fish.’
It is becoming a ‘common good’ for the public. The meanings of the Salmon in
society are constantly being reconstructed by different stakeholders and while a more
collaborative approach can help to explore and acknowledge these different
meanings equally, it cannot ‘legislate’ for a single meaning. 242
Fourth, a great deal of effort is required to transform existing planning systems and practices in order to reconcile inconsistent institutional duties and values among institutions. A more collaborative planning approach, like this group meeting, can help to expose the problem of existing uncoordinated planning systems and practices but cannot resolve the problem without a transformation of the existing hard infrastructure. Many management problems of the Salmon WR initially come from the sectoral bureaucratic systems based on traditional, rational planning approaches that delegate different sectoral goals and duties to the different institutions. Different institutions are basically designed to employ different planning systems and practices to achieve their goals. The Local Periodic Meeting initiated and convened by local management authorities has been a local, collaborative effort to reconcile the inconsistent policies among them. However, at national level, since the establishment of the Salmon WR in 1997, there has been no effective mechanism for dealing with these structural issues about inconsistent institutional duties and the values which
underpin them among the responsible central institutions. These responsible central
institutions have the power and resources to transform the existing hard
infrastructure, but also need to acknowledge ‘the problem.’
6.5. Conclusions
• Like the farmers meeting, this meeting provided a more inclusionary and
communicative arena appreciated by most participants. It was more inclusionary
and communicative than the traditional rational planning meetings in that it helped
to build up more knowledge and relational resources. The meeting included a
range of issues based on local knowledge previously not addressed in the
traditional planning meetings. It hence initiated a dialogue between local 243
knowledge and scientific knowledge. The meeting included tourists and tourist
guides who had previously not been involved in the traditional planning processes.
It brought together tourists and the local management authorities in a face-to-face,
consensus-building process.
• This meeting provided a new political instrument that built on knowledge and
relational resources among stakeholders, and helped to mobilise collaborative
actions associated with the management of the local area, such as the Park’s
Integrated Plan and the Farm’s Transformation Project.
• This meeting helped to expose existing policy inconsistencies amongst the local
management authorities, which had created a gap between tourists’ interests and
the reality of their practical experiences. These policy inconsistencies basically
derived from the institutional norms and values of the different local management
authorities. This called for a redesign and transformation of the existing soft and
hard infrastructures, and the requirement to acknowledge alternative conservation
goals and practices.
• This meeting also helped to reveal the limitations of this kind of one-off, public
meeting even though it was evaluated as being more collaborative. It called for
more subsequent meetings to help to achieve consensus about how to resolve
problems associated with the gap between tourists’ interests and the reality of their
practical experiences, the challenging role of tourist guides, the changing
meanings of the Salmon, and the difficulty of transforming planning systems and
practices associated with the Salmon WR. 244
Plate 6-1 Many tourists go camping in the Wuling area on holidays
Plate 6-2 Discussion in the tourists group meeting (1) 245
Plate 6-3 Discussion in the tourists group meeting (2)
m QTEC|;4PSP b apnttw tndanaer 1
ii
Plate 6-4 An information board alongside the stream 246
Plate 6-5 Visitors at the Fish W atching Stand
Plate 6-6 Alluvial material deposited in the upper stream after the floods accompanied with the Ho-Po typhoon (source: Council of Agriculture) 247
&
Plate 6-7 Tourists felt confused by different information boards installed separately by the Park, the Farm, and the Forestry Bureau 248
Chapter 7 Evaluations and Conclusions
7.1. Introduction
This final chapter aims to evaluate and the findings of the empirical study and to assess what contributions a collaborative planning approach can make to natural area management in Taiwan. The Chapter is structured using the following themes:
• Evaluation of the findings of the case study in the light of Healey’s three criteria
for assessing institutional capacity-building, i.e. evaluation of the effectiveness of
processes and outcomes of planning and management of the Salmon Wildlife
Refuge (WR), in terms of knowledge resources, relational resources, and
mobilisation capacity
• Evaluation of the findings of the case study related to the Taiwanese context, i.e.
opportunities and challenges for applying Healey’s collaborative planning
approach to the management problems of protected areas in Taiwan
• Overall evaluation of collaborative planning approach as the basis for providing
an effective participatory approach to environmental decision-making
7.2. Evaluation of processes and outcomes of planning and management
of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge
This section assesses the effectiveness of processes and outcomes of planning and management of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge based on Healey’s three criteria of knowledge resources, relational resources, and mobilisation capacity for institutional capacity-building. The section brings together the findings of chapter 3 to 6 and 249 gives an overall evaluation of the case study. The objective is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of a traditional planning approach and of a collaborative planning approach for addressing the main management problem of the Salmon WR.
Challenges of applying the collaborative approach to the Salmon WR are also discussed.
7.2.1. Main management problem of the Salmon WR
Detailed qualitative analysis of case-study materials reveals that the main management problem of the Salmon WR arises from the different priorities given by
stakeholders to two concepts: ‘livelihoods of people’ and ‘the well-being of
wildlife.’ Some like the Farm authorities (the Wuling Farm and the Veteran Affairs
Commission), farmers, and tourists place more emphasis on people’s livelihoods.
They lay more stress on the social importance (settlement), the economic importance
(income from agricultural production and tourism), and the spiritual function
(recreation) of the area. Others, including the Park authorities (the Shei-Pa National
Park and the Ministry of Interior), the Wildlife Refuge authorities (the Taichung
County Government and the Council of Agriculture) and natural scientists stress the
wildlife’s well-being as of most important. They are concerned more about the
ecological function (wildlife conservation) of the place. A sustainable solution to the
long-term management of the area requires a consensus about how these two goals
can be reconciled.
7.2.2. Effectiveness of traditional, rational planning approaches
Traditional, rational planning approaches fail to effectively achieve a means of
reconciling the differing goals of ‘livelihoods of people’ and ‘the well-being of
wildlife.’ Traditional planning approaches are characteristically dominated by 250 scientific knowledge and institutional values (knowledge resources) and based on official and professional relationships (relational resources), both underpinned by legal and regulatory delivery systems (mobilisation capacity). These three dimensions of traditional planning approaches are closely related to each other and provoke management problems for the Salmon WR as follows (Figure 7-1).
• As revealed through the case-study materials, scientific knowledge dominates the
construction of the meanings and values of the Salmon, as well as the
identification of negative factors contributing to the decline of the Salmon.
Human factors are regarded as being negative both for scientific reasons and
because the institutional values of the nature conservation authorities (notably the
Park authority) are bedded in a scientific rationale. As a result, the dominant
management strategy is to give high priority to the Salmon and low priority to
livelihoods of local people. The consequences of giving low priority to the
livelihoods of local people are fourfold: Ignorance of local people’s livelihoods
discounts local knowledge which contests scientific findings relating to the
appropriateness of management policies. This in turn leads to exclusion of local
people in the planning process. This ‘Salmon first and people last’ strategy also
provokes an adversarial relationship between ‘pro-wildlife’ institutions (notably
the Park authority) and ‘pro-people’ institutions (notably the Farm authority).
This results in inconsistent policies and uncoordinated ways of managing the
area among the local management authorities (the Wuling Farm, the Shei-Pa
National Park, the Taichung County Government, and the Forestry Bureau).
Consequently, the effectiveness of the Salmon WR management based on a
strategic policy of ‘Salmon first and people last’ is likely to be undermined. ^— Institutional Design n Characters of traditional planning approach [«—Problem s— Résolut ions -*|
Construction of 1 .ow p n ont) to the Salmon's Ignorance of local Inclasion of local local people's meanings and knowledge knowledge livelihoods values
Scientific Ignorance of Dealing with knowledge + Identification of uncertainty uncertainty institutional neaative factors values
Inconsistent Consensus T raditional policies build irg égal Collaborative rational \ legulatorv, Strategic policv planning planning / sectoral deliverv makina approach approach svstems Uncoordinated Collaborative ways of 4 management management Official. Identification of professional stakeholders' and working their working Exclusion of local relationships relationsliip Involvement of people's 4 — local people participation
N ote: lop-dow n.' l ack of informal. Inclusionarv and I31ue color characters: knowledge resources Iiierarchical' communicative 4 - communicative institutional Red color characteis: relational resources instruments arrangements arrangements (ireen color characters: mobilisation capacity
------Causing ------►
-Improving-
Figure 7-1 Conceptual framework of the case study findings 252
As revealed through the case-study materials, scientific knowledge cannot provide definitive answers to the question of what factors contribute most to the decline of the Salmon. Like many cases of environmental change, it is impossible to say that people rather than nature are responsible (Goudie 2000).
Negative factors, both human and natural, are many and uncertain. Traditional rational planning approach ignores this uncertainty by offering partial explanations that often cannot provide a full ecological analysis. As a result, the effectiveness of a conservation strategy based on scientific knowledge alone is likely to be compromised.
As revealed through the case-study materials, the composition of stakeholders in the traditional rational planning processes are dominated by government institutions and scientists who form a ‘closed community’ reinforced by formal and professional working relationships. Together with the ‘Salmon first people last’ conservation strategy, this tight official and expert community marginalizes other knowledge communities, especially local people. These official
stakeholders and their working practices also contribute to the development of an
adversarial relationship and uncoordinated ways of addressing management
issues that focus around ‘pro-wildlife’ institutions and ‘pro-people’ institutions.
As a result, the effectiveness of working relationships based on an official and
professional community is likely to be compromised.
Traditional rational planning approaches are underpinned by a legal, regulatory,
and sectoral delivery system structured with ‘top-down’, ‘hierarchical’
institutional arrangements. This ‘hard infrastructure’ largely determines the
range of ‘stakeholders’ consulted and their professional working relationship, the 253
institutional values and norms that guide strategic policy making, and the formal
ways of communication adopted in the planning and management processes.
Local people are systematically excluded from the traditional planning processes
and the absence of any informal, communicative channels for their claims to be
given an equal voice means that they feel alienated. Little common basis exists
on which to forge solutions other than separating wildlife conservation from
local people’s livelihoods. As a result, the effectiveness of this legal, regulatory,
and sectoral delivery system based on ‘top-down’ institutional arrangements
finds little support in the local community.
7.2.3. Effectiveness of the collaborative planning approach
7.2.3.1. Evaluation of collaborative efforts made in the past
Although the rational planning approach has generally dominated the planning and management of the Salmon protected area, some attempts have been made to develop a more collaborative process.
• First, the devolution of power to the local government on a legal basis: Under the
amendments to the Wildlife Conservation Law in 1994, Wildlife Refuges are to
be planned and managed by local governments through a bottom-up designation
procedure.
• Second, the involvement of local people and conservation NGOs is mandatory:
For example, under the amendments to the Wildlife Conservation Law in 1994,
an on-site public hearing on the plan of the WR should be held in the local area.
The plan should be approved by the COA’s Wildlife Conservation Advisory
Committee on which non-governmental representatives should comprise not less 254
than two-thirds of the total committee membership.
• Third, the history of institutional change shows that the formal structures and
procedures, such as policy and technical committees, provided one means of
involving associated government institutions at central and local levels and
experts working together. These institutional arrangements included the COA’s
Standing and Technical Committees at stage III (1984-1992), the Ministry of
Interior’s National Park Advisory Committee at stage IV (1992-1995), the
COA’s Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee and the Working Panel for
the Conservation Plan of the Salmon WR at stage V (1995-1997), and the four
local management authorities’ Local Periodic Meeting at stage VI (1997
onwards). In this process of change, a wider range of stakeholders were involved
although in very formal arenas.
In terms of Healey’s three criteria for evaluating institutional capacity-building, these past institutional arrangements fall short of a fully collaborative approach.
They excluded local knowledge (criterion of knowledge resources) and since local people are, in practice, still marginalized from the participation into the planning and management processes, working relations were ineffective (criterion of relational resources). In addition, institutional arrangements were designed to establish formal arenas through which pre-formulated ‘plans’ were ‘imposed’ on the local area, such as the Park’s Integrated Project, the Farm’s Regeneration Project, and the Taichung
County Government’s Salmon Conservation Plan (criterion of mobilisation capacity). However, for local people like farmers and tourists, these projects or plans are only ‘things’ rather than ‘processes’ in which they can be involved and have an influence on both planning ‘goals’ and outcomes. In this sense, past institutional 255 arrangement paid little attention to communicative arenas and actions designed to support a more collaborative approach.
7.2.3.2. Evaluation of Healey’s collaborative approaches conducted in the fieldwork
My empirical work in the field, including two group meetings combined with ethnographic observations and interviews with local farmers, tourists, and staff of
local management authorities, was structured in the light of Healey’s approach of
collaborative planning. It sought to explore how local knowledge and a more
communicative working relationship between the relevant authorities and the local
community could be incorporated into the planning and management of the Salmon
WR.
The findings of the empirical study that contribute to identification of the management problems can be summarised as follows:
• Although the ‘pro-people’ institutions including local farmers, tourists, and the
Farm authority place most emphasis on pursuing their economic, social, and
spiritual interests, they also value the importance of wildlife. For them, a
‘win-win’ outcome would be to integrate the interests of local people with the
well-being of wildlife. This indicates an arena of common ground on which the
conflicts between ‘pro-wildlife’ institutions and ‘pro-people’ institutions could
be reconciled.
• The group meetings conducted in the field helped to expose inconsistent policies
and practices amongst the local management authorities. In order to improve the
current uncoordinated management of the Salmon WR and the duplication of 256 resources and effort among the local management authorities, the management goals for the area and the role that each local management authority and constituencies should play in the planning and delivery processes need to be clarified. These problems originate in the current bureaucratic system that delegates different sectoral goals and duties to the separate institutions working in the same locality. To solve this problem, first, the ‘win-win’ goal of
‘livelihoods of local people’ and the ‘well-being of wildlife’ suggested by local people should be incorporated into the associated policy and action plans of the area, such as the Park’s Integrated Plan o f the Wuling Area and the Taichung
County Government’s Conservation Plan o f the Salmon WR. Second, the existing negotiation instruments, such as the Local Periodic Meeting, that have served as arenas for integrating different interests among the local institutions should be maintained but supplemented with other more communicative fora.
