In response to public concerns that Logging Ban Compensation for Lands Reserved for Indigenous Peoples may affect eligibility for low- and middle-low-income households, the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) stated that such compensation is provided by the government in consideration of the restrictions on land use imposed by conservation policies and related laws. Its nature is compensatory, rather than a form of social assistance or regular income, and thus differs from income or assets that are freely disposable and stable in nature. The CIP emphasized that indigenous peoples should not lose eligibility for low-income or middle-low-income household status due to being recipients of such compensation. The CIP will continue to engage with relevant competent authorities to ensure that logging ban compensation is excluded from asset calculations under the social assistance system.

The CIP further noted that eligibility criteria for low-income and middle-low-income households is governed by the Public Assistance Act. According to an official interpretation issued by the Ministry of Health and Welfare on April 8, 2025, Logging Ban Compensation for Lands Reserved for Indigenous Peoples is currently classified as movable property under household assets. Based on the central government’s announced standards for 2026, the annual movable property threshold for low-income households is NT$96,000 per person. To address this issue, the CIP convened an inter-agency consultation on December 17, 2025, and submitted lists of compensation recipients for 2024 and 2025 to the Ministry of Health and Welfare on February 5, 2026, for cross-referencing to assess the actual number of affected households and inform subsequent policy review and adjustments.

Regarding the Minister’s remarks at the Legislative Yuan in response to inquiries into whether compensation should be counted as household income, the CIP clarified that the original intent was to protect indigenous rights prior to the completion of legal and institutional revisions. The suggestion was made as a temporary, good-faith measure to mitigate potential adverse impacts during a period of regulatory uncertainty; it was not intended to encourage circumvention of oversight mechanisms. The CIP reiterated that its consistent position is to address the issue through systematic policy reform, by clarifying the compensatory nature of logging ban payments and developing a more comprehensive framework for policy alignment—ensuring both fairness in the social assistance system and the protection of indigenous rights and interests.