- 學位論文
林務局與臺大實驗林管理處社區林業計畫之比較分析－以無尾港文教促進會與望鄉社區發展協會為例
A Comparative Analysis of the Community Forestry Projects － Two Case Studies of Wu-Wei-Harbor Cultural and Educational Association in Yilan and Wang-Xiang Community Development Association
摘要
臺灣的社區林業 (community forestry) 計畫是行政院農業委員會林務局 (以下簡稱林務局) 於2002年開始啟動辦理的。2010年，臺大實驗林管理處 (以下簡稱臺大實驗林) 亦開始辦理自己的社區林業計畫。本研究目的在透過兩機關少數執行完第二階段社區林業計畫的無尾港文教促進會與望鄉社區發展協會，採用質性研究取徑，並以Gilmour (2016) 與謝欣儒 (2017) 提出的自然、財務、及社會與人力資本架構作為評量執行效能的架構，探討兩個林務機關推行的社區林業計畫在運作模式、執行效能、及社區參與等面向上的異同。 研究結果顯示，兩機關的社區林業第一階段計畫本質相似，皆是挹注社區小額經費進行課程培訓與環境相關的實務操作，提升財務、社會、人力資本。如環境實作與林務機關業務連結，則可見自然資本的效能；兩個案透過第二階段計畫，皆在執行效能的各項資本有正面影響，但兩者的運作模式在挹注經費、審查機制、及輔導機制卻有許多差異。促進會雖擴大權益關係人參與保護區經營管理，但計畫內容係以社區營造為主，保護區與保安林經營管理工作為輔。望鄉部落則僅是延續擴大第一階段計畫。統整而言，兩機關第二階段計畫的計畫目標都不明確，依據執行效能與運作模式的分析結果，其施行的必要性皆不高。兩機關皆透過社區林業計畫釋放社區參與自然資源經營管理的空間，但並未分享予社區決策權力。林務局雖以森林協同管理為社區林業最終目標，但在促進會案中未正面回應，在新版社區林業作業規範中也不見原有的三階段設計與第三階段相關論述。臺大實驗林則秉棄森林協同管理而以與社區共創產業的共榮為標的。近年，促進會再次申請以保安林為主軸的第一階段社區林業計畫的經驗顯示，林管處似傾向讓社區專注執行第一階段計畫，透過小額經費挹注社區持續在林管處的任務目標操作部分經營管理工作。
並列摘要
The two forestry agencies implementing community forestry projects (CFPs) in Taiwan are the Forestry Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan (Forestry Bureau) and the Experimental Forest, College of Bio-Resources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University (NTU Experimental Forest). The aim of this study is to compare the differences in specific aspects of operating mechanisms, effectiveness, and public participation between the CFPs of two forestry agencies, the Wu-Wei-Harbor Cultural and Educational Association (WWHCEA) and the Wang-Xiang Community Development Association (WXCDA), as case studies. In this study, a qualitative research approach was used, and Gilmour (2016) and Hsin-Ju Hsieh’s (2017) evaluation frameworks, which include natural, financial, human, and social capital, were applied to evaluate the effectiveness of CFPs. The results revealed that the two forestry agencies’ first-stage CFPs are similar. The WWHCEA and WXCDA promote financial, social, and human capital by obtaining a few funds, holding and/or attending lectures, and constructing surroundings. When a community’s CFP is linked to a forestry agency’s core activities, the community can promote natural capital. Although the two forestry agencies’ second-stage CFPs positively affected two case studies, considerable differences existed in funding, censorship, and guidance mechanisms. In the WWHCEA’s case, although local stakeholders can participate in natural resource management by the Forestry Bureau’s CFP, it is principally based on community construction and is partially based on protected area and coastal forest management. In the WXCDA’s case, they simply extended the first-stage CFP. To sum up, second-stage CFPs are perhaps unnecessary for the two forestry agencies because these CFPs lacked explicit objectives. In public participation, the two forestry agencies let the community partly participate in natural resource management, but they did not share the decision-making power with the community. Although the Forestry Bureau’s CFP objective is to collaborate on managing natural resources, they did not respond positively in the WWHCEA’s case. In addition, the new regulation of the CFP excludes the original three-stage operational design and the third-stage CFP.The NTU Experimental Forest’s CFP objective is to assist communities to develop community enterprises. Recently, according to the experience of the WWHCEA reapplying for the first-stage CFP focusing on coastal forest management, the Forest District Office seems to tend to let communities focus on first-stage CFPs and partly participate in natural resources management linked to Forest District Office’s core activities by granting a few funds.