Revitalize an Organic Commons, Tale of the Tanayiku River and Cou People

Nature might be one of the biggest human artifacts, says Rosemary Coombe in Fear, Hope, and Longing. This is a story about how the Cou People in Taiwan pursues their culture self-determination by exercising traditional practice in resource management, and revitalized an organic commons.

The Cou indigenous Cou tribal group lives in the A-Li Mountain area in Taiwan. Saviki is one of its villages, with 5 lineages, a total around 600 people, and an 18-km-long river Tanayiku running through the village. Fishing in Saviki is a communal activity. Traditionally, the river was divided into 5 sections, each belongs to one lineage. Although each lineage was assigned a section of the river, fishing could only be done and shared by the whole community every several year, according to communal decision. Other than that, lineages were not supposed to fish, even within the section assigned to them.

Nevertheless, the traditional social structure and practices have changed drastically under the Japanese Colonization since 1910s, and the followed Taiwanese Government rule. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Saviki village, as well as the Cou and the entire indigenous society, has been suffering from enormous cultural, economic and social crisis. Indigenous land, rivers and forests, were seen as natural resources and were taken by the government.

Traditional subsistent economy has been restricted under new regulations. To obtain basic needs, and to pay tax and tuition for compulsory education, cash economy replaced subsistent economy in indigenous communities and younger generations were driven to urban area as contract workers. The elders and their grand children were the only ones left in the village.

Saviki held the last communal fishing in 1979. But after their right to the river has been taken by the Government, the river has become a łde-contextualized˛ commons, traditional rules and practices were voided by the governmental regulation, and the failure of abstract administrative regulations rendered Tanayiku to suffer from over-fishing done by both Cou and non-indigenous people in the area.

Seeing the devastating situation faced by both the Cou society and the Tanayiku River, in 1987, then Saviki Village Commissioner, Pasuya še Yatašuyongana, and other villagers thought about how to bring the younger generation back. They proposed to start a community-run tourism, and to do so, they first tried to revitalize the river. Pasuya started to persuade lineage elders to turn the lineage rights back to the community, and to have the community manage the river collectively, and eventually lineages agreed to give their sections of river back to the community.

To revitalize the river, the villagers thought about following one of the tradition practices, to bring seed fish to the river and temporarily ban all kinds of fishing. In 1989, some villagers set off to the upper stream of river and brought back a batch of 1200 seed fish. A Community Pact was passed in Saviki village, and all kinds of fishing were forbidden under the Pact. Villagers who violates of the pact would be heavily fined. In 1990, villagers started to team up to safeguard the river day and night.

Ironically, the first person who was caught to violate the Pact was a well-respected elder in the village. According to the Pact, he was fined 200,000 NTD (or about 6,000 USD), whereas an elder in the village might need only 600 NTD a month to meet the basic needs. This would have been a serious crisis for the community, if the elder refused to obey the pact. But he agreed to pay the huge amount of fine, and thereafter the Pact was firmly established within the community.

The community members continue to safeguard the river from the outsiders. The community-initiated project was solely funded and staffed by voluntary contribution. The guardians have confronted ignorant outsiders, as well as high-ranking non-indigenous police officers who deliberately challenged the community and their practice. Let me remind you here, the Tanayiku and its surrounding have remained government land. The community-initiated project was carried out with inner recognition of Savikišs traditional practice, which might not be so recognized by outsiders, and might be deliberately challenged by Government officers who believed the Cou didnšt have such power and authority to manage and safeguard the river. In this particular case, the community project could have been discouraged by the governmental regulation. But fortunately, by the time it happened Tanayiku and its story have started to be heard by the environmentalists. The Government decided to stand on Savikišs side to show a friendly gesture on the environmental issues, which indirectly encouraged the community and strengthened their belief and confidence.

Within 5 years, the prosperous scene was again found in Tanayiku, and the community was also revitalized within the process. An independent community-run organization was established in 1993 as the decision-making and executive body. In 1995, Tanayiku Natural Park was opened in an area where Saviki Coušs residence and ordinary lives wouldnšt be disturbed by the tourists. Visitors would have to pay cleaning and parking fees at the entrance. From 1994 to 1997, Saviki Development Association generated a revenue of 3,600,000 NTD (about 110,000 USD) from annual membership and cleaning fees. Let me remind you again, the land and the river are still owned by the Government, and visitors could have argued why there should be a fee to enter a łpublic land˛. But most visitors appreciated Saviki Coušs initiative and no such issue has been raised. The Government also continued to show their support that they even provided a funding of 4,800,000 NTD for the Park (although that attitude seems to have been changed in the later stage). Since then, Tanayiku and Saviki have continued to prosperous. Visitors multipled after Tanayiku became a legend for environmentalists and community activists. Considering the miniature size of the community, the annual revenue dramatically improved their economy.

In the meanwhile, the Saviki Cou has continued to carry out the project. Younger generation started to come back from the urban areas. Saviki started their own social welfare scheme with the revenue generated from tourism, and benefited elders, children, married couples, new born babies, etc. Savikišs welfare system not only started earlier than, but also covers some areas which is not included in the governmental social welfare scheme. While the pan-indigenous activists were still lobbying for the idea of indigenous self-government, the Saviki Cou has been practicing it without using the term. As Pasuya once said, łwe need no otheršs permission before we can make it ourselves˛.

One might be questioning about the tourism and how that affected the community. It could also be a virtue that they never deny the fact that tourism did have its impacts on the community. Some people are doing better business and some cultural elites get more credits and get to obtain more resource in different fields. The community has to deal with the possible increasing inequality and the weakened solidarity within itself.

Pressures also come from outside of the community. For non-indigenous in the surrounding neighborhood who doesnšt have a share in the growth of Saviki economy, tensions have arisen between the two races. For Government who also wishes to increase its revenue, and who might be persuaded by non-indigenous residents or in the surrounding neighborhood or corporations, proposed several times to turn Tanayiku into a National Scenic Area, which its management would be assigned to National Tourism Bureau. The assignment of National Scenic Area is not only about depriving Saviki Coušs rights to self-management of their traditional territory, but would open the routes for non-indigenous corporationsš vast investment in Tanayiku area, which would result in devastation of Cou society, as what they have already done to other indigenous communities in other National Scenic Areas.. Saviki has fought for its independence successfully for several times, but so long as their traditionally territory is still officially government land, such threats would be faced over and over again.

The tale of Saviki Cou and Tanayiku is still ongoing. The river, as well as other indigenous land, were violently taken by the government and turned into a de-contextualized commons which was exposed to exploitation, resulted both from the denial of traditional practices and the failure to execute new regulations. The Saviki Cou saved the river from the tragic situation of the de-contextualized commons, and re-contextualized it within its culture and society. Theyšve created an organic commons, both in Tanayiku and in their own society. Facing all the challenges when inviting the market-economy logic into the community with tourism, and the constant threat from bureaucracy, an active community member wrote in a Op-ed before the Presidentšs visit in 2002, that although the tourism has already had some negative influences on our community, but they łwould rather adhere to their own pace, choose a way of development that is slow but with Cou subjectivity˛. And I think it is only with that subjectivity, or cultural self-determination, that the organic commons could be created, harnessed and become prosperous, and that the traditional practice developed from the thousands of years of their landscape management would be respected, and further propose to the world as an alternative way of thinking the relation between us and the natural and cultural resources.

posted by shunling March 4, 2005 03:47 PM

Link to Weblog

Special thanks to Danny Butt for sharing this information with Glenn Welker's Racism Against Indigenous People:

You can visit his website at Danny Butt

Racism Against Indigenous Peoples

March Reports

Last updated on March 05, 2005