In the wake of Tropical Storm Kong-Rey, politicians have engaged in a veritable war of words. Each time there is a flood, the aquaculture industry becomes the target of public criticism because they pump groundwater and cause the land to subside. Is this because fish farmers are stubborn or because government officials are incompetent?
In the 1960s and 1970s, the government encouraged aquacultural use of low-lying coastal land and land not suitable for agriculture to provide more employment opportunities. Although the conditions were less than ideal, business operators worked hard to turn the low-value land into fish ponds. As they started farming, selling and exporting fish and shrimp, they brought a lot of foreign currency into the country.
However, because the issue of fresh water supplies was not considered at the time, and because the industry developed faster than the government had expected, the resulting water shortages made operators dig wells to sustain their fish farming. This practice was not addressed promptly by the competent authorities and land subsidence was a direct result in some areas.
This is not disputed by the fish industry, but other industries also had been pumping groundwater for a long time — although this has been overlooked. Therefore, for many years fish farmers have had to bear full responsibility for a problem that was not entirely of their making.
Today, many coastal areas have dropped below sea level, making it difficult to remove water that has collected in them. The government must now consider costly flood prevention measures in these areas.
However, it is most important to ascertain the cause of land subsidence — which is not only the result of pumping by the fish farming industry — and devise an effective response. The government should consider changing how the aquaculture industry operates and uses land, and help the coastal population lower their reliance on fish farming.
It could use aerial photography to mark the distribution of major fish ponds and land subsidence, divide the areas into mild, moderate and severe according to the levels of subsidence, and then design separate solutions for the different areas.
In mildly affected areas, the government could subsidize equipment for water circulation, implement strict controls on the use and discharge of water, implement an environmental and ecological certification regime and guide ecological fish farming.
In moderately affected areas, it could set up special aquaculture parks to be able to handle discharged water in a uniform manner.
In severely affected areas, it could encourage farmers to exit the industry and set up a mechanism to help make that possible while also planning big water catchment areas and floodways as well as areas for hobby fishing.
By addressing the needs of areas with different levels of land subsidence in different ways, it might one day be possible to prevent flooding and the loss of land.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics.
Translated by Perry Svensson
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS