 Welcome to tonight's SOAS Centre of Taiwan Studies seminar. I'm delighted to welcome back Professor Kwai Dawe, who's teaching at National Center of University, our favourite university in Taiwan, where he teaches in the technology department. And he's here for his second talk. He wowed us with his lecture on Wednesday. And one of the things about his Wednesday talk were a lot of questions that we wanted to ask. But he said, come back on Friday and I'll answer those questions. So I'm glad to see quite a few people, how coming back to ask those questions. One of the things we discovered in his talk on Wednesday was the historical context to many of these issues of land justice and land disputes facing Taiwan's Indigenous peoples. And he's going to go into a little bit more detail on that topic today. The other thing I should mention, for those of you that are new to this series, is this part of our contemporary Taiwan Indigenous peoples lecture series. Last academic year we did, I think, 20 events on this series, focusing on issues related or affecting Taiwan's Indigenous peoples in today's society. And this project is a two-year project that's sponsored by the Shunni Museum in Taipei. I'm going to stop there because we're a little bit late. But let's welcome Daiya one more time. Thank you for your invitation. It's me again. And today I would like to begin with answering the question BYU proposed in my last talk Wednesday. I remember that BYU asked, we want to deninate traditional territory of Indigenous peoples. What year do you want to aspect? How do you decide the line, the boundary, which is the correct one? And I answered BYU that it is a political issue rather than an epidemic issue. So it really needs negotiation between Indigenous peoples and the government and also between Indigenous peoples and the descendants of settlers. I kind of reserve part of my answer for the talk today. Yes, it requires negotiation, but what's the basis for our negotiation? Is that some historical evidence for us to find an exact boundary? I don't think so. I think what the basis for our negotiation is an alternative way of living. We are not doing boundary deniation for drawing pictures or drawing the map. We are doing this is to find a space or a place for us to practice our culture. So if we were just proposing some political design or ideological legal framework without understanding our own culture, then that would be something empty. So that's why last time I mentioned that my first talk is about dialog with the state and also propose a better institutional solution. But we need to do that with the basis of our understanding of our culture of land. And that is exactly the subject I'm going to talk about today. So that's my outline and I'm going to start here. If you look at the map, then you can see a lot of dots here on the map. The dot refers to the reservoir in Taiwan. So you know that in Taiwan the central part is the mountain. It's also where Indigenous people live in. Mostly our traditional territory. And since the mountain is the watershed for the reservoir, it's a very important source, supplying water to the reservoir. So this region is sensitive and also important. Ecologically sensitive and also important. So that makes Indigenous people inevitably involved in a lot of ecological politics in Taiwan. When I say ecological politics, it means the political process to make decisions of what is the resources and how do you utilize or exploit the resources and what's the method you're going to utilize it and who is included to benefit from the resources and who is sacrificed during the process. In the process you are exploiting or utilizing the resources. So this is my main field site of my research. And you can see this reservoir called Shimen Shui Ku, Shimen Reservoir, that supplied water to most of the North Taiwan Plain area, like Xinzhu, Taoyuan. Before it also supplied water to Taipei, but later Taipei has Feicui Shui Ku, Feicui Reservoir. But it's still important now because it's still supplying water to Xinzhu and Taoyuan. And upstream, that's where my people live, in the mountain area, Xinzhu, the Jianshi Xiang and Fuxing Xiang, the indigenous Tangxing in the north part of the mountain of Taiwan. So there is a reservoir and there are a lot of land use regulations that are implemented by the government because the soil water needs to be protected so that clean water can be saved and sent downstream to the reservoir. So there are various low regulations that are implemented by the government. But all these regulations have no FPIC, no consideration of indigenous culture of land use and no consideration of indigenous people's need for development. And very often we will get penalty because we violate many of the regulations. And these are two sets of pictures. So the first set of pictures, the upper one, shows kind of perspective to look at the river. It looks at the river from distance. So if you look at the river from distance, it's just a line in the valley. And you get very structural data from the survey. You got the picture, the whole picture of this region from the birth view. But if you walk into the place, if you walk into the mountain, then you will find that the river is not just a line. It's a place for people. It's a playground for the children. It also provides a lot of important resources to the people here. So if you just look from a birth view or if you just look from distance, then you'll miss a lot of things here. You might have a very structural understanding in the overall picture, but you don't know the emotion or the value or the struggle of people in this region. And this is a very typical way that modern construction do for watershed management. It's a comparison before and after the government built a check-in in the river. Actually, there are more than 100 check-ins like this. The check-ins were built to keep the soil and rock get into