Third, the central government institutions, including the Council of Agriculture, the Ministry of Interior, and the Veteran Affairs Commission should also attempt to integrate their different sectoral interests by giving their local management authorities necessary resources and legitimacy for achieving locally determined collective goals and actions. Fourth, the existing legal systems, including the
Cultural Heritage Preservation Law, the National Park Law, and the Wildlife
Conservation Law should be reviewed with the objective of devolving more power, resources and authority to the local authorities and local people.
Many ‘gaps’ exist between local people’s interests and expectations and their practical experiences of how the land is to be managed. Much of the ‘gap’ can be explained by lack of communication between local people and the local management authorities and by the inconsistent policy and practices among the 257
local management authorities. In order to foster better communication between
local people and the local management authorities, some innovative and
inclusionary instruments, such as the group meetings conducted in the field,
including an ‘outreach’ approach should be introduced by the relevant
authorities.
Together this evaluation based on Healey’s criteria of institutional capacity-building suggests several advantages of adopting a more collaborative approach such as the group meetings I conducted in the field. For example, the group meetings provide inclusionary and communicative forums that were welcomed and appreciated by most participants because they included a wide spectrum of knowledge and relational resources. The group meetings addressed a range of issues based on local knowledge previously not discussed in the traditional planning meetings. They hence initiated a dialogue between local knowledge and scientific knowledge
(criterion of knowledge resources). The meetings included local people previously not involved in (criterion of relational resources) and brought together local people and the local management authorities face-to-face in a consensus-building process
(criteria of knowledge and relational resources). The group meetings provided new political instruments, based on the building of knowledge and relational resources
among stakeholders, and helped to mobilise collaborative actions associated with the
goals and implementations of the Park’s Integrated Plan, the Farm’s Transformation
Project, and the Taichung County Government’s Salmon Conservation Plan
(criterion of mobilisation capacity). The group meetings complemented existing
formal instruments, such as the official Periodic Meeting held by the local management authorities. 258
7.2.4. Challenges of applying the collaborative approach to the Salmon WR
As revealed through the case-study materials, there are difficulties of applying the collaborative planning approach in the Salmon Wildlife Refuge. They include:
• First, there are difficulties of challenging the interests of powerful groups. For
example, not only have local people been unable to participate in the
power-sharing process, but also the Taichung County Government, who was
designated as the responsible management authority of the Salmon WR under
the Wildlife Conservation Law, had not been invited to join the Periodic Meeting
in the first few meetings even though it was legally entitled to be involved. The
latter was initially regarded as an ‘outsider’ by the other institutions.
• Second, there are considerable political difficulties involved in transforming
existing legal systems. For example, the National Park Law was enacted in 1972
and has not been amended for about 30 years. It has often been criticized for its
‘top-down’ planning process and for not requiring participation of local
communities in local planning decisions associated with the management of the
National Parks and other natural protected areas.
• Third, there are difficulties of achieving consensus without coercive imposition.
For example, the decision to establish a Wildlife Refuge for the Salmon was
made by the Council of Agriculture and the Taichung County Government under
pressure from the Park, scientists and conservationists who are extremely
powerful groups.
• Fourth, there are difficulties of monitoring the complex and dynamic
composition of stakeholders and the power-relations among them. This study 259
shows that the composition of stakeholders and their power-relations have
changed over time. For example, the changing composition of farmers in the
study area from a co-operative with a shared history to private entrepreneurs
with diverse histories. Without a fine-grained study designed to monitor these
changes, we cannot understand ‘who, when, where, what and how’ stakeholders
interact with each other, sort out the arguments, create new discourses, or
maintain agreements. This suggests frequent monitoring and review of
participative and inclusionary processes.
• Fifth, there are limitations to the kind of one-off, public group meetings that I
employed in the field even though they were evaluated by participants as capable
of promoting a more collaborative approach. Many participants called for a more
concerted effort on behalf of local institutions to commit themselves to an
on-going programme of formal and informal meetings with local people. This
requires a change in local institutional structures and practices.
7.3. Opportunities and challenges for applying collaborative planning
approach to the protected area management in Taiwan
The case study can be regarded as typical of the management problems encountered in several other protected areas in Taiwan, including National Parks, Nature
Reserves, and Wildlife Refuges. These shared problems, for example, include dominance by a ‘top-down’ institutional arrangements, inconsistent policies and conflicting institutional values, adversarial relationships between management authorities and local people, and lack of agreement about goals of conservation itself.
In this section, I provide a appraisal of the opportunities and challenges for applying a collaborative planning approach to the management problems of protected areas in 260
Taiwanese context.
7.3.1. Opportunities
As noted in Chapter 1 and 2, the amendment of the Wildlife Conservation Law in
1993 provides opportunities for introducing and developing a more ‘bottom-up’ approach to the management of Wildlife Refuges in Taiwan (Wang and Kao 1998,
Wang and Lu 1998, Lu 2000). In particular, the legal status of Wildlife Refuges provides more opportunities for stakeholder participation than other statutory designations, including National Parks and Nature Reserves. However, while many groups in Taiwanese society advocate the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making (such as Yuan 1997, Huang GT 1998, Huang HW
1998, Wang and Kao 1998, Yeh 1999, Ko 1999, Tang 1999), very little research has examined the opportunities and limits for introducing a more collaborative approach to protected area management.
Recent research by Wang and Lu (1998) and Lu (2000) are notable exceptions. By
focusing on the roles of local institutions and conservation NGOs in natural area
management, they conducted detailed qualitative studies on three natural areas in
Taiwan managed by community-based conservation initiatives. These cases included
the Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, the Shan-ming Fresh Water Fish Wildlife
Refuge, and the Danayiku Natural Park. Their findings highlight the following
issues:
• The idea of promoting participation of local conservation NGOs and local
communities in planning and management of nature areas is appreciated by 261 government institutions for two main reasons: to resolve the shortage of budget and staff of local management authorities and to win support from local people and general public.
Local people care for the environment but will not participate in conservation management work without economic incentives. A participatory planning approach should incorporate economic interests and livelihoods of local people and achieve a balance between conservation and development of local areas.
Existing local institutions (local conservation NGOs and local township authority) can play a key role in contributing to the management of Wildlife
Refuge areas. The involvement of local institutions contributes more to addressing management problems than a traditional, centralised approach. These researchers concluded that local institutions should be granted more power and resources to enable local people to participate in local decision-making processes.
Establishment of a joint community-based management body at local level is recommended for involving local authorities, NGOs, grassroots organisations to work collaboratively.
A science-oriented approach based on positivism forms the main stream of
conservation philosophy in Taiwan. This traditional planning paradigm of protected area management, i.e. The Yellowstone model’, which emphasizes ‘no
interference is the best’ and ‘keep the protected area as natural as possible’,
should be critically reassessed to take account of local conditions and address
overall conservation objectives in Taiwan. More anthropocentric perspectives
and research should be introduced to broaden debates on conservation theory and practice in Taiwan. 262
My own research supports many of these same findings. However, Wang and Lu’s
(1998) and Lu’s (2000) studies do not offer specific criteria for evaluating ‘success’ and ‘benefits’ that community-based initiatives claim to provide. Furthermore, without bringing key stakeholders together in face to face meetings it is difficult to examine shared or disparate understandings among different stakeholder groups including understanding of power relations. My own work highlights the importance of being able to contextualize these knowledge, relational and institutional relationships especially in localities subject to economic and social change. It also highlights how explicit criteria can be used to evaluate processes and outcomes of a participatory approach.
7.3.2. Challenges
Wang and Lu (1998), Lu (2000), and this study all call for a redesign of institutional arrangements and new norms and practices for planning and management of natural areas, including revision of conservation laws, reconciliation of inconsistent policies and institutional values, devolution of power and resources, collaboration of local management authorities, and involvement of local knowledge, local people, grassroots initiatives, and local NGOs. However, designing new institutions and practices presents a big challenge because existing structures and norms are closely embedded in the particular social, political, economic, and cultural context of
Taiwan. In other words, problems of the natural area management need to be dealt within a broader context beyond the boundaries of natural areas and beyond the biological issues only. Natural protected areas cannot be seen and managed as isolated ‘natural islands.’ In the light of Healey’s three criteria of institutional design, this study concludes that the challenges for applying a collaborative planning 263 approach to protected area management in Taiwan include:
• Mobilisation capacity: In Taiwan, economic development has been the first
priority for the national policy since the World War II. National conservation
institutions are ‘weak sectors’ and have less power and resources compared to
other development-oriented sectors. The Taiwanese government system is
characterised by ‘centralisation’ and local government institutions generally
suffer ‘three shortages’- lack of budget, lack of management personnel, and lack
of power (Huang GT 1998, Huang HW 1998, Yeh 1999). Developing new
institutional designs as a basis for building and mobilising social, intellectual,
and political capacity calls for the Taiwanese government to take the lead. It
would need to give equal emphasis to the nature conservation sectors, to devolve
more power and resources to local government institutions, and to introduce
more participatory initiatives into planning systems and practices.
• Relational resources: Taiwan is a young democracy. Its environmental movement
is still emerging and government agencies have yet to gain wide experience in
involving citizens in the process of decision-making (Lin 1999, Lu 2000). For
example. Ko (1999) examines the public participation mechanism in
Environmental Impact Assessment in Taiwan and criticises the current
environmental decision-making processes because it offers few opportunities for
public involvement, comprehensive participation procedures, and
communication channels. As a result, both the government and citizens lack
experience of practicing public participation. Yeh (1999) in reviewing the
National Park Law also criticises the Law as being incompatible with the social
and political values and priorities of a newly emerging democracy. The National 264
Park Law was enacted in a period of Martial Law and has not been revised since that time. He points to the imposition of landuse zoning regulations of National
Parks without appropriate compensation as a violation of private rights of local people that often causes an adversarial relationship between the Park authorities and local people. The emerging question of relational capacity-building is about how to address conflicting values and goals while providing new formal and informal arenas for local environmental decision-making.
Knowledge resources: The main stream of conservation thinking and policy in
Taiwan has been dominated by the United States’ model of national parks based on human exclusion and state ownership of wildlife resources. This idea suggests that ‘livelihoods of people’ and ‘the well-being of wildlife’ are in conflict with each other and that natural areas should be set aside for conservation and non-consumptive activities. This ‘fortress approach’ (Hulme and Murphree 1999) has seen many conservation projects fail, and conflicts between the government and local people are common (Huang HW 1998, Wang and Lu 1998, Yeh 1999, Lu 2000, Roe et al 2000). New institutional designs
should therefore be capable of drawing and acting on alternative understandings of conservation goals and practices, including the incorporation of local knowledge resources. Such an approach should require the government and experts ‘community’ to rethink the goals of natural areas, to explore more communicative approaches for addressing how ‘livelihoods of people’ and ‘the well-being of wildlife’ can be explicitly addressed, and to examine structures and processes for incorporating local people’s concerns and knowledge, and economic incentives into the planning systems and practices. 265
7.4. A critical perspective on Healey’s collaborative planning approach
In turning to a critical appraisal of Healey’s collaborative planning approach as a basis for addressing some of the common management problems encountered in natural areas in Taiwan, I draw on the wider evaluation literature offered in particular by Renn et al. (1995) and Clark et ah (2001). A general criticism of
Healey’s approach has been its idealistic conception bedded in Habermas’s ‘ideal speech situation’ and communicative rationality. In focusing on an evaluation of what this approach can achieve, questions about ‘what actually happened?’ in terms of planning processes and outcomes are central. Unfortunately, although substantive evaluation criteria can be found in literature, they are rarely tested in empirical studies and often lack a systematic framework and practical basis for evaluating process and outcomes of participation (Renn et al. ibid., Clark et al. ibid.).
This is also the weakness of Healey’s collaborative planning approach and makes its use and evaluation difficult. Healey tends to avoid offering systematic procedures for implementing or evaluating the effectiveness of her collaborative planning approach. She emphasizes the importance of context and argues that problems, procedures, and guidelines should be identified by the stakeholder community at issue. For example, as discussed in Chapter 2, Healey only offers general questions and criteria for framing collaborative process and for evaluating the process.
Although she compares the five framing questions (of stakeholders and arena, routine and style of discussion, sorting through argument, creating new discourses, and maintaining consensus and critique, see Table 2-1 in Chapter 2) to traditional planning procedures (in terms of survey, analysis, evaluation, choice of strategy, and monitoring), she emphasizes that collaborative planning processes are not linear and 266 should be undertaken interactively rather than sequentially. Furthermore, the three evaluative criteria of institutional capacity-building, i.e. intellectual, social, and political capital, Healey offers for evaluating the collaborative planning processes are general principles rather than ‘standards’ for assessment and comparison.
The ‘flexibility’ offered by Healey’s collaborative planning approach has both strengths and weaknesses. An analytical strength is that stakeholder communities from different social, political, and cultural backgrounds could generally employ
Healey’s framework and criteria to examine the existing planning systems and practices and to design and evaluate collaborative planning processes and outcomes.
As applied in this empirical study, Healey’s analytical framework proves to be generally useful and workable. However, its weakness is that, without more explicit criteria for evaluation, Healey’s approach cannot be used as a basis for comparing the effectiveness of different participative approaches to environmental decision-making. Two recent and innovative works on evaluating participatory processes and/or outcomes by Renn et al. (1995) and Clark et al. (2001) provide examples of possible directions such as approach might take.
