Taiwan has experienced dry weather since late last year, meaning that water levels in reservoirs have fallen.
As a result, the Council of Agriculture (COA) has announced that over 40,000 hectares of farmland should be left fallow, and not irrigated, in order to cope with demand for household and industrial water use. The percentage of water usage can be broken down as 20 percent, 70 percent and 10 percent for household, agricultural and industrial use respectively.
Article 19 of the Water Act (水利法) stipulates that, during shortages, the government can place restrictions on industrial and agricultural water usage, while Article 18 specifies household use as the priority, followed by agricultural use then industrial use. Yet whenever there is a drought, it is the agricultural sector that is targeted for cutbacks, violating the water usage priorities set out by the government.
Furthermore, calling for agricultural land to lay fallow has not just happened in periods of drought. In 2002, Taiwan formally became the WTO’s 144th member. To balance domestic supply and demand of rice, agricultural land was made to lay fallow to allow for the import of rice. At one point, the figure was as high as 160,000 hectares — accounting for about 40 percent of the nation’s rice paddies and 20 percent of total agricultural land.
When the COA pushed for land to lay fallow to make way for trade liberalization, it did not clearly define the rice production sector, nor specify its goals. It just announced that rice was the nation’s primary food product, encapsulating a range of issues including food security, economic development in farming communities, social stability, environmental conservation and cultural transmission, and that for this reason it was of paramount importance to maintain an appropriate amount of rice-producing land to ensure food security and maintain sustainable development of the industry.
If one adds the 40,000 hectares of agricultural land that is to lay fallow to other land previously left fallow, the total amount of farmland currently uncultivated is equal to about 50 percent of the available paddy fields, or 25 percent of the total area of the nation’s agricultural land.
Assuming there are no advances in rice production technology, it is difficult to see what advantage the COA envisages in the creeping expansion of the area of agricultural land being made to lay fallow.
Has it learned anything from the experience of laying land fallow in the interests of trade liberalization? Has it found a solution to the wider environmental impact of pests and rodents “encouraged” by laying land fallow? Does it know whether land adjacent to the land being left uncultivated needs to be sprayed with a greater amount of chemicals, pesticides or herbicides as a result?
Has it identified any change in the attitude of those farmers required to stop working their land? Has this had a detrimental effect on the policies of attracting young people to work in the agricultural sector, or of increasing the scale of individual farm operations?
Surely farmers are not sitting around waiting for a COA announcement that farmland should lay fallow, or that all production should be commissioned to other nations in response to changes in the climate, or to comply with the regulations from the latest agricultural agreements, or in response to the many short, mid and long-term factors that the COA does not have any control over.
Wu Pei-ing is a professor in National Taiwan University’s agricultural economics department.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS