Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Fred Hsu/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0
INDIGENOUS PAIWAN RESIDENTS of Pingtung’s Fangshan Creek and Fenggang Creek have called upon the government to not renew the permits of watermelon farmers who grow their crops on riverbeds in winter.
In particular, the watermelon farmers are suspected of using chicken manure as fertilizer, resulting in stench and attracting flies. The flies affect traditional banquets held by the Paiwan communities there. As such, farmers have also been called on to remove equipment from the riverbed to restore the environment. Using chicken manure as fertilizer has been illegal since 2009, but this does not prevent such cases from occurring.
33 hectares of land are currently used for growing watermelon. This makes Fangshan Creek and Fenggang Creek among the few areas in Taiwan capable of growing watermelon in winter.
An additional 70 hectares of land is also being used for farming, having been created after a shift in the Fenggang Creek. While it is unclear what government body oversees this land, it is currently being leased to farmers.
The Pingtung government has been called on to not renew licenses for growing watermelons past 2027, as well as to terminate the licenses of farmers violating the law. As the riverbeds are traditional Indigenous territories, the current leasing out of the land to watermelon farmers has been criticized as violating the Indigenous Basic Law. Moreover, the land in Fangshan Creek and Fenggang Creek has been administered by local Indigenous communities for over 200 years, but reportedly, they were not consulted in its use. Permits were issued between 1988 and 2023; when the county government found that there were irregularities in the permit issuing process, they no longer continued to be issued.
Indeed, the case of watermelon farming in Fangshan Creek and Fenggang Creek is a clear example of when agriculture clashes with local Indigenous communities. At other times, Indigenous communities come into conflict with aquaculture or energy infrastructure built on their lands. The Pingtung County Government has sometimes demurred that who administers the land that is currently rented out to farmers is unclear.
Farmers who violate the law have been fined 25,000 NT. Yet local residents have criticized this amount as too low. Moreover, farmers have been called on to participate in the decision-making process of the community, rather than only being punished through fines.
It is to be seen as a solution for the plight of Fangshan Creek and Fenggang Creek residents, then. The case takes place at a time when the Constitutional Court, in fact, ruled in favor of Indigenous territories currently in private hands being traditional territories, paving the way for their eventual return. As such, the ruling may strengthen the ability of Indigenous communities to administer land that has traditionally belonged to them. Nevertheless, the case takes place at a time when the budget for the Council of Indigenous Peoples was drastically cut by the KMT-controlled legislature, perhaps reducing the ability of the body to intervene in such disputes.
It has often been the case that local governments drag their feet on issues pertaining to Indigenous communities. Similarly, it can also be the case that local governments end up prioritizing the interests of Han farmers over Indigenous communities. It is to be seen if other actions will be needed to resolve the case, such as greater clarity on who the land belongs to.