Renn et al. 's (1995) work is focused on constructing a procedural normative model of public participation, as a means of discussing what public participation should accomplish and in what manner. They define participation as ‘interaction among individuals through the medium of language’ (p.40). They find that Jurgen
Habermas’s theory of communicative action provides useful analytical tools and concepts for exploring how language in everyday life is used to produce collective understandings and mutual agreements. They also find that Habermas’s theoretical conception of ‘ideal speech situation’ provides a normative basis for evaluating 267 public participation. People who participate in such situation must also meet certain requirements, i.e. ‘communicative competence’ - the ability to use language to create understanding and agreement in order to communicate rationally. However, they argue, that what seems to be missing from Habermas’s theory is its inability to integrate these two concepts of ‘ideal speech situation’ and individual
‘communicative competence’ into a workable definition through which people are to assess how competently participants perform in a discourse.
Based on extensive literature review, Renn et al. (1995) conclude that ‘fairness and
competence’ are two general goals for public participation. Fairness is ‘an
assessment from the point of view of individual of the sufficiency of opportunities that each and every person will have to protect and express their legitimate
individual interests and to contribute to the development of the collective wdll’
(p.79). A fair public participation discourse comprises four ‘needs’ of a fair process
(attend, initiate, debate, and decide) and three activities (agenda and rule making,
moderation and rule enforcement, and discussion). Competence refers to ‘the
performance of the participants in the discourse, compared to what can be
reasonably expected of them, given the current information and knowledge
available’ (p.81). In a competent ideal speech situation, there are two basic needs
(access to information and its interpretations, and use of the best available
procedures for knowledge selection) and four types of discourse (Habermas’s
explicative, theoretical, practical, and therapeutic discourses which associated with
comprehensibility, truth, norms, and sincerity respectively, see also Chapter 2) for
constructing consensual understandings. Putting together these criteria of ‘fairness
and competence’ and their subcriteria of ‘needs’ and ‘activities’ forms an evaluation 268 framework which is found useful for conducting a qualitative assessment and comparison of 8 innovative participatory models in Europe and the United State, including Citizen Advisory Committees, Citizen Panels, Citizens Juries, Citizen
Initiatives, Negotiated Rule Making, Mediation, Compensation and Benefit Sharing, and Dutch Study Groups.
In the present study, issues of fairness and competence were addressed by adopting
an ethnographic approach to a case-study, through which the researcher was able to
identify key stakeholders and their needs. By convening two workshops which
addressed the needs of key stakeholder groups who had previously not had a voice
in the decision-process, the research sought to address questions of fairness.
Questions of competence were less specifically addressed, although it was clear that
some participants felt unable to contribute to discussions. Given that the meetings
conducted as part of this research were the first application, participants had had to
discuss key issues for them with the relevant authorities, this is not unexpected.
While Renn et al.'s (1995) work is mainly focused on fairness and competence of a
participation ‘process;’ Clark et al. (2001) argue it is also important to evaluate the
‘outcomes.’ In their work for helping the UK Environment Agency to develop ‘close
and responsible relationships’ with its stakeholders, through conducting interviews
with a panel of professionals, Clark et al develop seven categories of appraisal
criteria by using a multi-criteria mapping (MCP) methodology. Each of seven
categories refers to a key aspect of and serves as a principle for stakeholder-Agency
relationships. They include: learning, productive, transparent, supportive, open,
respect, and efficient. Each principle relates to three main stages of participation and
evaluation as inputs, processes, outputs/outcomes. For example, mutual respect 269 represents a necessary input. Supportive behaviour, transparency of engagement and decision-making process, efficient use of resources, and an appropriate level of openness contribute to the success of the process. Productiveness refers to the output and mutual learning is associated with the outcome. These principles then provide the basis for constructing an evaluation framework which can be used in selecting
and designing outreach strategies and in assessing the quality of the outreach work
over time. Such an approach would be appropriate in many natural protected areas in
Taiwan as my study suggests.
In applying this evaluation framework for engaging with stakeholders at local level,
Clark et al. (ibid.) argue that the process used should be appropriate to local context
and the decision situation. The concept of ‘fitness of purpose’ is important. The
characters of a problem, the knowledge and experience of potential participants, and
the political, environmental and institutional context all have a significant influence
on the outcomes of a process. It is not possible to develop a ‘taxonomy’ for
prescribing what participatory process to use in what situation. Therefore, rather
than prescribing manual-like procedures, the evaluation framework provides a
systematic way of thinking about what to do in what circumstances by taking the
users through a series of questions associated with the decision situation, the
relevant stakeholders, the different engagement processes, and the resources
available. In this sense, Clark et aVs framework is similar to Healey’s framework
which also comprise a series of questions for examining and constructing a
collaborative planning process. The ethnographic approach, as undertaken in this
study, provides one means of identifying ‘fitness of purpose.’
As Roe et al. (2000) put it in the project report of Evaluating Eden: Exploring the 270
Myths and Realities of Community-based Wildlife Management, ‘the old is not yet invalid and the new has not yet been coherently argued, much less proven’ (p.4) It is difficult to say whether research work of Renn et al. and Clark et al can be applied to Taiwanese context because little research has been done associated with evaluating processes and outcomes of public participation in Taiwan. Nevertheless, their work provides Taiwan with a potentially important area of study since more and more people have started asking what contributions a collaborative planning approach can make to the management problems of natural areas in Taiwan.
7.5. Conclusions
• Problems: The main management problems of the Salmon WR arise from the
different priorities taken by stakeholders to two concepts: ‘livelihoods of people’
and ‘the well-being of wildlife.’ A sustainable solution to the long-term
management of the area is likely to require a continuing programme of
collaborative planning so that agreement can be reached about how these two
goals can be reconciled.
• Past effort: A historical review of institutional practices suggests that several
attempts have been made to move towards a more collaborative approach to
natural areas planning and management in Taiwan. For example, devolution of
power to the local government on a legal basis, some involvement of local
people and conservation NGOs in the planning process on a legal basis, and
establishment of formal instruments of policy, such as management plans and
advisory committees. These are all ways of encouraging government institutions
and scientists to work together in processes of planning and management. 271
However, these practices mainly involve establishing formal arenas to foster the
implementation of official ‘plans’ and their imposition on local areas. Local
knowledge and local people are still marginalized in the planning process.
• New initiatives'. Two group meetings convened as part of the research were held
with local farmers, tourists, and local management authorities and provided new
inclusionary and communicative forums and arenas that were appreciated by
most participants. The meetings discussed a range of issues based on local
knowledge previously not addressed in traditional planning meetings. The
meetings also involved local people who had previously been excluded from the
traditional planning processes. Such meetings brought together local people and
the local management authorities in a face-to-face, consensus-building process.
The meetings demonstrated how new political instruments designed to build
social capacity amongst all relevant stakeholders can be used as a means of
mobilising collaborative actions.
• Contextual constraints'. This study shows a need for an institutional redesign of
planning and management of natural areas in Taiwan, mainly including revisions
of conservation laws, reconciliation of inconsistent policies and institutional
values, devolution of power and resources, collaboration of local management
authorities, and involvement of local knowledge, local people, and other
grassroots initiatives. However, such changes present serious challenge to
existing institutional structures and practices.
• Methodological strengths and constraints’. Stakeholder communities from
different social, political, and cultural backgrounds could employ Healey’s
framework and general criteria to examine existing planning systems and 272 practices and to design and evaluate collaborative planning processes and outcomes. However, the development of more explicit evaluative criteria may provide a more practical and less idealistic approach for assessing how effective this approach is for promoting public participation in environmental decision-making.
Contributions: This research, based on an in-depth qualitative case study, provides a systematic analysis of the type of management problems encountered in several natural protected areas in Taiwan and an evaluation of how effective a collaborative planning approach can contribute to solving some of these problems. The analysis and evaluation have been conducted in an explicit way using the principles offered by Healey’s approach to collaborative planning. It also shows that many of the issues now debated internationally about how to
evaluate the processes and outcomes of collaborative planning approaches are
largely accommodated by Healey’s approach. The findings of this research can, therefore, contribute locally (the Salmon Wildlife Refuge), and nationally
(Taiwan), and internationally to the broad research agenda of how collaborative planning approaches can address ‘people-park’ conflicts effectively.
New research directions: Little research has examined the opportunities and limitations of introducing a more collaborative approach to protected area management or to evaluating the processes and outcomes of public participation in environmental decision-making in Taiwan. These are two potentially important areas of future study on the planning and management of natural areas in Taiwan and are consistent with the value orientations of a newly emergent democracy. 273
REFERENCE
Amstein, S. (1969) ‘The ladder of citizen participation’, Journal o f the Institute o f American Planners, 35(4): 216-24.
Austin, J. (1969) How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Behnke, R.J, Koh, T.P., and Needham, PR. (1962) ‘Status of the landlocked salmonid fishes of Formosa with a review of Oncorhynchus masou (Brevoort)’, Copeia, 2: 400-409.
Bishop, K., Phillips, A., and Warren, L.M. (1997) ‘Protected areas for the future: models from the past’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(1): 81-110.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative Management of Protected Areas:
Tailoring the Approach to the Context, lUCN, httD://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Tailor/Tailor.html
Bryson, J. and Crosby, B. (1992) Leadership in the Common Goody San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bullard, M.R. (1997) The Soldier and the Citizen: The Role o f the Military in Taiwan Ü? Development, New York: An East Gate Book.
Chambers, R. (1994) ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): analysis of experience’. World Development, 22(9): 1253-63.
Chambers, R. (1995) ‘Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development’. In N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds.) Power and Participatory Development, London: Intermediate Technology Publication, 30-42.
Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? London: Intermediate Technology Publication.
Chan, J.X. and Chang, R.X. (1988) A Fish Way Construction Project for Fiscal Year o f 1989 at Chi-Chia Wan Based on the Survey Results o f the Living Habits o f Plecoglossus Altivelis in Northern Part of Taiwan (I), Ecological Research 274
Report, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Chan, J.X. and Chang, R.X. (1989) A Fish Way Construction Project for Fiscal Year of 1989 at Chi-Chia Wan Based on the Survey Results of the Living Habits of Plecoglossus Altivelis in Northern Part o f Taiwan (II), Ecological Research Report, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Chang, C.Y.D. (1992) ‘A study of environmental stress and political conflict over slopeland development in Taiwan’, Global Bioethics, 5(1): 43-50.
Chen, C.M. (1996) A Study of Recreational Carrying Capacity at Woolin Area, Shei-Pa National Park, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Cheng, M.N. and Yu, M.C. (1976) Preliminary Planning Report for the Design of Tao-Shan Masu Salmon Hatchery and Survey o f Water Quality and Fishes in the Upper Tachia River Basin, Environmental Science Research Series No. 23, Taichung: Tunghai University. (In Chinese)
Chi, C.C. (1998a) ‘We do not have a common future: the political economy of the dominant environmental concern in the west’, Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies, 31: 141-168. (In Chinese)
Chi, C.C. (1998b) ‘Lanyu National Park: a new ecological colonialism or a new opportunity?’ Proceedings o f the Workshop on Watching East Taiwan, 123-142. (In Chinese)
Clark, J., Stirling, A., Studd, K., and Burgess, J. (2001) Local Outreach, R&D Technical Report SWCON 204, Bristol: Environment Agency.
CO A (1987) The Current Situation and Outlook o f the Formosan Landlocked Salmon, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
COA (1988) Summary of Reports on Studies and Investigation of Nature Culture and Landscapes (I) (1985-1988), Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
COA (1989) Summary of Reports on Studies and Investigation of Nature Culture and Landscapes (II) (1989), Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese) 275
CO A (1997) Annual Report o f Nature Conservation Progress in Taiwan, Taipei: Council of Agriculture.
Cook, I. (1997) ‘Participant observation’. In R. Flowerdew and D. Martin (eds.). Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing Research Project. London: Longman, 127-149.
Cultural Heritage Preservation Law (1982) Republic of China’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Law, Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
Davey, A.G. and Phillips A. (1998) National System Planning for Protected Areas, Gland: lUCN.
Day, Y.T. (1992) Population Ecology of Formosan Landlocked Salmon Oncorhynchus masou formosanus, Ph.D. dissertation, Taipei: National Taiwan University. (In Chinese)
Day, Y.T., Tsao, H.S., Chang, K.H., and Lin, Y.S. (1993) ‘Spatial and Temporal Changes of Formosan Landlocked Salmon {Oncorhynchus masou formosanus) in Chichiawan Stream, Taiwan’, Bulletin o f the Institute o f Zoology, Academia 32(2): 87-99.
Denscombe, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide: for Small-scale Social Research Project, Open University Press.
Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (eds.) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Durham: Duke University Press.
Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.) (1997) Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing Research Project, London: Longman.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) ‘Habermas and Foucault: thinkers for civil society?’ British Journal o f Sociology, 49(2): 210-233.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face o f Power, London: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution o f Society, Cambridge: Polity Press. 276
Ghimire, K.B., and Pimbert, M.R (eds.) (1997) Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. London: Earthscan.
Goudie, A. (2000) The Human Impact on the Natural Environment, Oxford: Blackwell.
Government Information Office (1999) The Republic o f China Yearbook 1999, Taiwan.
Government Information Office (2000) The Republic o f China Yearbook 2000, Taiwan.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory o f Communicative Action: Vol I: Reason and the Rationalisation o f Society, London: Polity Press.
Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrison, C.M. (1995) ‘Nature conservation, science and popular values’. In F.B. Goldsmith and A. Warren (eds.) Conservation in Progress, London: Wiley, 35-49.
Harrison, C.M. and Burgess, J. (1994) ‘Social construction of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes’, Transactions o f Institute o f British Geographers, 19(3): 291-310.
Harrison, C.M., Burgess, J. and Clark, J. (1998) ‘Discounted knowledges: farmers’ and residents’ understandings of nature conservation goals and policies’. Journal o f Environmental Management, 54: 305-320.
