永續森林治理的潛在正義衝擊-以原住民議題為例

Abstract

氣候緊急時代，森林碳匯潛在的碳權做為低碳轉型的解方，被全球各國與各企業覬覦著。然而森林碳匯計畫潛在的對原住民族群的社會衝擊，將加劇全球氣候不正義。本文分析過往森林碳匯專案對原住民族造成的權益損害，並從環境正義理論、原住民研究萃取出分析框架，探討前述專案對原住民族造成衝擊的維度與原因。本文發現過去文獻對「環境治理對原住民造成衝擊」的探討著重於分配正義與程序正義。探討方向著重於生計剝奪、共同管理、知情同意等。然而前述文獻卻少討論肯認正義，甚至本體論維度的正義。本文支持「原住民環境正義應當加強肯認維度」論點，並且將肯認正義納入森林碳匯計畫的衝擊評估分析中。

本文認為在肯認正義維度下，森林碳匯計畫對原住民知識正義、傳統領域與本體論正義有諸多潛在風險。首先，原住民知識經常被視為只是一種需要被儲存的文化、不被肯認其知識地位、被視為需要被現代科學解釋、消化與修正的在內容與形式上錯誤的知識。並且，在碳匯國際標準下，基於原住民知識所行的農業實踐可能被視為不永續的，因而被禁止。再來，不同文化也擁有不同的世界觀、倫理觀、正義觀，因此不應該單方面由現代社會所認可的倫理觀去進行公平分配或設計程序，應當尊重不同文化所需要的分配與程序。最後，在傳統領域方面存在本體論問題，即當兩個民族的傳統領域重疊時，在向政府申請劃定，以及後續設計利益分配與共同管理時就有潛在爭議。

當彙整不正義發生的原因，除了由氣候轉型的推動力與財務吸引力造成之外，法規環境下所造成的鼓勵，以及部分法規本身的限制，都可能促使爭議造成。一如國家開始制定標準化的碳匯認證標準，可能促使國內外企業更樂於執行碳匯計畫。此外，國內法規所採用國際碳匯標準，若以碳作為單一衡量標準，可能因為忽略其他土壤環境聘擲進而否定原住民文化所慣行的農法。再如法規認定傳統領域的程序，可能無助於保障集體土地權，以及無助於保障傳統領域不受開發。對於傳統領域的定義，可能因為忽視族群遷移的多元動態歷史，而產生肯認與分配上的不正義。

在森林碳匯與永續轉型下保障原住民權益，不只是分配與程序上的保障，也不會只需要在文字與口頭上肯認其權益與需求。而是在考量到原住民族歷史背景、文化與道德需求，以及意識到現有法規在程序上與本體論上的限制後，以更高的彈性去協商需求。更重要的是，避免將主流社會思想與倫理學強加，加以否定原住民族的主體性、信念、正義觀與需求。

In the era of climate emergency, the potential carbon credits from forest carbon sinks, as a solution to low-carbon transition, are coveted by countries and companies around the world. However, the potential social impact of forest carbon project on indigenous peoples will exacerbate global climate injustice. In this research, the rights and interests damages caused by forest carbon projects to indigenous peoples were analyzed, and an analytical framework from environmental justice theory and research on indigenous peoples to explore the dimensions and reasons for the impact of the aforementioned projects on indigenous peoples was developed. In this research, we found that the literature on the " impact of environmental governance on indigenous peoples" focused on distributive justice and procedural justice. The discussion focused on livelihood deprivation, co-management, and informed consent. However, the aforementioned literature rarely discusses cognitive justice, or even justice in the ontological dimension. This research supports the argument that "indigenous environmental justice should strengthen the dimension of recognition", and incorporates recognition justice into the impact assessment analysis of forest carbon projects.

In the research we argued that under the dimension of cognitive justice, the forest carbon project has many potential risks to indeginous knowledge justice, traditional territory and ontological justice.

First, indigenous knowledge is often seen as just a "culture to be stored", as erroneous knowledge (wrong in content or / and form) that needs to be interpreted, digested and corrected by modern science. Also, agricultural practices based on indigenous knowledge may be deemed unsustainable under international standards for carbon sink and thus banned. Furthermore, different cultures also have different worldviews, ethics, and justice. Therefore, we should not unilaterally apply the ethics recognized by modern society to carry out fair distribution or design procedures, and we should respect the distribution and procedures required by different cultures. Finally, there are ontological problems in traditional territory issue, that is, when the traditional territory of two ethnic groups overlap, there will be potential disputes when applying to the government for demarcation and subsequent design of benefit distribution and joint management.

When we sort out the causes of injustice, in addition to the driving force and financial attractiveness of climate transition, the encouragement caused by the regulatory environment and the restrictions of some regulations themselves may cause disputes. As the country begins to formulate standardized carbon sink certification standards, it may encourage domestic and foreign companies to be more willing to implement carbon sink projects. In addition, international carbon standards adopted by domestic regulations may negate the farming methods practiced by indigenous cultures. Another example is the procedures for identifying traditional territory in laws and regulations, which may not help to protect collective land rights and protect traditional territory from development. The definition of traditional domains may result in injustice in recognition and distribution due to ignorance of the multivariate and dynamic history of ethnic migration.

Protecting the rights and interests of indigenous peoples under forest carbon projectand sustainable transformation is not only about distributive and procedural guarantees, nor does it only require written and verbal affirmation of their rights and needs.Instead, after taking into account the historical background, cultural and moral needs of indigenous peoples, and realizing the procedural and ontological limitations of existing regulations, negotiate needs with greater flexibility. More importantly, avoid imposing mainstream social thought and ethics to deny the subjectivity, beliefs, justice concepts and needs of indigenous peoples.