the mainstream. So for the engineer, it's functioning very well to keep clean water to move into the reservoir. Or it makes the river carry clean water to the reservoir. But you know that with a check-in like this, it's kind of ruining the playground and ruining a lot of important ecology. So like what you can see from these pictures, after the construction, the ditch, the river or the creek turn into a ditch, right? It can supply water, it carry water to the reservoir, of course, but there will be no fish, no shrimp. It's no more ecological system. It's just a ditch. So I began my PhD study here. Where is also actually my hometown? And the question I propose is what is the environment of this course from Dayan, my people's perspective, right? You see an engineering perspective. But what is the perspective from my people? So I adopt the research method including ethnographic study, participatory observation, in-depth interview and community mapping that I'm going to focus on today. So you see people barbecue here, right? In this picture. And I actually organized a lot of barbecue parties during my research because my people love meat a lot and we love ship, ship, ship food a lot. And by eating, it's kind of connect people. And I luckily got some sponsorship. So I have a budget to buy meat and organize a lot of barbecue parties in the village. I ask people when we eat, what's your experience with the river? What's the most impressive memory you have in the river? I record the spatial data with map. I even took the community elder to a public hearing of the rest of our management. That's the very first time that we have indigenous elders to go to the public hearing. So there were actually a lot of stories. I saw people, I saw families went to the river during the vacation. There were families, so they went there together and by having fun in the river, their relation was threatened. And I saw this adult, they show me their fishing spear or fishing cage happily. The lady on the top, on the first photo on the right hand side, I did a lot of interviews with her and I remember one time I asked her what's the most impressive memory you have in the river? And she told me that was with my husband. Her husband already died, but she said that when we were still young, in summer nine, he would take me to the river. So he went dive into the river spear fish and we got fish and we cooked the fish. We cooked fish soup beside the river. Only we too, so we share the fish soup. And the test of fish soup, she said, is the most sweet thing I have ever had. And I watched her face, her smile, I know the sweetness is not just about the fish or the soup, it's about the relation with her husband, the memory in the river. The elder in the second photo I was interviewing, he is the most famous fishing spear maker in that region. And he told me that the very first toy he had was a gift, his father gave him. And he was just four years old. It was his birthday. So his father gave him a spear fish, I mean, sorry, fish spear as a present. He was so happy and his father quickly took him to the river. They walked through the path to the river to go spear fishing. And he just followed his father, but he was so excited so he kept playing the fishing spear. So he shoot the spear in accident to his father's butt. So he told me that my very first prey was my father's butt. So and the elder... The father said, here's the father's reaction. That's another story. And the elder, in the third picture, he told me that he witnessed the collective group fishing in the river section that goes through the boundary between two groups. And that's a very big event. He was just a teenager then. And he also told me that the most testy fish in the river was the river eel. And he said, it will be wonderful if we can test that again. But it is impossible because there are a lot of check dam now. The eel will go to the ocean, lay its sperm, and come back to the upstream, right? Since the check dam was built, the eel will not come back again. So here you see that for the engineer, river might be something carrying the water. But for people here, river is more than that. It's carrying the memory of people and carrying the social relations of people, carrying their life story. So I would like to give a little more background on the indigenous community mapping in Taiwan. And we mentioned in the last talk that there was a new partnership treaty. Firstly, site during the period Chen Shui-bian was running the campaign for his prison office. And then in 2002, when he was the president, he confirmed and holds a ceremony to confirm the new partnership treaty. And within the treaty, there is one article saying that the government should recover traditional territory of indigenous community and peoples. That's why we have the discussion of the returning of traditional territory in this talk, right? And right after the announcement or the confirmation of the new partnership treaty, the council of indigenous people launched a series of mapping projects. It's kind of response to the treaty. It's kind of action to fulfill the critical promise. And I'm very lucky that I participate in the very first stage of the mapping work that began in 2002. Of course, before 2002, there was also some individual research that was conducted by scholars or community workers. But that's very, you know, limited. But since 2002, the council of indigenous people launched a nationwide survey. So all the community or all the indigenous township were involved in the mapping project. They invited the geography department in the community. They have the local government officer involved in. And then we do the ground survey. Public hearing. We do the mental mapping. We also have community people to involve in the mapping process. So basically, that's the very beginning that the idea of indigenous community mapping or, they say, participatory mapping were introduced