Healey, P. (1992) ‘Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory’. Town Planning Review, 63(2): 143-162.
Healey, P. (1996) ‘The communicative turn in planning theory and its implication for spatial strategy formation’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23: 217-34, 277
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies^ London: Macmillan.
Healey, P. (1998a) ‘Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning’. Environment and Planning A, 30: 1531-46.
Healey, P. (1998b) ‘Planning practices and planning theories: an intertwined personal agenda’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design^ Anniversary Issue: 118-23.
Healey, P. (2000) Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain: An Institutionalist Analysis, London: Macmillan.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. and Phillips, A. (2000) Evaluating Effectiveness- A Framework for Assessing the Management o f Protected Areas, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.6, Gland: lUCN
Hsiao, H.H.M. (1987) We Have Only One Taiwan, Taipei: Huan-Shan. (In Chinese)
Huang, G.T. (1998) ‘Design of administrative systems for nature conservation’. In S.R. Liu and M.S. Huang (eds.) Action Plan of Nature Conservation for the New Century, Taipei: Ho-Sheng Foundation, 227-261. (In Chinese)
Huang, H.W. (1998) The Institutionalisation o f National Parks in Taiwan, PhD dissertation, Taipei: National Taiwan University. (In Chinese)
Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. (1994) ‘Data management and analysis methods’. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage, 428-444.
Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (1999) ‘Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Aincdi’, Journal o f International Development, 11(2): 277-285.
IIED (1994) Whose Eden? An Overview o f Community Approaches to Wildlife Management, London: IIED.
Infield, M. and Adams, W.M. (1999) ‘Institutional sustainability and community conservation: a case study from Uganda’, Journal of International Development, 278
11(2): 305-315. lUCN (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, Cambridge: lUCN. lUCN/IIED (1994) Strategies for National Sustainable Development: A Handbook for their Planning and Implementation, London: Earthscan. lUCN/UNEP/WWF (1980) World Conservation Strategy, Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. lUCN, UNEP, and WWF, Gland: lUCN. lUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living, lUCN, UNEP and WWF, London: Earthscan.
Jordan, D.J. and Oshima, M. (1919) "Salmo formosanus, a new trout from the mountain streams of Formosa’, Proceedings of Academic Nature Science Philadelphia, 1: 122-124.
Kano, T. (1940) Zoogeographical studies o f the Tsugitaka Mountains o f Formosa, Tokyo: Institution of Ethnographic Research.
Kao, M.C. (1995) Recreational Resources Investigation and Recreational Model o f the Kuang-Wu Area and the Wuling Area, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Ko, S.G. (1999) Design of Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment, Taipei: Environmental Protection Agency. (In Chinese)
Koch, E. (1997) ‘Ecotourism and rural reconstruction in South Africa: reality or rhetoric?’ In K.B. Ghimire and M.R Pimbert (eds.) Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. London: Earthscan, 214-238.
Koshigi, Y. and Nakamura, H. (1938) ‘Highland salmon in Taiwan’, Natural Monument (5), Taipei: Department of Interior, Government of Formosa. (In Japanese) 279
Lai, M.C. (1999) Ecotourism Planning o f Trekking Trails and Route Ways in the Shei-Pa National Park, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Tandon, I.K. (1963) ‘The settlement of farmers along the Cross Island Highway’, Soil Conservation in Taiwan, Forestry Series No. 8, Taipei: Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction.
Lee, P.P. (2001) Status o f the Natural Protected Areas in Taiwan, National Taiwan University, http://wagner.zo.ntu.edu.tw/preserve/habitat/index.htm
Leitmann, J. (1998) ‘Options for managing protected areas: lessons from international experience’, Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management, 41(1): 129-143.
Lewis, C. (1996) Managing Conflicts in Protected Areas, Gland: lUCN.
Lin, Y.R. (1999) The Environmental Beliefs and Practices o f Taiwanese Buddhists, PhD dissertation, London: University College London.
Lin, Y.S. (1988) ‘Conservation history of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon’, Great Nature, 21:35-38. (In Chinese)
Lin, Y.S. (2000) ‘Contributions of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon to the research and conservation of stream ecology’. Proceedings o f the Workshop on Conservation o f the Taiwan Masou Salmon Salmo (Oncorhynchus) masou formosanus (Jordan and Oshima), Nantou: Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute, 17-27. (In Chinese)
Lin, Y.S. and Chang, K.H. (1989) ‘Conservation of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Oncorhynchus masou formosanus in Taiwan, a historical review’. Physiol. Ecol Japan, Spec. Vol. 647-652.
Lin, Y.S. and Chang, K.H. (1991) ‘The current situation of the Landlocked Salmon in the upper Tachia River Basin’, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Wildlife Conservation Republic o f China, Taipei: Council of Agriculture, 166-172. (In Chinese)
Lin, Y.S., Tsao, H.S., and Chang, K.H. (1990a) Population and Distribution o f the 280
Formosan Landlocked Salmon (Oncorhynchus masou formosanus) in the Chichiawan Stream, Taiwan, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Lin, Y.S., Tsao, H.S., and Chang, K.H. (1990b) ‘Population and distribution of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon {Oncorhynchus masou formosanus) in the Chichiawan Stream’, Bulletin o f the Institute of Zoology Academia Sinica, 29(3): 73-84.
Lin, Y.S., Yang, P.S., Liang, S.H., Tsao, H.S., and Chuang, L.C. (1987) Ecological Studies of Formosan Landlocked Salmon (Oncorhynchus masou formosanus): I. Preliminary Study on the Relationship between Population Distribution and Environmental Factors in Wuling Farm, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Liu, YC. (1997) Studies o f Prehistorical Sites and Early Aboriginal Activities in the Upper Stream Region ofTa-Chia River (I), Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Liu, YC. (1998) Studies of Prehistorical Sites and Early Aboriginal Activities in the Upper Stream Region o f Tachia River (II), Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Lu, D.J. (2000) Participation, Institutions and Protected Area Management- A Qualitative Analysis o f the Wildlife Refuges in Taiwan, PhD dissertation, Aberystwyth: University of Wales.
McNeely, J.A. (1993) Parks for Life: Report o f the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Gland: lUCN.
McNeely, J.A. (ed.) (1995) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington: Island Press.
Ministry of Interior (1984) Document No. 202881 on 18^^ Jan 1984, Taipei: Ministry of Interior. (In Chinese)
Ministry of Interior (1989) National Park Law and Associated Regulations, Taipei: Ministry of Interior. (In Chinese) 281
Ministry of Interior (1991) Boundary and Designation Plan of the Shei-Pa National Park, Taipei: Ministry of Interior. (In Chinese)
Ministry of Interior (1992) Master Plan of the Shei-Pa National Park, Taipei: Ministry of Interior. (In Chinese)
Morse, J.M. (1994) ‘Designing funded qualitative research’. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook o f Qualitative Research, London: Sage, 220-235.
National Park Law (1972) Republic o f China's National Park Law, Government of Republic of China on Taiwan.
NEF (1998) Participation Works! London: New Economics Foundation.
ODA (1995) Note on Enhancing Stakeholder Participation in Aid Activities, London:
Overseas Development Administration.
Office of Ministers without Portfolio (1984) Document of Ministers without Portfolio on 12^^ Jan 1984, Taipei: Executive Yuan. (In Chinese)
Pan, S.C. (1998) ‘Resources development and conservation in the upper Tachia River Basin’, Proceedings o f Nature Conservation Workshop on Dialogue between Mountain and Sea’, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park, 45-53. (In Chinese)
Patel, A.D., and Lin, Y.S. (1989) History o f Wildlife Conservation in Taiwan, Forestry series report no.20, Taipei: Council of Agriculture.
Porter, D.R. and Salvesen, D.A. (1995) Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples, Washington: Island Press.
Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. (1995) Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide, London: IIED.
Renn, O., Webler, T., and Wiedemann, P. (eds.)(1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 282
Roe, D., Mayers, J., Grieg-Gran, M., Kothari, A., Fabricius, C. and Hughes, R. (2000) Evaluating Eden: Exploring the Myths and Realities o f Community-based Wildlife Management, Evaluating Eden Series No 8, London: IIED.
Rydin, Y. (1998) Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK, London: Macmillan.
Shei-Pa National Park (1995) Conservation Project for the Formosan Landlocked Salmon, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Shei-Pa National Park (1999) Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, London: Sage.
Sung, B.M., Kuo, W.C., Peng, M.T., Wang, P.J., Su, C.H., and Hsu, YC. (1995) ‘An analysis of conflicts between the Yu-Shan National Park and its native people’. Journal of Recreational Studies, 1(1): 80-88. (In Chinese)
Taichung County Government (1997) Conservation Plan for the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Wildlife Refuge, Taichung: Taichung County Government. (In Chinese)
Tang, S.Y. (1999) ‘Vision of nature conservation policy’. In C.M. Wang, G.C. Yang, S.Y. Tang, and C.Y Chen (eds.) Nature and Ecological Education Database, Taipei: Council of Agriculture, 332-339. (In Chinese)
Teng, H.T. (1959) ‘The morphology and ecology of the landlocked salmonids in Formosan mountains’. Bulletin o f Taiwan Fishery Research Institute, 5: 77-82. (In Chinese)
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) ‘Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning’. Environment and Planning A, 30: 1975-89. 283
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Thomas, H. (1998) ‘Collaborative action in local plan-making: planners’ perceptions of ‘planning through debate”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25: 127-44.
Tsao, E.H. (1995) An Ecological Study o f the Habitat Requirements o f the Formosan Landlocked Salmon (Oncorhynchus masou formosanus), Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado: Colorado State University.
Tzeng, C.S. (1994) The Population Survey of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon and its Habitat Improvement near the Fish Watching Stand, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Tzeng, C.S. (1995) The Study of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon Recovery, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
UNCED (1992) Agenda 21, New York: United Nations General Assembly.
Utting, P. (1993) Threes, People and Power: Social Dimensions o f Deforestation and Forest Protection in Central America, London: Earthscan.
Wang, C.M. (1994a) Special Volume of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon: A Relic National Treasure, Taichung: Shei-Pa National Park. (In Chinese)
Wang, C.M. (1994b) ‘The resources value and education of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon’, Environmental Education, 23: 3-13. (In Chinese)
Wang, H.G. and Kao, K.W (1998) ‘Policy study of conservation and management of natural protected areas at local level’. In S.R. Liu and M.S. Huang (eds.) Action Plan o f Nature Conservation for the New Century, Taipei: Ho-Sheng Foundation, 179-210. (In Chinese)
Wang, S. and Lu, D.J, (1998) Community Participation in Management o f the Wildlife Refuges, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Warburton, D. (1997) Participatory Action in the Countryside: a Literature Review, Countryside Commission.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on 284
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WCPA (2001) WCPA-WEB o f the World Commission on Protected Areas, http://v^cpa.iucn.org/main.html
Webler, T. (1995) “Right’ discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick’. In O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (eds.) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 35-86.
Webler, T. and Renn, O. (1995) ‘A brief primer of participation: philosophy and practice’. In 0. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (eds.) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 17-34.
Wilcox, D (1994) The Guide to Effective Participation, Brighton: Partnership Books.
Wildlife Conservation Law (1989) Republic o f China's Wildlife Conservation Law, Government of Republic of China on Taiwan.
Wildlife Conservation Law (1994) Republic o f China's Wildlife Conservation Law amendments, Government of Republic of China on Taiwan.
Williams, J.F., Chang, Y.C., and Wang, C.Y. (1983) ‘Land settlement and development: a case study from Taiwan’, Journal of Developing Areas, 18(1): 35-52.
World Bank (1996) The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Washington: World Bank.
Wright, S. and Nelson, N. (1997) ‘Participatory research and participant observation: two incompatible approaches’. In N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds.) Power and Participatory Development, London: Intermediate Technology Publication, 43-59.
Wu, C.M. (1989) ‘The nightmare of the Formosan Landlocked Salmon’, Chung-Shih Engineering, 43: 77-94. (In Chinese) 285
Wuling Farm (1988a) Integrated Planning for Recreational Development o f Wuling Farm, Taichung: Wuling Farm. (In Chinese)
Wuling Farm (1988b) The Protection and Patrol for Formosan Landlocked Salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) and its Habitats, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Wuling Farm (1995) Integrated Planning for Recreational Development of Wuling Farm: the Second stage, Taichung: Wuling Farm. (In Chinese)
Wuling Farm (1997) An Introduction o f the Six-year Transformation Project, Taichung: Wuling Farm. (In Chinese)
Yeh, G.R. (1999) Amendment Project o f the National Park Law, Taipei: Ministry of Interior Research Report. (In Chinese)
Yuan, S.W. (1997) Current Situation o f the Management o f Wildlife Refuges in Taiwan, Taipei: Council of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
Zube, E.H. (1995) ‘No park is an island’, In J.A. McNeely (ed.) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington: Island Press, 169-177. 286
Appendix I: Composition of the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
Composition No. % Background of Members Position/Speciality Council of Agriculture Deputy director o f Forestry Dep. Ministry of Interior Chief of National Park Sector Environmental Protection Deputy director of Env. Impact Assess. Administration Government Ministry of Education Secretary of Env. Protection Sector 28% institutions Taiwan Provincial Director o f Taiwan Endemic Species Government Centre. Taipei City Government Secretary Kaohsiung City Senior specialist Government Botany Dep., National Plant ecology Taiwan Univ. Biology Dep., Tung-Hai Animal ecology Univ. Ocean Envi. Dep., National Ocean ecology Sen Yat-Sen Univ. Institute of Chinese Environmental economics Scientists from 28% Economy Research Forestry Tech. Dep., Protected area management, animal National Pingtung Univ. population inventory and analysis Taipei City Zoo Protected Species category, bred wildlife management, conservation education Zoology Department, Habitat evaluation, mammal research National Taiwan Univ. Kaohsiung City Green Nature park Association Green Consumers Forest ecology Foundation Environmental Quality Conservation policy Protection Foundation Wild Bird Society of Taipei Wild bird and habitat City Conservation New Environment Conservation regulations 36% NGOs Foundation Homemaker Union and Conservation education Envi. Prot.Foundation Life Conservationist International conservation affairs Association Kaohsiung Meinung Soil and water resources People’s Association Taiwan Pheasant Bred wildlife management Conservation Association Envi. Sci. Dep., Tung-Hai Wild bird research Univ. Aboriginal 8% representatives Kaohsiung Shan-Ming Township leader, stream and fish Rural Township resources management
Source: Personal contact with the Nature Conservation Division, Council o f Agriculture, 1999 287
Appendix II: Reasons for adopting Healey’s approach to collaborative planning
Drawing on international and Taiwanese literature of the management problems of natural protected areas (see Chapter 1), there are two ‘gaps’ my research seeks to fill:
• Most participatory approaches lack a theoretical underpinning (for example:
Chambers 1994, IIED 1994, Pretty et al 1995, World Bank 1996, New
Economic Foundation 1998). These studies offer a range of ‘techniques’ and
‘methods’ for working with a range of stakeholders but they lack theoretical
grounding. Often they offer pragmatic ways of working that can be useful in a
specific context. However, without a firm theoretical framework and explicit
criteria for evaluating the processes and outcomes of these participatory
approaches, it is difficult to provide a systematic analysis of these approaches. In
particular since research resources are limited particularly for research in nature
conservation the number of case studies that can be studied is limited. Studies
that offer a strong theoretical basis are hence important.
