Since 2000, when the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例) was amended, any natural person has been able to buy or sell farmland and build structures on it. Since then, the situation with agricultural land has descended into chaos of an unprecedented level.
The nation has rapidly lost land formerly used for agriculture: From 2000 to 2013, a total of 51,644 hectares of land, of which 88 percent were paddy fields, have no longer been used to plant crops.
These crops were replaced with developments, with 1,633 new buildings constructed on the land from 2007 to 2013. These buildings were constructed on 4,085 hectares of land, with the highest number of new buildings erected in Yilan County, where 7,551 houses have gone up from 2000 to March this year.
The vast majority of people erecting these buildings are referred to as “fake farmers”; only 38.8 percent of the people building on the land from 2008 to 2013 were actual farmers.
There have also been serious violations of the regulations governing construction on farmland, with as many as 76 percent of those buildings failing to adhere to regulations. There is also land being held back for speculative purposes, and when it is sold it will not be used for farming.
To address this mess, the Control Yuan interceded on two occasions in 2010, resulting in the Ministry of the Interior and the Council of Agriculture making amendments to the Regulations Governing Agricultural Dwelling Houses (農業用地興建農舍辦法) that were implemented on July 1, 2013.
However, this did nothing to improve the situation — it only got worse. Indeed, if the situation is not corrected soon, the nation’s food self-sufficiency ratio and ecosystem services will be put at risk.
Finding themselves under fire, the ministry and council announced that they would make further amendments to the legislation.
The principal change is that for an individual to be considered a “true” farmer, they must have farmer status and farm insurance, as well as health insurance. This status would be subject to rigorous checks, and ownership of farm dwellings can only be transferred to individuals engaged in actual farming.
Taiwan has a large population densely packed into cities, towns, urban areas, rural districts and local communities.
The idea that farmers need to build dwellings on their farmland is a non-issue, and the deregulation of the construction of residences on farmland in 2000 was the result of political arm-twisting by a faction in the legislature representing the interests of landowners, pure and simple.
If the nation is to address the chaos regarding the construction of residential buildings on farmland, it will have to do away with past ways of thinking and historical baggage, and consider — from the perspective of maintaining food production, food production potential and ecosystem services — whether there is a need to construct residential buildings on land for agricultural use.
The legislature needs to remove Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act, abolish the Regulations Governing Agricultural Dwelling Houses and completely prohibit the building of dwellings on agricultural land.
The nation also needs to have an integrated plan for urban and rural development and a rural and regional regeneration plan to create a new approach to farming, promote diverse development in rural areas and bring new life to rural economies to meet the needs of farmers and those who aspire to live the agricultural life.
Yang Chung-hsin is a retired Academia Sinica researcher.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95