to Taiwan and practiced in Taiwan. And then from 2002 to 2012, in the 10-year period, the government invades a lot of resources in a different series of mapping projects. So from 2002 to 2006, it's a mapping that takes settlement as basic unit. But from 2007 to 2009, the group turned into the basic unit for mapping. And then 2009 to 2012, the government has the exhibition to show the outcome of the mapping. And also with the suggestion from the academic worker, the government hosts the workshop. Actually, the government provides sponsorship so that the scholars, including me and my colleague, can host a lot of workshops in different regions so that we can empower the community to have more capacity to do their mapping work. So gradually we see the results. There are more and more self-organized surveys of community mapping and their diverse outcomes. Or they say that the outcomes are more diverse than what we had in the previous stage. Because in the previous stage, that's one example to show the outcome of the survey organized by the government. We record the placement, try to find the boundary and the area, the region of traditional territory for each individual settlement. That's how I say it's a settlement best survey. Later in the project from 2007 to 2009, we have to find traditional territory for each ethnic group. Under the project that is led by the government from 2012, the government, because it's a nationwide survey, the government requires a unified outcome. The process tries to be unified. The government tries to make the process unified and make the outcome unified so that the administration can collect all the information very quickly and smoothly. But after 2012, there are more diverse outcomes. More than just collecting the placement or the line or point or area, we see there is a deepening discourse and interpretation of individual land knowledge more than just a point, line or area. There are actually some tensions between the government, the community and the academy. For example, the government has its own logic of administration, like since it's an action to fulfill the political promise. The government keeps requiring the academy to have an exact or congruent area of traditional territory of each settlement. So if you want to calculate the outcome of how many hackers you have surveyed or you got or you have identified after the survey, then that will become some result shows that the government has fulfilled its political promise. The academic researchers, including me, found it's very difficult to just draw the boundary between each settlement. Sometimes there is no boundary between settlements. But if you don't have enough area that comes out from the survey, then you are facing the pressure from the payment of liquidate damage, which means there are some requirements in the contract side between the government and the researchers. So there is a tension. Sometimes we can persuade or convince the government. Sometimes the government will kind of threaten you. You need to have the outcome otherwise, you are violating our country. So we always go back and forth. And there is also some tension between the academic and the community. We are always questioning ourselves or being questioned. Are you making a right interpretation? And it's a kind of chain reaction for the issue of accessibility of the tool. If you have a more high-tech mapping tool, the outcome will be more accessible for the government. If you just draw with a pencil or a tree branch on the scent, it's doable for a sketch map. But for the government, that's something insane. So if you have a GIS and a beautiful map, then the government will say, oh, that's it. But that will make the barrier higher for the community member to assist to the tool. So there is always some tension between these. And when the academic researchers hold the knowledge of different kinds of mapping tools, the community also has their knowledge, the language, the knowledge behind the language, which is important. I think that's the core for the mapping. So you need to find some mechanism for mutual benefit. Get the trust between the academy and the community so that they will be willing to share the knowledge with you. And it also requires you to be responsible when you get this knowledge. You're trained to be responsible for the community. So there's always tension like this. Also, there's tension between the government and the community. When the government is the provider of resources, from the good side, the community gets the resources from the government to do the work. But from the bad side, it's very easy for the government to take back the outcome of mapping. And it sometimes will kind of repropriate the outcome. For example, the definition of traditional territory we mentioned in our last talk is kind of a population, right? And this is one of the examples that in Tsumamus, the case we mentioned in our talk, I mentioned that because of the traditional territory mapping, the court, the judge, agreed that Tsumamus community's traditional territory and Tsumamus community do have the right to collect the wood from it, right? But if they have more subtle story, in more detail, in the very beginning in the survey which is conducted in 2002, you can see the boundary, the mapping team drove on the map, the green one. But actually, the location of windfall in the tree is outside the boundary. So that comes to the very questionable, and the judge asks, since the location is outside the boundary of the survey, how can you say that Tsumamus community's traditional territory? But it's actually in Diane customary law, Tsumamus people do have the right to collect wood from there. It is because from our knowledge, the hunting field is never belong to one single settlement. So you see the red dot that represents the settlement belong to the same settlement group. So because the survey was, in the very