• In practice, there is still little empirical research and evidence to show that
participatory approaches achieve their stated goals, even when it is
acknowledged that these goals are context dependent.
A critical review of participatory approaches therefore suggested that I should focus my research on these two ‘gaps’ and look for a theoretically informed approach that could be applied and tested in Taiwanese context. It was with this objective in mind that I turned my focus to the environmental planning literature and to Healey’s theory of collaborative planning in particular. Her approach is attractive for two 288 reasons:
First, Healey’s theory is a normative planning theory. It talks about what should
happen and how. Healey’s approach seeks to transform traditional, rational
planning approaches into a more collaborative and communicative approach.
Traditional, rational planning approaches rely heavily on instrumental rationality
and scientific knowledge as the basis of decision making and are constituted
through representative forms of democracy. Planning processes and decisions are
dominated by communities of technicians and scientists rather than by all
stakeholders including the powerless groups. Healey’s approach instead sees a
planning process as a social process of interactive collective reasoning that helps
to build up intellectual, social, and political capacity among all stakeholders.
This ideology meshes well with the international trend in natural area
management towards a more people centred and participatory approach.
Second, Healey’s approach is innovative and has been seen as a major
contribution to planning theory. It has also been criticised for being too idealistic
and lacking empirical support. These criticisms call for more theoretically
informed empirical studies to apply and test Healey’s approach in different
contexts. This is one key issue my research seeks to address. 289
Appendix III: Category of news about the Salmon, July1991 - March 1999
Themes of News Number of News %
1. Salmon population and fluctuation 18 6%
2. Negative factors to Salmon population 54 17%
Agriculture pollution 22 7%
Typhoon and floods 16 5%
Fishing and eating Salmon 6 2%
Road construction 3 1%
Check dams 2 1%
Dry season and water shortage 2 1%
Tourism pollution 1 0.3%
Waste water pollution 1 0.3%
Global climate change 1 0.3%
3. Salmon conservation practices 159 51%
Artificial propagation, releasing, and surveying new habitats 36 12%
Designating protected area 35 11%
Planting trees along the stream 32 10%
Habitat engineering 19 6%
Public education activity and workshop 13 4%
Research and monitoring 11 4%
Patrolling and policing 9 3%
Renting farmlands for reforesting trees 4 1%
4. Transformation project of the Farm 36 12%
Wuling Farm's transformation project and tourism 22 7%
Wuling Farm's transformation project and agriculture 13 4%
Wuling Farm's transformation project and farmers' livelihoods 1 0.3%
5. Administrative management 15 5%
6. Feature articles 23 7%
7. Others 6 2%
SUM= 311 100% 290
Appendix IV: Main tasks in the annual * patrol and protection project of the Salmon’s habitat’ conducted by the Farm and local farmers at stage III
• Duty sections. Farm’s staff and veteran farmers were involved in ten duty sections for
patrol and protection of the Salmon’s habitat. A review meeting was held every six
months by the Farm in which representatives from duty sections, Hopin Rural Township,
and local police authority were invited.
• Protection centre. In 1984 the Farm transferred the original fruit check station to be the
Salmon Protection Centre. Two wardens and 2 guard dogs were hired to patrol along the
stream. From 1987 when the new Salmon Hatchery Centre was built up, they moved and
resided in the Centre.
• Public education, including: broadcasting Salmon documentary programmes to tourist
groups, posting education posters on the accommodations and hotels, hiring university
students on summer holidays to help patrol and tourist interpretation.
• Control of stream entrance, including setting up gates and information boards along the
stream. Researchers should get admission cards before going into the stream.
• Control of stream pollution, including collecting resident garbage every two weeks,
setting up a tourist camp site in the downstream area, constructing a 6 km-long sewage
collection line from Wuling Tourist Lodge to the downstream area (failed in the end due
to a breach of the contract by the contractor).
• Control of agricultural practices, including: prohibiting the use of illegal pesticide,
encouraging the use of low toxicity pesticide, cooperating with Asia Vegetable Research
and Development Centre, Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research
Institute, and Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation in the application of biological
controls, monitoring the impact from fertiliser and pesticide, and implementing soil
conservation practices. 291
Appendix V: COA’s Salmon research and recovery projects at stage III
Collaborating Research No. Category of Projects 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Institutions
Habitat patrol and XXXXXXXXX Wuling Farm protection Salmon breeding and Taiwan Fishery Research XXX culturing Institute 3 Habitat ecology research X X X X National Taiwan University Population ecology and X X X X X X National Taiwan University recovery Research Fish way survey and Consultative Institute of Fishery XXX planning Technology Pesticide and residue Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals 6 investigation and X X X X X and Toxic Substances Research monitoring Institute 7 Salmon disease research X X Academia Sinica 8 Nature Reserve planning National Taiwan University Salmon education X Academia Sinica practices in Japan Planning for education 10 X X National Taiwan University centre 11 Soil conservation project X Wuling Farm Habitat recovery 12 X National Taiwan University projects 292
Appendix VI: Planning processes for the Salmon Nature Reserve at stage III
In May 1984, a proposed Salmon Natural Reserve (NR) was listed in the agenda in the COA’s first Standing Advisory (SA) Committee meeting under the instructions of the Ministerial guidance in Jan 1984.
In Nov 1985, a COA’s inner document showed two difficulties of setting up the NR, First, The idea of a 6,000-hectare Salmon NR, suggested by the Ministerial guidance was too idealistic (too large) to put into practice. Second, it was also difficult to decide a suitable boundary. Because the Salmon habitat patrol was conducted by the Farm, COA was worried that a large NR would significantly impact on the Farm’s business, hence, impact on the effectiveness of Farm’s patrol work.
From Oct 1986 to Jan 1987, three Technical Advisory (TA) Committee meetings were held to discuss some technical issues about the designation of the NR. Four alternative boundaries were proposed. The major concern was focused on how to achieve a balance between the Salmon conservation and the Farm’s agricultural production and recreational development, and veteran farmers’ livelihoods.
In Jan 1987, the SA and TA Join Committee meeting decided a boundary for the proposed NR.
From Nov 1989 to Jan 1991, two TA meetings and four SA & TA joint meetings were held to discuss the plan for the proposed Salmon NR in more details.
In June 1991, one year before the establishment of the Shei-Pa National Park (NP), a SA & TA Joint Committee meeting made several conclusions: 1) Salmon’s habitat should be designated Salmon NR under Cultural Heritage Preservation Law at ‘proper’ time. After its designation, the management of the NR should be delegated to the Shei-Pa NP authority. Before the establishment of the Park, the Farm should still conduct the habitat patrol work. 2) The Park should cooperate with the Forestry Bureau on the Salmon conservation research work. 3) The area of Salmon NR should be incorporated into the Park’s Ecological Protection Area. 4) The compensation plan for the Farm and farmers should be discussed and negotiated soon. 293
Appendix VII: Negative factors and conservation strategies for the Salmon
Events Potential impacts Intensity of Solutions Impacts Floods Sedimentation Moderate Riparian conservation Bank erosion High Remove barriers Downstream transportation Moderate Artificial channel as refuge of salmon Decreasing salmon food Moderate resources Check dams Barriers of upstream High Remove check dams movement Hydraulic changes High Substitute for flood and erosion control Increasing water Low Fish ladder temperature above dam Sedimentation above dam High Agricultural Bank erosion Moderate Buffer zone (>60m) activities Agricultural chemicals High Riparian revegetation Habitat degradation High Change agricultural activities to tourism Increasing peak flow and Moderate Habitat enhancement program its frequency Eutrophication High Water Habitat degradation High Water conservation diversion Increasing water High Evaluation by knowledge of temperature natural resources economy Increasing chemical High concentration Tourism Habitat disturbance Low Sewage treatment plant Sewage & pollution Moderate Public education Source: Tsao (1995: 211)
Note: Details of how the ‘intensity of impacts’ were evaluated were not documented. 294
Appendix VIII; Salmon conservation research and projects at stage IV
Year Collaborating Institutions No. Category of Projects 93 94 95 Council of Agriculture 1 Salmon habitat patrol and protection X Wuling Farm Forestry Bureau 2 Salmon habitats investigation X X National Taiwan University Wuling Farm Regeneration project of farmers’ X Taiwan Provincial Government villages Integrated planning for recreational X Shan-Nan Planning Consultant development Shei-Pa National Park 5 Stream water quality monitoring X X X National Taiwan University Salmon population monitoring and X X National Chinghua University habitat conservation Salmon artificial propagation and X X Conservation Division, SPNP releasing Recreational resources survey and 8 recreational model study in the X Chinese Culture University Wuling area 9 Nature hazard sensitive areas survey X National Taiwan University —x'-nw ' ^ '■V. y/vj sm sm iSmf'êlÊêmX t a s » ■y
^ i l i I /: V y ■7 to O)vO
\ \ .1
©Nature conservation area ©Wilderness recreational area ©Recreation area ©Recreational agricultural area ©National Park administrative area ©Farm landscape area
Appendix IX: Zoning plan for the Farm’s recreational development project of the Wuling Area(based on Wuling Farm 1995: 6-2) 296
Appendix X: Task-division agenda in the Conservation Plan of the Salmon Wildlife Refuge
Responsible Collaborating Conservation Strategies Authorities institutions Shore-term objective: in three years, restoring existing habitat and sta jilizing the population ecology of the salmon 1 ) Controlling stream water pollution WF FB, SPNP 2 ) Developing artificial technology of salmon SPNP ESRI breeding and culturing 3 ) Supporting ecological and basic biological SPNP ESRI research projects 4 ) Improving salmon habitat SPNP ESRI 5 ) Evaluating new sites of salmon habitat SPNP ESRI, FB 6 ) Enhancing conservation education SPNP, COA, ESRI, WF, TPG, TCG FB 7 ) Reducing agricultural activity WF SPNP, COA, TPG, TCG 8 ) Reducing impact from tourism SPNP FB, WF Mid-term objective: in six years, expanding salmon habitat and increasing salmon population 1 ) Protecting river bank from erosion FB WF, SPNP 2 ) Supporting ecological and basic biological SPNP ESRI research projects 3 ) Expanding salmon habitats SPNP ESRI,FB, SWCB 4 ) Strengthening environmental management SPNP, TPG, TCG WF, FB, SWCB, TRMC 5 ) Completing the Six-year Transformation Project WF COA, MI and others of the Wuling Farm Long-term objective: protecting and managing the salmon resources in a sustainable way 1 ) Sustaining the maintenance of the habitat and SPNP COA, MI and others the management of the salmon population 2 ) Continuing ecological and basic biological SPNP ESRI research Source: Taichung County Government (1997:8)
Note: COA: Council of Agriculture ESRI: Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute FB: Taiwan Forestry Bureau MI: Ministry of Interior SPNP: Shei-Pa National Park SWCB: Taiwan Soil and Water Conservation Bureau TCG: Taichung County Government TPG: Taiwan Provincial Government TRMC: Techi Reservoir Management Committee WF: Wuling Farm 297
Appendix XI: Calendar of the first stage of fieldwork
• 2 Oct 98 p.m. Arrival in Taiwan
• 4 Oct 98 a.m. \2-p.m. 5; Talking to Mr. W.Y. Mio, former staff of the Resource Conservation Division, COA p.m. 8-10: Talking to Prof. S. Wang, Department of Geography, National Taiwan University
• 5 Oct 98 a.m. 12-5: Talking to Mr. H.Y. Tang, chief of the Resource Conservation Division, COA
• 6 Oct 98 p.m. 3-8: Talking to staff of the Resource Conservation Division, COA; collecting some literature
• 7 Oct 98 a.m. W-p.m. 1: Talking to Mr. O.S. Su, chief of Resource Conservation Division, Taiwan Provincial Government p.m. 3-5: Talking to staff and Mr. Z.D. Yen, director of Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute; collecting some literature
• 8 Oct 98 p.m. 5-8: Talking to Mr. G.S. Lai, whose MS thesis: The Impacts o f Check-dams on the Physical Habitats on the Formosan Landlocked Salmon
• 13 Oct 98 p.m. 1-21 : Talking to staff of the Resource Conservation Division, COA; collecting some literature, Taipei
• 14 Oct 98 p.m. 1-4: Talking to Dr. Eric H. Tsao, whose PhD dissertation: An Ecological Study o f the Habitat Requirements o f the Formosan Landlocked Salmon', collecting some literature
• 19 Oct 98 p.m. 1-3:30: Talking to Mr. G.G. Chiu, former staff of the Taiwan Forestry Bureau
p.m. 8:30-11:30: Talking to Mr. YY Lin, sector chief of the National Park 298
Division, Ministry of Interior
• 20 Oct 98 p.m. 2-5: Talking to Mr. M.C. Lee, chief of the Conservation Division of the Shei-Pa National Park; and Mr. C.G. Wu, executive secretary of the Shei-Pa National Park; collecting some literature
• 21 Oct 98 p.m. 2-5: Talking to Mr. T.T. Su and Ms. C.Y. Lai, staff of Taichung County Government; collecting some literature
