Pluralism and Environmental Law

          International environmental law seems to be promoting homogeneity rather than cultural uniqueness. This is evident in the research done by Portnoy and Awi on a Rukai community called Taromak in Dongxing Village (2012: 37). The Rukai social structure is extremely connected to their surrounding environment, which forms the customary environmental laws of the group (Portnoy and Awi 2012: 38). These customary environmental laws have a complex and tense relationship with international and national environmental laws, and this is what is explored by Portnoy and Awi.  
          
          The law of the Rukai is called Dualixia and its values are closely connected to the surrounding environment. This include examples like chiefs and nobles “primordial connection to the environment,” the importance of agricultural practices and hunting in the formation and maintenance of social relationships and tribute being paid for land use (Portnoy and Awi 2012: 37). So, the Rukai have a relationship with their environment that is embedded with social and spiritual meaning (Portnoy and Awi 2012: 40). This means that when national laws and projects affect the environment in which the Rukai live, it changes more than just their surroundings. National laws, private property programs and intensive agriculture projects have had tension with the Rukaiʼs customary environmental laws and traditions. Although the traditional local Rukai culture has been impacted greatly by outside forces, like urbanization and globalization, traditional environmental customs like those discussed earlier still exist or at least in part (Portnoy and Awi 2012: 44). So, the challenges the Rukai and their customs face due to government decisions and national law do not only impact their surroundings, but their social structure and spiritual beliefs as well. 

          What seems problematic in the case of the Rukai, as Portnoy and Awi address, is that their customary environmental law is barely taken into consideration in the creation of national environmental law. To Portnoy and Awi, this is viewed as an absence of pluralism which is extremely problematic and the emphasis of their research. Portnoy and Awi view pluralism as extremely important to be able to promote local indigenous culture and ecological sustainability (2012: 45). Portnoy and Awi note that the laws of the Taiwanese government have slightly adjusted toward accepting more pluralistic values of the environment; however, it is also noted that the government still monopolizes natural resource management governance and supervision (2012: 44). Of course it would be difficult to take all cultural groupsʼ practices and customs regarding the environment in a society when drafting national environmental laws, but it seems almost discriminatory not to hold these values at a higher regard and take them into consideration more seriously. It seems as though the Taiwanese government in this case is making the views of other governments, mainly Western governments, more important than those of its own citizens. This is seen specifically in regard to the Forest Law, Wildlife Conservation Act, and Indigenous Peoples Basic Law of Taiwan, which portrayed similar ideas to international protectionism and utilitarianism, which are both based on a nature-society dichotomy (Portnoy and Awi, 2012: 44). I presume this to be a global issue of indigenous peoples and their respective countries, not a unique case for the Rukai. However this case emphasizes the importance of taking indigenous traditions and customary law into account when drafting national laws, especially in an increasingly globalized and homogeneous world.

Portnoy, Caleb and Awi Mona. 2012. “Laws of the Jungle: Conflicts Between International-National Environmental Law and Taromak Rukai-Environment Relations.” Taiwan Journal of Anthropology 10 (1): 21-50.