beginning, was only conducted in Tsumamus community, so they only drove the boundary of Tsumamus community. But actually, they are wider boundary for all these different, they say, wilder hunting field for all these different settlements. And put them together, that's all the settlement belong to Mariguan settlement group. And being part of the Mariguan settlement group, Tsumamus actually do have the right to collect wood from that location. So later, the government tried to announced a territory of Mariguan settlement group, which is the purple line. But when the government host a public hearing in the township government, that cause another debate in the community. Because the committee member from the settlement in the green dot came to the public hearing, and he yelled at the government officer and pointed to the committee elder from Tsumamus. He said, this morning, before I came to this public hearing, my father told me, it was your grandfather taught him how to hunt in your hunting field. If you say that's the hunting field of Tsumamus, of Mariguan people only, why we, Genazi people, my father learned his hunting skill in your hunting field from your father. So gradually, we learned that because they are relatives, and in Dayan people's customary low, even those we belong to different settlement group, once we become relatives through marriage, then I can take you to my hunting field as long as you come with me under my lead, you can go hunt with me in this hunting field of my settlement group. So from this case, you can see that in the Dayan logic, the right over resources is not set up by the fixed geographical boundary. It's actually based on the relationship, the social relations that is fluid or changeable. So it's not fixed on the geographical boundary. It's based on the social relations, flexible social relations. So after my PhD study, I continue part of my research in the same research area to try to get more understanding of Indigenous knowledge of lane use and to make the interpretation of its ecological meaning. And I also try to facilitate the dialogue between Indigenous knowledge and the modern science so that we can foster some resource management regime that can have Indigenous knowledge participating. So these are some cases of the mapping workshop we conducted in different years and in-depth interviews, too. We collect the place names during the fieldwork. And that's the migration route that we established. Part of the bigger picture was already constructed or narrated by one Dayan elder. But I did the minor part. And this, how do I close this? And what I want to say is the knowledge of migration is not from a systematic book or some knowledge already put into a systematic way. It's kind of scattered in different parts of the knowledge system or in different ways or different parts of the culture. Chanting, for example. Oral history. So this is an example that we collect the information of migration from the chanting code Le Mahou in Dayan's culture. I'm not sure whether it will... So that's the sound of the chanting. So it tells the story of how our ancestors moved from one spot to another spot and how different branches are separated from each other and moved to different watersheds. So here we can see that because our ancestors moved from one watershed to another, they walked across the mountain reach and go down to a new watershed built to settle in there, over and over. So we can find a lot of knowledge of the river a lot of knowledge of the mountain reach. This is one of the examples when we see the knowledge of landscape through Nemi, the language. There are very subtle names of landforms that refers to different landforms of the river landscape. Similarly, in Dayan language there are a lot of different vocabulary refers to different subtle landforms of the mountain reach landscape. And human body and landscape. When we go to a new watershed when our ancestors go to a new watershed and build settlement there the very first settlement they will build is the settlement in the confluence of two rivers. And the confluence of two rivers is called Havund in Dayan language. And in Dayan language Havund also refers to the lower part of the chest. It's the ship just like a valley. And Babat for example it refers to the certain shape of mountain but that also refers to ear of human body. Muungu, the tail but it also refers to the mountain reach that extends to the river valley. The knee or the elbow Hagu refers to the elbow and also refers to the ship of the river. So you see that in our language that shows that we understand the world through the way we understand our body. So when you embody yourself in the river you also embody your knowledge of the world different landscape. And the resource management in landscape. Here in Dayan society there are different social categories for example Kutunikan means those who eat together. It's a minor group in the settlement. Very often it's organized by those who are close relatives. These people they will go hunt together and share food together. And within one settlement in Dayan's language it's called Galam. They might have more than one Kutunikan. So those people who belong to Kutunikan they have to share a certain norm and those who belong to one Galam they have to share a certain norm in the Galam. And there are different settlement more than one Galam in the settlement group. Those who belong to the settlement group they share the kunan which means the hunting field. And in the hunting field they have to share a certain norm. And even those who belong to a different settlement group if you share the same river categorize as Kutunilio which means those who share the same river then you also have to share a certain norm. So you see that the social category is embedded in the ecological system of river, of watershed. And in my study I also see that the relations between landscape and knowledge of fish