• 22 Oct 98 p.m. 12-3: Talking to staff and Mr. L.H. Kuan, cheif of the Conservation Division of the Taiwan Forestry Bureau; collecting some literature
p.m. 7-10: collecting some literature in the National Library, Taipei • 23 Oct 98 p.m. 3-5: Talking to Mr. K.T. Chung, staff of the Veterans Affairs Commission; collecting some documents p.m. 7-10: collecting some literature in the National Library, Taipei
• 26 Oct 98 p.m. 2-5: Talking to Mr. Y.Y. Lin, sector chief of the National Park Division, Ministry of Interior; collecting some literature
• 27 Oct 98 p.m. 2-5: Talking to Prof. C.Y Chang, Department of Geography, National Taiwan University; who has researched on land use transformation of the Tachia River Upper Basin for many years; collecting some literature
• 28 Oct 98 a.m. \Çi-p.m. 4: Talked together with Dr. C.S. Tzeng, Department of Life Science, National Ching Hua University, who has worked on salmon population and conservation for the Shei-Pa National Park from 1994; Mr. G.C. Lin, staff of the Resource Conservation Division of COA; Mr. G.S. Su, chief of the Resource Conservation Division, Taiwan Provincial Government; Mr. T.T. Su and Ms. C.Y. Lai, staff of the Taichung County Government; collecting some literature
• 29 Oct 98 a.m. 10:30-12: Talking to Mr. S.N. Zo, sector cheif of the Technical Division of Tourism Bureau; collecting some literature • 2 Nov 98 299
p.m. 7-9: Talking to Mr. H.W. Huang, whose PhD dissertation: The Institutionalisation o f National Parks in Taiwan
• 3 Nov 98 a.m. 11:30-12:30: Talking to Mr. C.Z. Chen, staff of the Resource Conservation Division, COA p.m. 2:30-3:30: Talking to Mr. M.C. Hsu, staff of the Law Consultation Division, COA
p.m. 4:30-6:30: Talking to Mr. M.F. Huang, director of the Wuling Veteran Farm
p.m. 7-9: collecting literature in National Library
• 4 Nov 98 a.m. 11-12:30: Talking to Dr. C.M. Wang, Environmental Education Centre, National Taiwan Normal University; whose PhD dissertation: Environmental Quality and Fish Community Ecology in an Agricultural Mountain Stream System o f Taiwan and has worked on salmon study and conservation education for many years; collecting some literature
p.m. 2-4: Auditing COA’s ‘Nature Conservation Consultation Meeting’ p.m. 5-7: Talking to Dr. Y.T. Day, Department of Wildlife Conservation, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, whose PhD dissertation: Population Ecology o f Formosan Landlocked Salmon
• 6 Nov 98 a.m. 11:20-12: Talking to Mr. M.C. Lee, chief of the Conservation Division of the Shei-Pa National Park; collecting some literature
p.m. 1:30-2:30: Talking to Mr. W.C. Chiang, staff of the Tungshih Branch of Taiwan Forestry Bureau
p.m. 4-5: Talking to Mr. C.G. Wu, executive secretary of the Shei-Pa National Park; Mr. Y.F. Lin, director of the Shei-Pa National Park
• 7 Nov 98 (7-9 Nov 98: field trip to the Salmon WR) p.m. 2-3: Talking to Mr. YW Lin, deputy director of the Wuling Farm
p.m. 3-5: Reconnaissance of the farmlands and villages of Wuling Farm with the help of the Farm’s staff, Mr. F.L. Huang
• 8 Nov 98 a.m. 8-10: Reconnaissance of the landuse of the Salmon WR
a.m. 10-11: Talking to Yao, park police of the Wuling Police Office of the Shei-Pa National Park 300
a.m. 11-p.m. 2: Reconnaissance of the landuse of the Salmon WR p.m. 2:30-4:15: Talking to Mr. M.F. Huang, director of Wuling Farm
p.m. 4:20-5: Talking to Mr. G.L. Liu, director of the Wuling Warden Office of the Shei-Pa National Park p.m. 6:30-8:30: Talking to Mr. M.F. Huang, director of the Wuling Farm 9 Nov 98 a.m. 8-12: Reconnaissance of the landuse of the Salmon WR
a.m. 11-12: Collecting some documents in the Wuling Farm Office 10 Nov 98 p.m. 5-7:30: Talking to Prof. Y.S. Lin, Department of Zoology, National Taiwan University, who working on salmon population and conservation study for GOA from 1985 to 1994 13 Nov 98 a.m. Yl-p.m. 1 : Talking to Prof. S. Wang, Department of Geography, National Taiwan University 15 Nov 98 p.m. departure from Taiwan 301
Appendix XII: Calendar of the second stage of fieldwork
APRIL 1999 Thursday A.M. P.M. >First day to Wuling area >Talking to Wuling Farm staff, Mr. FL Huang, about the Renewal Project of 22 the farmer village
Friday A.M. >Talking to Ms. Lu, warden o f the Forest Bureau’s Wuling Tourist Lodge >Talking to Mr. MC Lee, chief of NP’s Interpretation and Education Sector P.M. >Accompanying Wuling Farm warden, Mr. SJ Lu to visit local farmers: Mr. 23 HC Chih in Min Village, and Mr. MS Huang, Mr. JS Ou in Chin Village >Talking to Wuling Farm staff, Mr. HM Liu about the relationship between Wuling Farm and local farmers >Interviewing NP’s deputy director, Mr. MC Peng Saturday A.M. >Participating the outdoor activity of the Nature Conservation Workshop held by NP for primary and high school teachers P.M. >Attending the Workshop lecture given by Dr. CM Wang about Tachia River conservation 24 >Attending the Workshop closing discussion >Interviewing NP’s director, Mr. YF Lin >Party in NP’s Wuling Warden Office Sunday A.M.- >Participating a hiking path investigation with Dr. YJ Kao and two NP P.M. aboriginal wardens: Mr. MD Kao and AC Lie 25 Monday A.M. >Visiting the No. 4 check dam in the Shei-Shan Stream which was removed P.M. in Mar 99, with the film maker GF Chen, Miss Chiao, and NP interpreter Miss JM Ko 26 >Talking to film director GF Chen Tuesday A.M. >Visiting Wuling Farm Office and NP Tourist Centre P.M. >Talkmg to NP aboriginal warden Mr. MD Kao 27 >Interviewing film director GF Chen Wednesday A.M. >Visiting the farmland. Farm Office, and NP Tourist Centre P.M. >Interviewing Dr. YC Liu in the Chichiawan historical site >Dinner with Wuling Farm warden, Mr. SJ Lu, and Dr. HT Lin from Taiwan 28 Agricultural Chemical and Toxic Substances Research Institute >Interviewing NP executive secretary, Mr. SC Wu Thursday A.M. >Departure from Wuling area P.M. >Visiting Shei-Pa NP Headquarters: its Planning, Conservation, and Interpretation Sectors 29 >Talking to Tzu Chi Television Programme director, Mr. FS Lin, etc. >Back to Taipei 302
MAY 1999 Tuesday P.M. >Back to Wuling area 4 >A quick reconnaissance o f Wuling area Wednesday A.M. >Meeting with the Farm’s tourist guides: Mr. YH Hu and Mrs. CY Hu >Talking to Mrs. Hu about the problem of the roadside stalls 5 P.M. >Visiting Tao-Shan hiking path and the Yeh-Sheng Waterfall Thursday A.M. >Mrs. Hu introducing the way she interprets to tourists >Interviewing local farmer Mr. JS Ou in Chin Village A P.M. >Talking to NP indigenous warden Mr. YC Lie v r >Dinner with Farm’s warden Mr. NS Yang, and local farmer Mr. MS Huang >Party in NP Wuling Warden Office Friday A.M. >Interviewing Dr. KS Hsu, National Dong-Hwa Univ. > Attending the final discussion meeting of NP multimedia programme for 7 tourists in NP Tourist Centre / >Interviewing the programme producer. Miss SC An >Interviewing Mr. MC Lee, chief of NP’s Interpretation and Education Sector and Mr. CH Pan, the programme producer P.M. >Interviewing NP driver, Mr. JL Chang Saturday A.M. >Interviewing Farm’s warden Mr. JM Lin about farmer’s income >A quick reconnaissance o f Wuling area P.M. >Accompanying Wuling Farm warden Mr. SJ Lu to visit an indigenous 8 hiking path and the Wuling farmland >Talking to chief of NP’s Wuling Warden Office, Mr. CL Liu, and Wuling Farm tourist guide, Mrs. CY Hsu about the problem of roadside stalls >Attending the Buddha Ma-Tsu birthday festival with residents from Wuling nearby area >Talking to Wuling Farm staff in tea factory Sunday A.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm staff Mr. FL Huang P.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm chief of Tourist and Recreation Sector, Mr. KH o Chang y >Interviewing local farmer Mr. HC Chih in Min Village > Chatting in Wuling Farm tea factory Monday A.M. >Talking to NP high mountain volunteer tourist service team leader, Mr. KW Lin P.M. >Talking to NP Police officer, Mr. CS Lee >Accompanying Tzu Chi Television Programme team to visit an indigenous 10 elite, Ms. SM Chan in Huan-Shan village Tuesday A.M. >Interviewed by Tzu Chi Television Programme team 11 P.M. >Back to Taipei Monday P.M. >Back to Wuling area >A quick reconnaissance of Wuling area 17 >Visiting the Wuling tea production process in Wuling Farm tea factory 303
MAY 1999 Tuesday A.M. >Studying land property regulations in Farm Office >Accompanying NP driver, Mr. Lin, to collect garbage at the entrance of Shei-Shan hiking path 18 P.M. >Accompanying Wuling Farm tourist guide, Mrs. Hu to visit local farmers in Min village: Mrs. Chih, Mr. BT Tien couple, and talking together about the issue of roadside stalls >Chatting with my accommodation neighbors: workers from Farm Hotel Wednesday A.M. >Chatting with local farmers (8 people) together in a farmland P.M. >Talking to local farmers, Mr. KC Tsung, Mr. SS Chang, and Mr. HC Chih in Mr. Tsung’s house about the Salmon, NP, and roadside stall problem 19 >Talking to Farm’s tourist guide Mrs. Hu about Mr. WF Ho and roadside stall problem >Chatting in Wuling Farm tea factory Thursday A.M. >Visiting nearby Ho-Pin private farm >Visiting nearby Chih-Liang Police Office P.M. >lnterviewing chief of NP’s Wuling Warden Office, Mr. CL Liu 20 >Chatting in Wuling Farm tea factory Friday A.M. >Photographing a Wuling Farm’s Salmon habitat patrol armband in Chih village (belongs to a local farmer Mr. SS Chang) P.M. >Observing a tourist interpretation activity led by NP tourist guide Miss Yang 21 >Interviewing Wuling Farm tourist guides Mr. and Mrs. Hu Saturday A.M. >Interviewing NP Police director, Mr. KS Liu P.M. >lnterviewing NP executive secretary, Mr. SC Wu 22 >Dinner with and Interviewing local farmer Mr. MS Huang in his house Sunday A.M. >Visiting Chichiawan Stream with Dr. CM Wang and some nature painters Mr. ES Yang, etc. P.M. >lnterviewing the chair of Water Resource Bureau, Dr. SK Hsu >Talking to Dr. CM Wang on the way to Te-Chi Reservoir 23 >Visiting the Te-Chi Reservoir >Interviewing nature painter Mr. ES Yang Monday A.M. >Departure from Wuling area with Wuling Farm staff, Mr. FL Huang, and talking together about NP and the Farm P.M. >Visiting and talking to Mr. TT Su and Ms. CY Lai in Nature Conservation Sector, Taichung County Government 24 >Back to Taipei Thursday P.M. >Back to Wuling area 27 >Chatting with my accommodation neighbours: workers of Farm’s Hotel Friday A.M. >Visiting the Wuling Farm library and borrow some reports and slides 28 P.M. >Borrowing newspaper clipping data from Wuling Farm Saturday A.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm staff, Mr. FL Huang and Mr. MC Lin P.M. >Photographing Wuling farmland 29 >Meeting the director of Tainan Bird Society, Mr. TH Kao 304
MAY 1999 Sunday A.M.- >Collecting Wuling farmers’ land property data and their contact addresses RM. and telephone numbers 30 Monday A.M. >TaIking to Wuling Farm staff Mr. MC Huang 31 RM. >Talking to local farmer Mr. MS Huang JUNE 1999 Tuesday RM. >To Shei-Pa NP Headquarters in Tung-shih town and auditing the final report of the project ‘Integrated planning for the Wuling area’ 1 >Back to Taipei Friday RM. >Back to Wuling area 4 Saturday A.M. >Meeting with the Salmon population counting teams, from National Ching-Hua Univ. RM. >Joining one team and observing the Salmon population counting process 5 >Talking to the Salmon population counting team members Sunday A.M. >Watching the Farm’s multimedia programme for tourists RM. >Talking to local farmers Mr. KC Tsung and Mr. HC Chih in Min village 6 >Interviewing the chief of the Wuling Farm’s Shan-Shin branch, Mr. JH Ko Monday A.M. >Observing the Salmon population counting process >Interviewing local farmer Mr. CF Cheng in Chin Village RM. >Interviewing local farmer Mr. BT Tien in Min Village 7 >Talking to NP indigenous wardens, Mr. MT Chen couple and Mr. YC Lie Tuesday A.M. >Photographing the six-year transformation landuse model in Wuling Farm Office meeting room 8 RM. >Interviewing local farmer Mr. HW Chien in his house Wednesday A.M. >Attending the reunion meeting for Wuling Farm farmers >Interviewing senior farmer Mr. SK Hsu >Interviewing local farmer Mr. CC Huang 9 >Interviewing local farmer Mr. CS Huang >Interviewing local farmer Mr. YT Chung’s wife RM. >Interviewing local farmer Mr. CS Lin >Interviewing local farmer Mr. HC Chih >Talking to Dr. HT Lin from Taiwan Agricultural Chemical and Toxic Substances Research Institute Thursday A.M.- >Accompanying local farmer MS Huang to visit senior farmer SK Hsu 10 RM. 305
JUNE 1999 Friday P.M. >Back to Taipei >Interviewing Mr. Cl Lin about Salmon population survey, in Zoology Depart., NTU 11 >Interviewing Mr. LT Chuang about his Salmon research, in Zoology Depart., NTU Saturday >Taipei 12 Monday A.M. >Talking to Mr. CJ Chen and Mr. KC Lin in Nature Conservation Division, COA 14 Tuesday P.M. >Talking to Dr. KY Lu about future of the Salmon 15 Wednesday A.M. >Visiting Mr. YL Lin in Forestry Research Institute and talking about some Japanese research on the Salmon in the early years P.M. >Applying for air-photos and maps of Wuling area in the Bureau of 16 Agriculture and Forestry Air Survey Monday P.M. >Talking to senior farmer Mr. WJ Chen on the way to Wuling Farm >Back to Wuling area >Talking to Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang 21 >Talking to NP guide Miss RM Ko about important events in the last week >Chatting in Wuling Farm tea factory Tuesday A.M. >Interviewing Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang P.M. >Talking to local farmer Mr. MS Huang about the idea o f recruiting a local farmers group meeting 22 >Interviewing Mr. MC Lee, chief of NP’s Interpretation and Education Sector >Talking to Mr. CY Hsu, chief of NP’s Tourist and Recreation Sector Wednesday A.M. >Participating a hiking path survey with NP’s hiking path survey team >Talking to Mr. MC Lee (chief of Interpretation and Education Sector) about the check dam removal project 23 P.M. >Helping local farmers sprinkling the fertilizer in vegetable gardens >The second stage of sewage line construction starting from today Thursday A.M. >Talking to local farmer Mr. BT Tien about the idea o f local farmers group meeting >Talking to local farmer Mr. SS Chang about the idea of local farmers group meeting and other issues 24 P.M. >Attending a local meeting about farmer insurance and benefits in Huan-Shan indigenous village >Interviewing Ms. SM Chan, an indigenous elite in Huan-Shan indigenous village 306
