*5.2. Who Dominates Resilience Discourses and Determines the Problem-Framing and Problem-Solving Agenda; Who Determines the Knowledge System Used to Define and Solve Problems*

After the afforestation in the early 2000s, the Forestry Bureau took control of the management of the DFA forest. For forest policy, the central government considers environmental conservation the first priority, supplemented by policy objectives of nonconsumptive uses such as ecotourism. This is also an era in which attention to climate change hasbeen initiated, as well as to carbon sequestration and resilience. In this context, the DFA forest is regarded as a tool for Taiwan to pursue international greenhouse gas regulation goals and enhance ecological resilience. Therefore, the central government has dominated the entire policy discourse pertaining to DFA land use. In addition, along with government policies, mainstream Taiwanese society also has a strong voice, hoping to reserve the DFA forest for conservation purposes. Conservationists, civil society organizations, most scholars, and active actors in Han communities involved in DFA governance support the government's conservation-oriented policy. In this discourse, national-scale ecological resilience and its potential benefits to Taiwanese society as a whole are arguably the central consideration.

Certainly, with the pressure brought by the indigenous movement and the policy revision of the Forestry Bureau itself, official and civil society mainstream discourses have also begun to adjust. Typical discourse emphasizes the need to take into account the public interests of the country (such as ecological resilience) as well as local concerns like livelihoods. Including local perspectives, this change has both sincere and hypocritical elements. It is happy to highlight the benefits that ecological resilience will bring to the locality, but at the same time it usually avoids discussing costs to local communities in the pursuit of this goal—especially the price paid by indigenous people. In such a power and discourse structure, DFA governance has mainly relied on (especially in the past) scientific and expert knowledge systems. Local knowledge, and especially indigenous knowledge systems, has long been excluded and ignored. This situation was notpartially corrected until the emergence of the new governance platform.