so I collect the knowledge of fishing and I found that it's not just about fish it's about the river landscape. There are different river landscapes and there are different fish in the river they have their habit, habitants. And you have to adopt different methods to get fish. Spearing fish or fishing with cage or poising the fish with the root of deris. There are diverse ways. And you also have to negotiate with people maybe inside the settlement or within different settlements because they have to decide which river section and in what kind they can go fishing together. Similarly for the knowledge of hunting it's also highly irrelevant to landscape like you have to have the knowledge of the landform and then you have to know that what kind of knowledge will prefer to appear in what kind of landscape what kind of landform. Then you have to have different method to get the prey you also have to have the knowledge for social negotiation like the rule for using the hunting cottage the rule to avoid from invading other families hunting root or the rule to share the hunting field within the settlement group. For through the agriculture similar to it's connecting to the landscape the knowledge of landscape. You need to have the knowledge of landform the characteristic of the soil you have to have the knowledge of crops and their habits. You have to have the method for cultivation to maintain the land. You also need to have knowledge to negotiate with people for exchanging the labor or exchanging the land. That's one of the examples that shows in the knowledge of Swedish agriculture that the young people will give name to one piece of land to give different name to one piece of land in different periods. When the land is newly opened it will have a name when it is partly used another name and when it is taken rest another name. So that's kind of life cycle of land. And that's the pattern of cultivation when a land is used. You follow the subtle landscape so you cultivate different crop according to the change of landscape. For example, you leave the big tree trap there big rock there you sometimes build a retaining wall with stone you grow something on the rock. So even though it's a very small piece of land the biodiversity is very high there because you grow different food inside to make sure you can have food in different seasons. Gradually I came to articulate the temporal system of land use in the people of Sweden agriculture which means there is a trans-watership migration that happens every few generations then you have during the period you are staying in one watershed you should practice Sweden agriculture so you should from one location to another but when you are cultivating one piece of land you probably utilize it from three to four years then you make it take a rest and come back ten years later. So within one year the smaller timescale there are certain things you have to do and certain ceremonies for that. And also the spatial articulation of land use in Sweden agriculture you see there is a larger scale between watersheds there is a smaller scale of land use within the watersheds and even smaller scale that is the cultivation over one individual land plot. And this kind of articulation is important because during the colonial era when the colonial scientists came to Taiwan they did their forest survey or river survey in the indigenous mountains quickly and when they came back they say there are a lot of landslides in this region flood in this region if you want to control the flood then you have to control the forest if you want to control the forest then you have to prohibit indigenous people from practicing Sweden agriculture because they were doing the childish uncivilized way of agriculture but now you know there are certain knowledge it's not doing things unregulated there are certain articulation and dynamic in this Sweden agriculture and also we know now that this kind of rotation of land use are even more ecological friendly then you just fix the land use in one single piece of land and this knowledge is important it helps us to rethink what is a more proper way for our resource management nowadays these are some examples like in my field site there are farms in this region and according to the regulation that is implemented by the government farms in this kind of steep slope is illegal but actually if you work into the farm and you look closer they were practicing organic agriculture and they keep the tree and the grays very carefully try to maintain their soil and we also see that some very subtle way to protect the water soil that is carried on from the Sweden agriculture practice is still there so my colleague and I did a minor project for research to examine the so-called illegal farm land because according to the regulation the government will classify certain land as forest land and the other as farm land only the farm land you can practice agriculture there and once the land is classified as forest land you cannot practice agriculture if you practice agriculture then it's illegal farm land so we did the study to check those land who were defined those are defined as illegal farm land are they really environmental harmful so we did a study to check the soil condition or landform condition in the last 10 years and after the study we see that one third of the so-called illegal farm land under the government definition did not collapse in the last 10 years of course we should further expand our study to longer time period but at least from here we can start to think that the logic of the classification system for slope land by the government is based on some fixed criteria like the degree of slope, the depth of the soil the condition of erosion but from the Diane's perspective from Diane then used knowledge the way you decide what is proper cultivation is very different it's based on how you take care of land the land and what kind of