JUNE 1999 Friday A.M. >Talking to Farm’s warden Mr. YC Chien about peach cultivation greenhouse >Talking to local farmer Mr. MS Huang in his farmland >Talking to local farmers Mr. CC Huang, Mr. RS Ou, and Mr. SS Chang 25 about the idea o f group meeting >Interviewing local farmer Mr. CC Huang >Enquiring Wuling Farm about the date/invitees of the oncoming Periodic Meeting for local management authorities P.M. >Talking with local farmer Mr. YC Wan about the idea of farmers group meeting Saturday A.M. >Talking to Mr. CB Lee (chief of Wuling Farm Agriculture Production and Sale Sector) and Mr. RH Ko (chief of Wuling Farm Shan-Shin branch) about the idea o f farmers group meeting >Talking to NP director Mr. YF Lin about the idea of farmers group meeting P.M. >Talking to local farmer Mr. HC Chih about the idea of farmers group 26 meeting >Talking to NP’s officer Mr. YS Chung (Conservation Sector), film director Mr. CF Chen, and NP’s indigenous warden Mr. MT Chen, Mr. YC Lei Sunday A.M. >Interviewing NP’s director Mr. YF Lin P.M. >Interviewing Ms. SM Chan in Huan-Shan indigenous village with Miss PL Lee 27 >Talking to Farm’s tourist guide Mr. YH Hu about the idea of group meeting Monday A.M. >Talking to local farmers Mr. KC Tsung couple and Mr. CJ Fun about the idea of group meeting >Talking to Farm’s officer Mr. SJ Lu about the idea of group meeting P.M. >Talking to Farm’s hotel manager Mr. CS Chuang about indigenous artefacts 28 display >Accompanying local farmer Mr. KC Tsung to photography some local landscape change >Talking to local farmers Mr. CJ Fon about the idea o f group meeting >Talking to local farmers Mr. MS Huang about the idea of group meeting >Talking to local farmers Mr. HC Chih about the idea of group meeting >Interviewing Mr. WM Yao, chief of NP Wuling Police Office Tuesday P.M. >Back to Taipei 29 Wednesday P.M. >Back to Wuling Farm 30 Thursday A.M. > Visiting the Tao-Shan hiking path and photograph an overview of Farm’s north valley >Visiting NP Tourist Centre and watching NP multimedia programme for 1 tourists X P.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about the plan for a farmers group meeting and the problem of roadside stalls 307
JULY 1999 Friday A.M. >Interviewing Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about the history of the Regeneration Project of local farmers village P.M. >Talking to Mr. KH Chang, Wuling Farm chief of Tourist and Recreation Sector, about Huan-Shan indigenous people and the display of indigenous 2 artefacts in Wuling Hotel Saturday A.M. >Talking to local farmer Mr. CC Huang about the forest fire in 1958 >Phoning Mr. TT Su, senior specialist in Taichung County Government, 3 about the periodic meeting for local authorities Sunday A.M. > Visiting the Tao-Shan hiking path, observing lots of tourists, cars, and roadside stalls P.M. >Interviewing Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about the issue of farmland expropriation, and the pollution from agricultural activities 4 >Preparing and typing the meeting references for the farmers group meeting Monday A.M. >Faxing the meeting references of the group meeting to NP director Mr. YF Lin 5 P.M. >Moving to Farm’s staff dormitory nearby the tea production factory Tuesday A.M. >NP director Mr. YF Lin told me that he’d like to attended the farmers meeting on 12^ July P.M. >Inviting local farmers >Auditing the Periodic Meeting for local authorities (Farm, NP, Forestry 6 Bureau, Taichung County Government) in Farm’s meeting room >Party in NP Wuling Warden Office Wednesday A.M. >Sending out some invitation letters by mail to some farmers living in the lowland >Circulating invitation letters directly to local farmers living in Wuling area >Talking to chief of NP Wuling Police Mr. WM Yao about the ‘order’ of the 7 farmers meeting >Talking to NP staff Mr. SC Nieh about NP’s farmer household investigation P.M. >Talking to a local farmer Mr. CY Wang >Chatting in NP’s Wuling Warden Office Thursday A.M. >Inviting some farmers living in the lowland by phone >Talking to local farmer Mr. MS Huang about the local farmland renters P.M. >Talking to Mr. CB Lee, chief of Farm’s Production and Sale Sector, about 8 the plan of group meeting Friday A.M. >Calling Taichung County Government and make sure Ms. DC Lee, chief of Conservation Sector will come to the meeting >Calling Forestry Bureau but not sure about who will come to the meeting >Wuling Farm staff Mr. CM Lin helping me write the posters for the meeting 9 > Inviting some farmers living in lowland one-by-one by phone P.M. >Checking the meeting room in Min village Saturday A.M. >Preparing the related facilities for the meeting 10 >Talking to Wuling Farm worker Mrs. Wu about the Salmon protection P.M. >Talk to Farm’s warden Mr. WB Lee about Wuling Farm >Inviting local farmland renter Mr. KN Lin >Interviewing Mr. MY Szu, responsible for a student camping vacation 308
JULY 1999 Sunday A.M. >Talking to Farm’s director Mr. MF Huang about the display o f the Salmon >Talking to new chief of NP Wuling Warden Office, Mr. CM Chiu, about the 11 group meeting P.M. >Inviting farmers in person Monday A.M. >A sunny day! >Calling Forestry Bureau but still not sure who will come to the meeting P.M. >19.40-22.00 Local farmers vs. local authorities group meeting 12 >23.00-24.00 Discussed with two invited meeting observers: Miss PL Lee and her sister Miss SJ Lee Tuesday A.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about the group meeting >Interviewing Wuling Farm staff Mr. HM Liu about the group meeting >Interviewing Dr. CS Tzeng about the Salmon conservation works 13 >Interviewing Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about NP vs Farm’s Transformation Project; Farm vs farmers, and political negotiation. P.M. >Interviewing NP staff Mr. MT Huang about the group meeting >Interviewing local farmer Mr. MS Huang about the group meeting >Talking to local farmland renter Mr. WF Ho about the group meeting Wednesday P.M. >Back to Taipei 14 >Deciding to employ group discussion method to explore tourists’ viewpoint Friday P.M. >Back to Wuling area >Talking to NP guide Miss CJ Hsu about the idea of tourists group meeting >Interviewing Mr. WM Yao, NP’s chief of Wuling Police Office about the 16 farmers meeting >Talking to three elites from Nan-Shan indigenous village >Talking to Wuling Farm sector chief Mr. CP Lee about the farmers meeting Saturday A.M. >Watching the Wuling Farm multimedia programme for tourists >Meeting people from Bureau of Water Resources and NP, who come to see the site for a ecological engineering 17 >Talking to students from Ping-Tung Univ. about their survey on mandarin duck and the connection to the Salmon P.M. >Talking to local farmer and renter: Mr. KC Tsung and Mr. TF Tzai about the farmers meeting >Talking to Dr. YC Liu >Talking to Mr. KM Chiu, responsible for a tourist team Sunday A.M. >Interviewing Wuling Farm Hotel manager, Mr. CS Chuang >Talking to Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about the idea of tourists 1 group meeting 18 P.M. >Talking to Ms. Lu, warden of Forestry Bureau Lodge about the tourists group meeting i>Talking to Wuling Farm renter Mr. SC Huang about the farmers meeting >Talking to NP Wuling Warden Office staff^ Mr. MT Huang, about the idea of tourists group meeting Monday A.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about title/function of the 1 tourists group meeting |>Calling Mr. MC Lee, chief of NP’s Interpreter and Education Sector, about 1 the plan of tourists group meeting 19 P.M. >Talking to local farmer Mr. CJ Fon about the farmers meeting |>Interviewing local farmer Mr. SW Chien about the farmers meeting 309
JULY 1999 Tuesday A.M. >Preparing and typing the invitation letters for tourists group meeting P.M. >Accompanying Wuling Farm warden Mr. SJ Lu to explore a unknown habitat for the Salmon 20 >Talking to Mr. KH Chang, chief of Farm’s Tourist and Recreation Sector, about the date/participants for the tourists meeting
Wednesday A.M. >Photographing compared slides to show the landscape change along the Chichiawan Stream >Photographing the Chichiawan historical site P.M. >Meeting some members of Te-chi Reservoir Management Committee 21 >Interviewing Wuling Farm director about the Salmon’s meanings/values to the Farm, and the perspective for Farm development Thursday A.M. >Back to Taipei 22
Saturday P.M. >Back to Wuling area 24 >Interviewing Mr. RC Wang, a priest from Huan-Shan indigenous village Sunday A.M. >Observing the camping activities >Interviewing Mr. LJ Liu, responsible for a family car camping vacation P.M. >Hiking the Shei-Shan path and talking to a tourist guide Mr. CC Chang 25 >Hiking the Shei-Shan path and talking to a local cop >Talking to Mr. CM Chiu, chief of NP’s Wuling Warden Office, about the farmers group meeting and the tourists group meeting >Discussing the date/participants with Wuling Farm >Talking to Miss CR Wu, NP’s tourist guide about the idea of tourists meeting >Talking to one NP’s police officer about the problem of roadside stalls Monday P.M. >Back to Taipei 26 Tuesday A.M.- >Attending the conference in NTU, Taipei: ‘Cross-strait conference of P.M. landscape conservation’, day one 27 Wednesday A.M. >Attending the conference in NTU, Taipei: ‘Cross-strait conference of landscape conservation’, day two P.M. >Talking together with Mr. NT Yang (chief of Conservation Sector, Toroko NP), Ms DC Lee (chief of Conservation Sector, Taichung County 28 Government), and Mr. YL Chen (chief of Conservation Sector, Shei-Pa NP) about some potential habitats for Salmon restoration 310
JULY 1999 Thursday A.M. >Talking to Mr. YL Chen (chief of Conservation Sector, Shei-Pa NP) on the way to COA Endemic Species Research Institute (ESRI) P.M. >Attending the first preliminary meeting for the Conference of the Salmon Conservation and Research, in ESRI 29 >Talking to Mr. SH Lee (sector chief of ESRI) and Mr. YL Chen (chief of Conservation Sector, Shei-Pa NP) >Interviewing Mr. SC Chang fi-om ESRI >Interviewing Dr. CF Tasi from ESRI Friday P.M. >Back to Wuling area >Talking to local farmer Mr. MS Huang about the dinner party for some local farmers and local police officers a few days ago 30 >Talking to local farmer Mr. CF Cheng about the farmers group meeting >Talking to local farmer Ms. Tu about the dinner party for some local farmers and local police officers a few days ago >Talking to Mr. WR Ho, NP staff from Planning Sector Saturday A.M. >Observing the crackdown on Mr. WF Ho for his illegally using the public land P.M. >Talking to a Farm worker about the construction of check dam >Interviewing local farmer Mr. HC Chih about the farmers meeting 31 >Interviewing Wuling Farm warden Mr. SJ Lu AUG 1999 Sunday A.M. >Preparing the facilities for the tourists group meeting P.M. >Talking to local farmer Mr. CY Wang about child generation o f local 1 farmers
Monday A.M. >Visiting the Tao-Shan hiking path P.M. >Back to Taipei 2 >Inyiting Dr. YJ Kao to attend the tourists meeting Tuesday P.M. >Interviewing Dr. HS Tsao about his Salmon research, in Taipei Zoo 3 Wednesday P.M. >Talking to Mr. SY Tang (chief of Conservation Sector) and Mr. KC Lin (responsible for protected areas) in COA
Saturday P.M. >Back to Wuling area 7 >Preparing for the tourists group meeting Sunday A.M. >Collecting Wuling Farm’s documents about indigenous people’s appeal for the land >Interviewing Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang about the Farm budget P.M. >Visiting NP Wuling Warden Office to make sure the participants 8 >Invitmg Wuling Farm staff Mr. SJ Lu to attend the tourists meeting >Visiting Forestry Bureau Lodge to make sure the participant >Inviting NP tourist guide Mr. CË Wu to join thie tourists group meeting 311
AUG 1999 Monday A.M. >A call from Taichung County Government saying they cannot come because of the heavy storm in the lowland P.M. >A call from Dr, YJ Kao saying he cannot come because of a long meeting in Taipei 9 >Inviting tourists to join the group meeting >0740-0935 Tourists vs local management authorities group meeting >Talking to NP tourist guide Ms. SR Lo and others about the tourists group meeting in NP Wuling Warden office Tuesday A.M. >Talking to Wuling Farm director Mr. MF Huang P.M. >Interviewing Wuling Farm guide Ms. SY Hsu about the tourists group meeting 10 >Talking to Wuling Farm Hotel deputy manager Mr. WS Huang about the tourists meeting >Talking to tourist participants Miss Huang and Miss Chiu Wednesday A.M. >Talking to NP tourist guide Mr. CE Wu about the tourists meeting 11 P.M. >Back to Taipei SEP 1999 Friday I P.M. >Interviewing Mr. CJ Chen, staff of COA’s Nature Conservation Division 3 r >lnterviewing Mr. KC Lin, staff of COA’s Nature Conservation Division 312
Appendix XIII: Research questions and methods of enquiry for the second stage of fieldwork
Questions* for framing a Methods of General** key questions of enquiry for the second collaborative enquiry stage of fieldwork process Tell me about your experience and opinions about your (non-) participation in this case: • Archives • Who gets • Participant • Do you think all key stakeholders have been involved? observation involved? (stakeholders) • Interviews • (if yes) Do you think some other groups, e.g. local • Group meetings farmers, local wardens, or tourists, are not necessary to get involved? • (for the above questions, if no) What do you think the problem is and possible solutions are? Tell me about your experience and opinions about your (non-) participation in this case:
• Archives • Where to • Do you think there are appropriate (informal) • Participant forums or (formal) arenas in which you can meet? observation (forums, address your concerns? arenas) • Interviews • (if yes) Do you think the existing forums or arenas • Group meetings are also appropriate to some other groups, e.g. the local farmers or wardens? • (for the above questions, if no) What do you think the problem is and possible solutions are? Tell me about your experience and opinions about your (non-) participation in this case:
