Agriculture has always been at the center of trade disputes. Since the government believes joining regional trade groups is inevitable and agriculture is a hard-to-avoid issue in trade talks, it should first brainstorm, use detailed evaluations to create suitable responses and coordinate and integrate related ministries.
What it should not do is make estimates using adjusted economic models when much of the industrial data is incomplete, then use these estimates to set aside compensatory funds to appear as if it is doing its job.
Numbers are cold facts, while the feelings of our farmers are the exact opposite.
Agriculture in Taiwan is restricted by limitations, like natural and artificial resources and the government’s “land to the tiller” policy. Taiwanese farms are predominantly smaller-sized and family-run with an average actual farming area of 1.1 hectares. The output is so restricted that it is hard for them to bring about cost advantages that come with economies of scale. Larger Taiwanese farms seem small compared with the large farms overseas that sometimes span several thousand hectares.
For many years, agriculture in Taiwan has mainly relied on new crop varieties that have resulted from the hard work of the nation’s farmers, testing and research bodies, production technology, management skills and high-quality agricultural products. This has allowed them to win the praise of local and foreign consumers and to compete with international agricultural products that cost much less to produce.
Unfortunately, when interviewed by the media, top agricultural officials talk about how they support the transfer of Taiwan’s agricultural technology overseas and act as if the transfer of Taiwan’s core agricultural varieties and technology for nothing in exchange is nothing to worry about. Officials seem to believe that when overseas companies use the nation’s technology, they will not sell these products back to Taiwan, and that our domestic market will not be impacted. Trade talks result in such products being sold back to the Taiwanese domestic market, which will hurt local agriculture.
Officials avoid talking about how Taiwanese agricultural products need foreign markets to help readjust price and quantity and that foreign agricultural products possess various advantages over Taiwanese products, such as low production costs and a steady supply over long periods.
The heads of agricultural bodies have made ridiculous comments, such as that agriculture knows no borders and that since the US and Japan transferred technology to the nation in the past, Taiwan should transfer technology to other countries, as it now has the ability to do.
This also indirectly answers the question as to why the government has gained so little ground protecting the nation’s sensitive agricultural technology and product varieties. Little wonder that farmers suspect the government of trying to get rid of them and agriculture.
As investment in agriculture has become more popular globally, advanced countries and large multinational corporations have begun focusing on technology research and development, while stressing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights. What they are primarily concerned with are huge profits.
Would the Japanese government export special varieties of fruit like Aomori apples, its unique variety of mango known as “eggs of the sun” and Japanese cantaloupe then hand over the technology used in their production to other countries? Of course not. This would create competition for their farmers.
As soon as a foreign business finds an appropriate location, it can use cheaper natural resources from the local area, leverage the large consumer markets and then use Taiwan’s agricultural technology to produce a large volume of so-called “Taiwanese” agricultural products.
The products they produce will not only have more market competitiveness than Taiwanese agricultural products, they will also stifle the nation’s chances of exporting its own products.
If this were to happen, why would foreign companies make a huge effort to come to Taiwan to invest in and produce agriculture here?
If consumers overseas are able to easily enjoy Taiwan’s wide variety of agricultural products in their own countries, then how is the nation to attract them travel to Taiwan and try the its unique agricultural delicacies?
Keeping the best of Taiwan’s agricultural products in the country and using the tourism industry to attract large numbers of people will be one of the main ways Taiwanese agriculture will develop in the future.
Rice farmer Peng Ching-hsing (彭鏡興), founder of the renowned rice brand Tianheyu (天禾玉), also shares this opinion.
There are a few success stories with the internationalization of Taiwan’s agriculture, although citing these as proof that the current agricultural structure can stand the impact of trade liberalization is overly optimistic and not pragmatic enough.
The nation should improve the agricultural industry by taking inventory of Taiwan’s advantages, which include agricultural varieties and technological know-how, then bring the best of local agriculture to international trade talks backed by the government in order to carve out a bigger share of overseas markets.
This is the only way that agriculture can become a major industry in Taiwan.
Du Yu is a member of the Chen-Li task force for Agricultural Reform.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US