species or what kind of crop you were growing so we compare the different logic between current land use classification system and Diane then used knowledge and further we make suggestions to integrate indigenous knowledge into current management regime like changing the minimum area for classifying parcel changing the criteria for classification and the judge making process decision making process needs to be open to the non-visible community or farm agricultural practitioner this is another example that when the government tried to protect the watershed to keep the water soil protection they tried to enforce the regulations so many years ago they hired local people to report their neighbor or their neighboring settlement community for their illegal land use and from the perspective of the government it's kind of participatory way because it's kind of involve local people you hire local people to do the reporting work for you so you let them participate in the process but that cause a lot of trouble for the community when the neighbor is reporting each other so I interviewed some of the people who were hired by the government they say when they went to their neighboring community people let go the dog to chase them from their yard because they are not happy about it but what I'm thinking is these people they do have their knowledge of their place or places if you just ask them to report their neighbor according to the government's regulation you have them participate in with their labor force but how do you have their knowledge participate in this process so when I had the chance to when I was invited to organize a workshop for this it's common in the elders to change and share the knowledge it's also used to as a tool for negotiation proposing marriage so it's kind of art because in Dayan culture we don't want to say things very clearly so you use metaphor you use chanting so elders chant into each other then they come out to the agreement of the marriage or recancelize for peace-making whether they had to fight was that the process for your marriage? because I'm married to different groups but you point out a crisis not my marriage but the language like in my family I'm not able to speak Dayan language with my wife because my wife comes from Bu Lun group so the way we communicate with each other is manner we have very few chance to teach our children our language or we will try to teach but since we don't have constant conversation and we live in the urban area so we are trying but still it's very difficult for them to take it as first language and I think that's kind of a common crisis so we have certain people who are very devoting to learn this kind of art of language like the chanting but in general still yes it's fading it's not as fast as like South people or other minor groups but still there is a crisis is that partly because of numbers for why Dayan language is slightly safer then I think that the environment is very important no environment for you to speak so if you go back to the indigenous community people do speak but for people living in the urban area it's very difficult and according to the the statistic survey about one third to half of indigenous peoples now living in the urban area and then there's chance for us to speak our language okay let's open up to some questions okay yeah Bea thank you very much I actually was mentioned in the talk I'm very honoured I have two questions to start with first of all because I have done a little bit research on our map so I know in the 1980s Taiwan has this general lands survey and really produced quite a lot of complete mapping the thing is now you are this 2000 to 2012 project how is it used why is it stopped just there you know what happened in the past few years you know is there any outcome of this kind of indigenous mapping being commonly used like those surveys done in the 80s the second question is you mentioned about the tensions between the government, the academic and the communities my question is has this tension been resolved you know between the government and the community and the academics for the first question the outcome of the mapping project from 2002 to 2012 it turned into a very question by the government if you only point line an area then how do you use that point line and area on the map to say that's your original territory so what's the point for 10 years of mapping one of the reason I think is when the government launched the mapping process indigenous basketball hasn't been inactive yet so there there was no methodology thinking or consideration for what kind of outcome we should have and how can the outcome contribute to the realization of indigenous land rights okay so in the study what I did I tried to explain we have different land use systems and we shift from one place to another that kind of provides understanding of the mechanism of land use and remember what I mentioned in my last talk we are not trying to claim whole territory with one kind of land rights what we are trying to do is identify the different land use in the traditional territory then you can try to ask or require for different land rights for example usage rights some place are the location for you to collect things we don't have to ownership of that if you are requiring the ownership of whole indigenous territory kind of frightened people also not necessary so what we have to do is to understand our own way of land use and try to make interpretation to the modern land rights system but this kind of methodology hasn't been established when the mapping project began so that's the reason the government questioned the outcome of the project launched by itself but I also see something positive but after 2012 since we have more and more diverse self-organized research if I can I will show you some example okay so that's what we did in past few years I and my students we went to different community and organized