Through mismanagement, the Yilan County Government has allowed the construction of 7,600 excess farmhouses, which have not only taken up 1,900 hectares of farmland, but also impacted the natural beauty of the countryside.
The county government has announced plans to make enforcement of laws on farmland usage, rezoning and management more stringent and aims to be more vigilant in checking up on farmers and construction regulations.
For instance, farmers should either have farmers’ insurance or non-farmers’ insurance and must actually be engaged in farming, and have the correct credentials regarding the production and marketing of agricultural goods.
Although these checks have triggered protests by some farmers and real-estate agents, many have made positive comments about the government’s reforms.
The government’s final announcement entitled Yilan County Agricultural Dwelling Construction Application Qualifications and Architecture Inspection Process included certain innovations — such as stipulations that farmhouses cannot be constructed in the middle of fields, and must be built instead along roads or the edges of farmland.
However, there were also compromises which included: changing the original stipulation that farmhouse registration applicants only require agricultural insurance and no longer need to have had it for at least two years; the cancelation of the required testimony from surrounding neighbors and the 120-day farming limit; and no more penalties for applicants signing their own affidavit.
To prevent illegal construction, the law must be clearly amended by the central government and properly implemented at the local level, but the central government consistently claims the current legislation is not to blame.
However, the Regulations Governing Agricultural Dwelling Houses (農業用地興建農舍辦法) stipulate that “the person applying for construction of a farmhouse must be a farmer, the net area of the farmland shall not be smaller than 0.25 hectares and shall not exceed 10 percent of the total area of the allotted agricultural land.”
To farmers, this definition is too loose. Local management bodies and contractors often adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude and do not carry out checks. They have been unable to thoroughly implement measures against illegal farmhouses, which has resulted in many illegal structures in the county. The central government therefore has an obligation to farmers to more stringently define agricultural construction standards and address potential loopholes.
Based on the conditions of food security and environmental sustainability, exactly how much farmland does Taiwan need to preserve to satisfy future needs? The government has yet to put forward a comprehensive plan and continues to allow local governments to use “economic development” as the rationale for opening up fertile farmland for development.
Yet, once farmland is used for other purposes, it becomes increasingly difficult to recultivate the soil for farming crops.
To farmers who have prime land but lack the means to cultivate it, the government should grant generous subsidies to ensure their income levels are comparable to national averages and provide incentives for them to remain in the sector.
In addition, these measures would prevent farmers from losing faith in their ability to continue. Voters might wish to see this issue as an important test of the nation’s future leaders and legislators, but they should not believe politicians’ rhetoric.
Du Yu is chief executive officer of the Chen-Li Task Force for Agricultural Reform.
Translated by Zane Kheir
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath