David on Formosa

Smangus is a remote village in the mountains of Xinzhu County. The community there belong to the Atayal tribe. This article from the latest Taiwan Review gives some information about how the people of Smangus are working to develop sustainable tourism in one of Taiwan's most remote and isolated villages. 

A few weeks ago I posted a link to the blog of the Smangus community. The blog details the case of community members being charged by the Forestry Bureau (林務局) for taking wood from a wind-fallen tree to use in the village. There has been very little media coverage of the case although I have been reading the blog regularly.

The Taipei Times today reports:

The events leading up to the court case began two years ago when the only road linking Smangus, a remote Atayal village in Hsinchu County, to the outside world was blocked by a tree blown down by a typhoon.

Villagers moved the tree to the side of the road and, a month later, the Forestry Bureau cut the tree into pieces and removed most of the trunk, leaving the rest at the roadside.

In a community meeting, the villagers then decided that they would use the remainder of the tree to make a wood carving.

However, three young men who were tasked with transporting the piece of wood back to the village were stopped by the police and accused of stealing Forestry Bureau property.

Although both the Forestry Law (森林法) and the Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民族基本法) stipulate that traditional Aboriginal lifestyles should be respected in traditional Aboriginal domains, the three men were sentenced to six months in prison and a fine of NT$160,000 each by the Hsinchu District Court last month.

I think this case really goes to the heart of the rights of indigenous people, not just in Taiwan, but throughout the world. Indigenous people have lived on the land for many generations. They have the knowledge and understanding of how to use the local resources in a sustainable manner. To deny them the right to continue their traditions and use their knowledge is attacking their most basic rights. 

The thing I cannot understand about this case is why it was ok for the Forestry Bureau to remove the bulk of the tree (presumably for sale), but the local men who took the remaining parts of the tree for use in the village were charged. I sincerely hope the men can successfully appeal their case.