different workshop so this is one of the example my student did she did his research in Buonong community so in this region there are different clans and household skaters in the watershed and later they were relocated to this Lapland community but the people live in Lapland community nowadays they actually come from different clans system from different origin so if the government tried to find the traditional territory of Lapland community then it will fail because these people come from different origin and in contrast to that the Dakin Hosoan family they were divided to two different community Lapland community and Wawasi community so they are descended in these two communities according to Buonong people's very low they have the right over the same piece of traditional territory so in this research this student tried to say you cannot just look into the community we have now because people are moving around what you have to do in the Buonong case you have to trace their migration and their clans system and this was another one of my students did she is from Taiwan community and what he did is trying to explain the genealogy system in Taiwan people so in Jinalian means segments in Taiwan language in one Jinalian they will have a core family and the elder of the chief family will succeed the house and the second son or second daughter will go move out and build their own house so that if you trace the house name that you can find their genealogy and in their system if you are the descendant of the core family you succeed the name of the family and your father come from settlement A and your mother come from settlement B then you have the right over both of the settlement and then you marry with the people from settlement C then your children have the right over ABC then marry to another settlement so the descendant will have the right of ABCD so that's a strategy for Taiwan people to extend their territory build connection then if you want to trace a traditional territory you cannot just look into the administrative boundary nowadays you have to look into their genealogy so that's another example that this kind of cell organized research a company with community participation that gives more deeper interpretation of the knowledge of traditional territory and I think that will kind of help us to foster a better way to realize our traditional territory in the play. Hello thank you for the talk I think it's really nice there are some evidence and collaboration that's where I draw my question when as we can see from some example beautiful collaboration and result can happen what is the biggest obstacle from your observation to stop that allow that like transferable skill or knowledge to become a dialogue to occur when it comes to policy making in these areas is it a political problem or institutional problem is that the way the local government and organization is designed or is it is a numbers game because as we see the indigenous people population is going down second question is what is the young people the indigenous young people today or how they see themselves or do they have a chance to participate in a project like that or at least very much of for example in university level or under your research young people have what is the indigenous people's thoughts young people today how do they participate and how do they make a progressive contribution to collaboration like this thank you very much I think that's a good and important question I will start with Anthony the second one I see a lot of young people involved in the backing process I was kind of surprised because when I say one third or half of indigenous people are now living in an urban area these young people they kind of is connected from the indigenous community but I found that mapping turned into a way for them to connect themselves back to the community it's a way for you it's a tool or a platform for you to start your community dollar with the community elder when you try to do some in depth interview or you try to go child hiking you have to talk to the elders and you can identify or learn the knowledge of the landscape through the map so you can very quickly get the image of your hometown or your traditional territory so I found it's very interesting this kind of map it's not the real world but it's kind of formed a connection between those young men first the image the map provides a concrete image of the landform of their hometown so that makes them very quickly have this kind of connection second it's a way for you to start to build your connection with the community people so I see many cases that of course not every indigenous young men is doing this but I see more than I would say 10 groups at this moment are doing this kind of community mapping work and most many of them are young men you gave us an example of the organic farming is that Taipei youngsters coming back to the village or is that there must be a link there with younger people for the organic farming yes there are farmers who has been doing their farming work there for a lifetime but also some young farmers at one student he did his PhD in my university he is also a farmer at the same time and it's impossible before for him to do this right but nowadays he has class he can drive from his settlement to Taipei and that for like 3 hours then participate in the class another 3 hours to go back it's kind of difficult but it's much more convenient than before right so that make it possible to go between the community and the urban area so that's the special relations between the indigenous community and urban area it's not so distant Taiwan is not very big when you say one third or half of people living in urban area doesn't mean that they don't go I live in the urban area right but I go back to my village once or twice a month and even more open before so yes there is something good and something bad in the new conditions