The Cabinet on Dec. 7 approved a set of draft amendments to the Mining Act (礦業法). Among the proposed amendments, the one that has received the most attention says that when mining companies apply for access to mining land, they must follow the procedure laid down in the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) for consulting with locally affected Aboriginal peoples and obtaining their consent, thus safeguarding Aborigines’ rights and interests.
This is a rare instance, among existing laws concerning resource development activities, of applying the legally stipulated procedure for consultation with Aboriginal people. This is a highly significant step.
However, there are still many questions in urgent need of an answer with regard to incorporating procedures for consultation with Aboriginal people into the Mining Act.
This will have a major bearing on whether the ideas enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act can be put into practice, and it will also have an impact on mining companies’ cost estimates, and willingness to develop mines and quarries.
The Indigenous Peoples Basic Act stipulates that when government authorities or private parties plan to develop resources on Aboriginal land, in Aboriginal communities or on adjoining government-owned land within a certain area, they should consult with those Aboriginal people or communities and share the benefits with them.
It also says that the Council of Indigenous Peoples is to define how such consultation and consent procedures are to be carried out.
However, lands considered to be traditional Aboriginal territory are still being delineated and have not yet been fixed. Furthermore, one piece of land might be the overlapping territory of different Aboriginal people or communities.
The law also does not define within what distance of Aborigines and their communities “adjoining land” actually lies.
It is therefore difficult under the present system to be sure about the range covered by Aboriginal land and communities and whether consultations have to be carried out. Even if consultations are indeed held, it is not clear which affected communities need to be notified about them.
Second, consultative procedures have to be applied to affected communities in the locality of the matters for which consent is needed — affected communities being defined as community areas at the location of the matters for which consent is needed and within the range of their implementation, plus community areas indirectly affected by their extended impact.
The question then is: What is meant by extended impact, and how can one judge how far it extends? Neither of these things is specifically defined, nor are there standards for them. Furthermore, the extent of community areas might be hard to define because of cultural, historical and other factors.
Although it is stipulated that the consultation regulations are to be set by local government departments, and that if those departments encounter difficulties they can report to the central authorities and request their assistance, if disputes remain after a decision is made, mining companies are likely to face long and tedious remedial procedures, and even protest movements.
Furthermore, Aboriginal communities are still being established one after another, and this poses another question, namely how to determine the threshold for which related communities take part in the procedure, in which the consultation regulations require more than 50 percent approval.
“Affected communities,” as defined in the consultation regulations, seems to be a different concept from “adjoining government-owned land within a certain range,” as appears in the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act.
Moreover, a mechanism is provided for government departments to define affected communities, but there are no regulations or complementary arrangements about how to judge how far an adjacent area extends or who is supposed to define it.
The draft amendments to the Mining Act have drawn the attention of people from various sectors, and the Cabinet has responded to calls from all sides by proposing amendments that take their various demands into consideration. That is commendable.
Comprehensive complementary measures for the procedure for consultation with Aborigines are the key to whether the idea of safeguards for Aboriginal people can really be implemented after being incorporated into the Mining Act.
The authorities should finish drawing up complementary procedures as soon as possible, so that the good intentions of the proposed amendments can be put into practice.
Yu Cheng-yuan is a managing partner at Titan Attorneys-at-Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS