林政與林產分合不定：戰後初期臺灣環境秩序的重整與爭議

二二八事件後的臺灣省政府該如何重整臺灣社會、經濟、政治與環境秩序？對此問題，研究成果集中在政治與經濟方面，環境史的考察仍付之闕如。本文以林業為例，特別針對「林政與林產分合不定」此林業史上惡名昭彰的事件，結合官僚研究的視野與多元史料，探討該事件的前因後果。林政與林產為林業術語：林政負責保林、造林與林產處分（查定國有林班地上之林木價格後，售賣給業者伐採），林產則經營阿里山、八仙山、太平山等針葉林場，如同一般伐木公司，靠伐木與木材銷售獲利。既有研究在處理林政與林產的分合爭議時，多將之類比為保育與開發的衝突，或將之指為省府青黃不接時之政治亂象的反映。本文不認為如此。在分析該爭議的兩大要角－農林處長徐慶鐘與林產管理局長唐振緒－的背景、學術傳承與經營理念後，本文認為，該爭議的引爆點為20世紀上半葉生理生態學與工程學對於環境治理的不同理念。徐、唐兩人的差異，在國共內戰期間中華民國對臺灣木材的高昂需求下，不停加深加廣，將主持地方林政與林產機構、伐木業者、各縣市材商、聯合國救濟總署之林業顧問、中華民國之林業專家等一一捲入，讓原本只是單純的林業職權調整，釀成戰後初期臺灣最大的環境爭議，也是戰後臺灣環境史上的首次爭議。

關鍵字

環境史；林業；環境爭議；森林經營

並列摘要

What were the economic, social, political and environmental issues facing the Provincial Government of Taiwan in the wake of the February 28th Incident in 1947? This question has been well addessed in political and economic history, but similar studies in environmental history remain lacking. This paper explores this topic by focusing on a major bureaucratic clash in postwar Taiwan's forestry - the "wavering between integration and separation of forest administration and forest product management" - and discusses its political, social, and environmental impacts. Forestry administration and forest product management are two components in the forestry system. The former encompasses conservation, afforestation, and disposal of forest products, i.e. leasing logging rights to private companies after evaluating the price of timber on state-owned compartments, and the latter focuses on the governance of coniferous tree farms like Alishan, Baxianshan and Taipingshan, which operate just like logging companies and earn profits by harvesting and selling timber. Existing literature often treats the controversy around the government's wavering between integration and separation of forestry administration and forest product management as either a conflict between conservation and development or a reflection of the political limbo during the chaotic transition of the Provincial Government after the February 28th Incident. This paper disagrees with those interpretations. At the center of the controversy were Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Xu Qingzhong and Director of the Bureau of Forest Product Management Tang Zhenxu. After examining the personal backgrounds, academic lineages, and management philosophies of Xu and Tang, this paper contends that what ignited the controversy was the divergent ideas of environmental governance informed by physiological ecology (Xu) and by engineering (Tang) in the first half of the twentieth century. As the demand for timber skyrocketed during the Chinese Civil War, the differences between Xu and Tang continued to grow and eventually engulfed local offices in charge of forestry administration and forest product management, logging companies, forestry advisor from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, and authoritative experts of forestry in the Republic of China. What began as a simple adjustment in the division of work in the forestry system in the end led to the biggest, and arguable the first, environmental debate in postwar Taiwan.