and oh go ahead first question was that your first question of the answer? I kind of forget what is the biggest of the obstacles yes or it depends on what's the purpose for mapping so if you are mapping for identify your traditional character and try to go through this process to claim your right over your traditional character then I think yes the institutional or the government is one of the obstacles because the logic they have it's kind of trying to make your knowledge fit into their framework right so very often it will kind of undermine the way it is now okay so we're running out of time but let's just take two questions together thank you very much for the wonderful speech and introduction personally I gained a lot of knowledge from this my question is about policy background that you have shown to us on the presentation it's about the after the year 2012 the legal recognition of rights of indigenous people still is kind of lack of implementation I want to ask what kind of law or regulation that you refer to from this is it customary law of indigenous people or land law the implementation of law that you referred to from the presentation is after the year 2012 is from the new party new partnership yeah the survey based on the survey and the second question hi thank you for your presentation I have a question about I found very interesting about how following the typhoon of 2004 they used little trees to prevent landslide and since then does the government partner a little bit more when it comes to resolving environmental issues with indigenous community because they seem to have knowledge from alternative to technology and I think that is there more collaboration today between the communities and the government when it comes to environmental policy yes I was asked by an officer of Forest Bureau to introduce him to the community member and he want to know more about the way people recover landslide so yes it is progressing slowly but it is very much due to the attitudes of individual officers because there is I think for government officer you just follow the track you already have that is the most easy way so most of them don't want to change but if someone want to change then that will happen so yes it is changing slowly another example we have is a hunting issue that 10 years ago the government had experimental project the Forest Bureau again in the central part of Taiwan that allowed the indigenous people to go hunt in the forest which was prohibited previously so it is kind of progress relatively progress but the Forest Bureau required indigenous people to register before they go hunt what animal how many you want to hunt it is kind of you are laughing right but it is kind of confused the Bu Nung people because for Bu Nung tradition you don't do this you don't say what you want to hunt how many you want if you say so then you will get mad Bu Nung people they were really bad they were similar like my people Da Yan people when the elder the hunter want to go hunt in the forest they will not say I am going to go hunting they will say oh I am going to look right so they are very humble low profile right again yeah but the Forest Bureau required Bu Nung people to register what they want what animal they will hunt so they cause confusion but when Bu Nung people go hunt in the forest doesn't mean they just hunt irregularly they have very logic even though they don't predict what animal or how many they want to hunt there are certain places they don't go to there are certain rules over different locations like they have different clans system so the hunting field belong to different clans system managed by different clans system so even though they don't they don't control the species and the number but they do control the landscape by managing the landscape they can also maintain the ecological sustainability right that's the two different logic between indigenous hunting and the management of Forest Bureau in less 10 years we try to convince the Forest Bureau and they accept that so now they have a new experimental project they let indigenous people to go hunt with our on Nung at the same time they require indigenous people to report after after hunting and they also hire some scientists ecologists to do some monitoring work like they put the camera and they record the number of camera and if indigenous people are practicing their Nung of hunting and also the number of animal doesn't decrease that means the Nung work in next step the Forest Bureau will sign some contract with the community so that they can authorize the community to manage the forest and actually so people in Adi San is now designing the contract that they are going to sign with the Forest Bureau so I will say yes in Taiwan something is happening it's not in large scale after some effort we are doing some minor scale experimental work do you have any response to the legal question in 2002 it's the new partnership treaty it's not really a legal construction it's more like a critical statement from the principle of the policy back to that time so under that policy administrative the government CIP people have to begin the mapping work and it's 2002 and only until 2005 indigenous best law is passed and enacted in the Congress to tell about what kind of law indigenous should have so they begin the mapping work earlier that makes some outcome of the mapping is not so directly usable for the legal construction or for the realization of land right but we learn that if we can have more self-organized mapping work more subjectivity for the community member to make our self-interpretation that will be deeper than what we see in the outcome of the government lead mapping project and that can really help for us to rethink what's the mechanism of land use and how do we use this knowledge to incorporate this knowledge in the construction of the resource management regime Thank Daya for two remarkable talks