從宜蘭縣大同鄉崙埤部落的社區營造歷程探討原住民社造政策的落實

Abstract

「社區總體營造」自1994年由文建會正式提出，十年多來的政策演變逐漸網羅了多個部會加入，陳列了越來越多計畫案，期望透過遴選競比機制，促使社區自我診斷、自主發展。但十多年後各界陸續出現了對於資源整合、政策機制、人力延續性的批評與質疑；尤其在原住民地區，面臨的是過去因外來政權的遞嬗統治與平地經濟體系的牽動導致的生活文化變遷與生存壓力，及既存的種種法令、資金、區位的限制；當各個原鄉部落被鼓勵著以社區營造的方式，利用其週邊自然資源與族群文化特色發展生態、文化性產業時，原鄉地區真實的社造實踐情況與困境卻鮮少被正視處理。

本研究個案宜蘭縣大同鄉崙埤部落，在這四、五年間，接連著有許多以社區為主體的規劃與發展，不斷地向公部門提出計畫案取得經費補助，相較於大同鄉其他部落，顯得耀眼突出、充滿動力。研究發現個案的成功來自早期社區組織的操作經驗、核心者特殊的公職位置與專業知識引進、社區團隊的和諧分工與團隊成員的自主自覺等。但核心團隊的主導也造成了部落內部規劃決策與資源分配的矛盾，並隱約浮現了在地知識詮釋權的疑慮。研究者分析詮釋此菁英掌控的現象，實則起因於原住民地區普遍缺乏能人與區位偏遠導致輔導機制難以生成的結構性問題；此外，社造政策以競爭方式鼓勵、要求社區迅速展現自主能力，更促成了少數能人強勢決策的必要，並阻礙了社區公共性轉化生成的機會。

崙埤個案提供了其他部落在社區規劃、組織分工、經費運用、自主想法上的示範，並可作為社政政策乃至其餘社區取逕的計畫案，在給予資源與設計制度規範時可適性調整的參考案例。同時，個案也提醒了我們在倡議「社區自主性」或進行「培力」時，更須時時思索檢視社區裡不同社群的異質性與社區營造的多元意涵。

“Community Empowerment” was proposed formally by the Council for Cultural Affairs in 1994. During the period from 1994 to the present, many ministries have gathered to display more and more projects, which impelled the communities to show their autonomy to diagnose and develop themselves through selection and competition. However, the criticism and skepticism of the resources integration, the policies and mechanism, and the manpower sustainability gradually emerged, especially in the indigenous areas where people have been confronted living pressures and much restriction for a long time. While the tribes were encouraged to utilize their surrounding natural resources and ethnic cultures to develop the ecology and culture industries by the way of “Community Empowerment”, their difficulties in implementation have seldom been seriously dealt with. Lunpi tribe in Datong township, Yilan, proposed integral community planning and applied for government funding by numerous projects during these five years. The achievement in development compared to the other tribes in Datong was excellent and the residents seemed full of motivation. The success of Lunpi was due to several factors including the professional knowledge and important information brought by the key persons, the harmony and collaboration in the group, and the autonomy and consciousness the group members possessed. However, the leading of the main group also brought the contradiction inside the tribe. For example, who has the power to make decisions and to interpret the local knowledge? The contradiction seemed to result from the elite’s control, but in my observation and interpretation, there might be some more reasons. First, because of the disadvantaged situation in the indigenous area, there are only few experts in the tribes. Second, the remote location makes the external assistance even harder to reach. Finally and most importantly, Community Empowerment policies require the communities to demonstrate their abilities in the short time through the competition, causing the necessity of the existence of few decision makers. Thus the development of publicness in the communities is hindered. The Lunpi case as a paragon, has offered other tribes the experiences of planning, organizing, and funds utilization in the community. In addition, the case study can also push the Community Empowerment policies planners or other community-based project makers to modify the mechanism while offering resources and designing the regulations. Furthermore, the case also reminds us to realize the varieties between different groups inside a community and the diverse meanings about Community Empowerment.