• In what style • Archives • Do you feel accustomed to and comfortable with the style and language of discussion? does • Participant discussion observation • Do you feel comfortable and able to voice your take place? opinions? • Interviews (style, • (for the above questions, if yes) Do you think the language) • Group meetings style and language of discussion are also appropriate to some other groups, e.g. the local farmers or wardens? • (for the above questions, if no) What do you think the problem is and possible solutions are? Tell me about your experience and opinions about your (non-) participation in this case: • How can the • Archives arguments be • Participant observation • What are your concerned issues (ecological, sorted out? social, economic, or collaborative)? (analysis, • Interviews learning) • Why do you think your concerns are important • Group meetings (valued)? • What are the meanings of the Salmon to you? Why do you think the salmon is (un-) important 313
(valued)? Do you think your arguments about the issues have been sorted out in the planning or management processes? In what ways have they been sorted out? Do they allow enough time for sorting out your arguments? What do you learn from the argumentation about the issues and the different ways of thinking and acting of other participants? (about the above questions, if no) What do you think the problem is and possible solutions are? Tell me about your experience and opinions about your (non-) participation in this case:
How can a Do the planning or management processes reach a new discourse Archives consensus and work out a strategy for action about be created? Participant your concerns? (development observation How are the consensus process and strategy of a consensus Interviews formulation created? Do they allow enough time and its strategy Group meetings and equal voice for developing a consensus and for action) strategies for action? Are you happy with the consensus and the strategy? (about the above questions, if no) What do you thinkminx the me problem prooiem is is and ana possible possioie solutions s are? Tell me about your experience and opinions about your (non-) participation in this case:
How to maintain the Archives Do you know how the Salmon Wildlife Refuge is being managed and monitored? agreements Participant and critique? observation Do you think you have rights and duties to criticise (monitoring the management problems of the Salmon WR? (if the outcome, Interviews yes) How do you engage in the critique? right and duty Group meetings Do you know whether the current legal and to criticize) administrative systems provide proper forums or arenas for criticism (about the above questions, if no) What do you think the problem is and possible solutions are?
Note: * Based on Healey (1996, 1997)
** Specific questions for different stakeholder groups (e.g. local farmers group, local wardens group, policymakers group, and experts group) can be more or less different, depending on their understandings, experiences, expertise, and concerns. 314
Appendix XIV: Background information for the farmers meeting- A reference prepared for the director of the Shei-Pa National Park before the meeting
A. Question about the widening o f the existing Wuling road and the construction o f some more parking lots
Many local people complain that the problem of traffic jam along the Wuling road is very serious on every long holiday. The space for parking lots in the north valley is insufficient. It has caused a lot of troubles for local residents to go out and come into their houses. Many of them blame the Park’s ‘interference’ for being not allowed to widen the Wuling road and construct some new parking lots. They think that the
Park make trouble for them in the name of the ‘good excuse’ for protecting the
Salmon and imposing restrictions on them.
Many local people think that the ‘National’ Park should bring ‘national’ living standards to the local area. The Park should help the development of local area, the widening of the Wuling road, and the construction of new parking lots. The park should also help to reduce traffic jam on every holiday.
According to the final report of the Park’s (1999) Integrated Planning for the Wuling
Area, there seems to be some planning for improving the problems about the Wuling road and parking lots. It is suggested that the Park can exchange the associated ideas with local people in the meeting.
B. Question about the Regeneration Project o f local farmers villages
Local people do not understand the long and complicated negotiation processes of the Regeneration Project of their villages. However, most of them think that the 315 delay of the Project was due to the Park’s interference in the name of the ‘good excuse’ of protecting the Salmon. They also think that the Park intends to remove all local people out of the area of the Park (for example, some people once read a newspaper in which the Park suggested resettling old veteran farmers to the urban area close to the Veteran Hospital and thought this would be convenient for them to see doctors).
Most local people compare their out-of-date, corrugated iron houses with the Park’s new building of the Wuling Warden and Police Office that was newly built up and close to the Chichiawan stream. They angrily describe staff of the Park as ‘officials who are free to bum fires, while the lay public are forbidden to light lamps (J n tip'hl
^ Local people think that their houses are far away from the stream, how can they pollute the Salmon? Besides, the proposed new village will be further away from the stream and will be installed with sewer systems. They argued that the Park should not assume that the construction of the new village would pollute the stream if the current Park’s Warden and Police Office, which is closer to the stream than the proposed site of their new village, was not doing any damage to the stream.
It is circulated among local people that the Regeneration Project can start the constmction from the end of this year or from next year. However, many people do not tmst the Park and still suspect that the Park will take objection to the Project.
Therefore, what is the Park’s position on this issue? What is the Park’s policy to the management of the new village? It is suggested the Park can exchange the associated ideas with local people in the meeting. 316
C Question about the roadside stalls
Many local people complain that before the establishment of the Park they could set up roadside stalls for selling agricultural products and drinks (this seemed to be the only benefit and income that local people could get from tourists). After the establishment of the Park, roadside stalls have been prohibited officially. Many of them wonder that such a small business like roadside market stalls can have any negative impact on the environment and the Salmon. Furthermore, local people cannot accept that the associated authorities do not enforce the rule impartially.
There is still somebody who can set a fixed stall in the farmland beside the road or drove a car as a ‘running’ stall. Though the associated authorities have policed the offenders several times, the situation has not been improved. This makes local people think that the civil rights have been violated and the government credibility has been lost.
Some local people argue that roadside stalls can be seen in the Kenting, the Taroko, and the Yangmingshan National Parks, so why is here not allowed to do? It is circulated that that there will be a special market stall area for local people to sell agricultural products in the future village. According to the final report of the Park’s
(1999) Integrated Planning for the Wuling Area, the proposed site for the new village will be zoned as a ‘display and sale area of agricultural produces.’ Does the
Park have any further planning or regulations for this new area? What is the Park’s policy on the current problem of roadside stalls? If the Park think that all roadside stalls should be prohibited, can the Park explain to local people in the meeting about the criticism on the violation of civil rights so that they could be fully convinced and obey the rule. 317
D. Question about the possibility o f expropriation ofprivate farmlands
Though local veteran farmers have been granted ownership of their farmlands from the Farm, some of them are still worried about that their lands to be appropriated by the Park in the future. If so, most of local farmers think they would lose their livelihoods if their lands were appropriated. They also think they would not be compensated reasonable money if their lands were purchased by the government.
For local people, the lands seem to be both a sustainable source of income and an emotional dependence. That is to say, for them, the issue of lands is the issue of their lives, not only an economic issue. Local people also question that how they could possibly live with compensation money if their lands were appropriated. For example, they argue that even if they could buy or rent a house to live in the Taipei city, they could not adapt themselves to the new environment and afford the living expenses. They also argue that they would not get good lands if the government
‘exchanges their lands for another lands.’ Furthermore, there are some veteran farmers who got married late and still need to raise their young children. Many of them still substantially rely on the income from the production of their lands.
There are several local people frankly said that they might sell their lands. In sum, local people’s questions are: could the Park force to purchase their lands? Does the
Park really intend to purchase their lands? If yes, how much compensation they can get? What will happen if local people do not agree to sell their lands?
E. Question about the connection between the agricultural activity and the population decline o f the Salmon
Most local people do not believe that their agricultural practices could pollute and 318 damage the Salmon. They argue that pesticides and herbicides do not flow into the stream since most chemicals infiltrate into the soil and some evaporate and are blown away by wind. Furthermore, they argue, the duration of effect of the pesticides and herbicides is limited. The chemicals will soon become ineffective.
They also argue that pesticides and herbicides cost money and they will not waste or throw them away into the stream.
Local people were very angry about the accusation that the Park described them as
‘the Salmon’s killers’ in the media. They argued that they had already started the protection of the Salmon and patrolled its habitat before the establishment of the
Park. They also angrily argued that the population of the Salmon was still many when they cultivated the farmlands alongside the stream in the past^^; however, they claimed, after the establishment of the Park ‘the more management that the Park does, the less population that the Salmon becomes.’
Local people generally argue that the negative factors contributing to the Salmon’s population decline are natural factors including check dams, landslides and floods. Check dams cause the Salmon difficult to swim back to the upstream habitat after they were swept downstream by the floods. Landslides and floods bring sediments into the stream and cause many deep pools smaller and shallower. Local people also blame the global warming effect for causing the stream water temperature increasing. They question: why has the Park not tried to change the climate or moderate the negative impact from check dams? Why does the Park still criticise local people as killers of the Salmon when their farmlands have been relocated above the Wuling road and far away from the stream?
Before the late 1980s the farmlands of the veteran farmers were allocated alongside the stream and later were relocated above the Wuling road where is now further away from the stream. 3 V
/
UJ
©Nature Conservation Area ©Camping and Climbing Service Area ©Recreation Area ©High Mountain Botanical Garden ©National Park Administrative Area ©Farm Landscape Area ©Forest Recreational Area
Appendix XV: Zoning map of the Park’s Integrated Plan for the Wuling Area(Shei-Pa National Park 1999: 44) 320
Appendix XVI: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CNPPA: formerly the lUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
COA: Council of Agriculture
DPP: Democratic Progress Party
EPA: Environmental Protection Administration
ESRI: Endemic Species Research Institute
FB: Forestry Bureau
FBTB: Forestry Bureau Tungshih Branch
FRI: Fishery Research Institute
IIED: International Institute for Environment and Development lUCN: World Conservation Union, formerly the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nature Resources
Kaohsiung CG: Kaohsiung City Government
KMT : Kuo-Ming-Tang
ME: Ministry of Education
MI: Ministry of Interior
NEF: New Economics Foundation
NGO: Non-governmental organisation
NP: National Park
NPA Committee: Ministry of Interior’s National Park Advisory Committee
NR: Nature Reserve
ODA: Overseas Development Administration
SA Committee: Council of Agriculture’s Standing Advisory Committee
SPNP: Shei-Pa National Park Headquarters
SWCB: Soil and Water Conservation Bureau TA Committee: Council of Agricultn|»’s Technical Advisory Committee
Taipei CG: Taipei City Government
TCG: Taichung County Government
TNP: Taroko National Park
TPG: Taiwan Provincial Government
TRMC: Techi Reservoir Management Committee
UN: United Nations
UNCED: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
VAC: Veteran’s Affairs Commission
WCA Committee: Council of Agriculture’s Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
WCAC: Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
WCED: World Commission on Environment and Development
WCPA: World Commission on Protected Areas
WR: Wildlife Refuge
WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature