新竹縣芎林鄉華龍村前村長疑似因堅決反對砂石業者在該村開採砂石，不幸遭到黑道份子痛毆，目前身受重傷，在醫院內接受治療。消息經媒體報導，讓人不勝欷歔，一方面是憤怒於黑道與砂石業者的結合，讓地方反對開挖砂石的村民遭到了暴力對待，生命嚴重受到威脅；另一方面，則是更感慨於我國砂石開採公共決策機制的不公平設計，使得村民僅能採取抗爭的手段來表達他們沈痛的反對意見。
很遺憾的，時至二十一世紀，我國目前的機制設計卻仍然是建構於科技至上的實證知識論，專家的意見完全凌駕於地方經驗及村民的意見，後者是完全被排除。若以此開採案件的環境影響說明書為例，裡面充斥了科學相關的數據與模式，開發業者意欲透過科學客觀之形象來予以包裝，然而，這樣的作為其實早就受到許多嚴厲的批評，這是因為科學的運作也是建構於許多主觀的假說，其客觀性的主張是必須予以多方的討論與質疑，而不是盲目的接受。
再者，環境影響評估是由砂石開發業者出資延聘顧問公司予以製作，在開發業者意圖開挖砂石的目標之下，顧問公司有可能拒絕金主的要求？這是我國環評制度根本的結構缺陷，這也可以說明為何我國過往環評的案例大抵皆是以「有條件通過審查」來予以結案，政府原先欲藉由環評制度的運作來解決環保抗爭的設想也完全落空，這是因為民眾，甚且是環保署所聘請的環評委員，根本就不相信由顧問公司所製作出來的環評結果。
另一方面，新竹縣政府所據以核准開發業者進行土石採取的許可證，其法令之主要依據乃為民國八十八年修正施行的土石採取規則。然觀此規則第六條有關業者申請所需具備之條件，也皆不見地方住民意見之納入，而僅是著重於土地所有人或合法占有人是否同意而已。這對於具有嚴重鄰避效應的土石採取事業，其所應具備之所有權的社會化義務，在此規則內根本是不受到重視。
因此，不論是在環境影響評估或是土石採取規則的「合法」決策機制，華龍村村民之意見根本是沒有位置的，他們純然是弱勢的一方，僅能接受專家科技迷思及官僚體制所規劃出來的公共政策，而當他們不願意接受這個霸權機制的設計時，我們卻發現公共政策的制度不僅沒有幫他們保留出路，他們僅能以抗爭來表達他們的意見，但他們所得到的回應竟然是黑道的暴力相向。
華龍村近年來地方營造的力量相當成功，它於今年獲得了環保署社區營造之最高榮譽-環保模範社區優等獎，但是相當諷刺的是，主政者所積極推動的社區營造力量竟然無法在公共政策的決策機制內部尋得它們的位置，我們仍然是依循著以實證知識論為主導的決策及控制模式，這無疑是台灣社會的一大悲哀。
2007/12/25 發表於《中國時報》，A15，時論廣場
2007年12月18日 星期二
Think twice before selling the farm
Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007, Page 8
`Without adequate planning, the quality of the living environment not only did not improve, but worsened. In the end, Der Spiegel described Taiwan as a pigsty. Today, in the 21st century, are we going to repeat the mistake?'
ACCORDING TO RECENT media reports, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lin Su-shan (林樹山) and fellow legislators are seeking to ammend Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例), lowering the required amount of agricultural area for a piece of agricultural land containing architectural structures from 0.25 hectares to 0.1 hectares.
If this amendment should pass a third reading, it would be tantamount to the deregulation of all agricultural land, inevitably causing great damage to our country.
This piece of legislation is not only concerned with construction of agricultural structures -- or holiday cottages -- but with whether our country still needs to maintain an agricultural industry.
The possession of agricultural land by farmers and the use of agricultural land for farming have been the two core components of Taiwan's previous agricultural policy. Yet with the social transformation of Taiwan and falling agricultural output figures, policies related to these two areas face serious challenges and are being fundamentally reformed.
The policy restricting agricultural land ownership to farmers was abandoned when amendments were made to the Agricultural Development Act in 2000: The owners and purchasers of agricultural land no longer need to be farmers, and property rights of agricultural land can now be transferred freely. The policy of agricultural land being reserved for agricultural uses has been subjected to similar concessions following enormous pressure from the construction industry. If Article 18 is altered, it will most likely be time to declare the end of the policies altogether.
Therefore, the serious issue which we face is this: If agricultural land no longer is reserved for farming, then what will be left of the agricultural industry?
Is it possible that we no longer wish to have an agriculture industry? What is the value of agriculture? Due to industrialization, the survival of agriculture has become extremely difficult. But consider these examples: Advanced nations such as Germany, the Netherlands and Japan are all actively protecting and developing their agricultural industries and agrarian outlook.
Taiwan needs to work in this direction more. Self-sufficiency in food supply is a security consideration for the country, and the enormous environmental, ecological, cultural, leisure and scenic value of agriculture dictates that we stress the continuity of the agriculture industry and not dismiss it with a narrow evaluation from a purely economic standpoint.
Though the preservation of agricultural land for agricultural purposes limits its use for other purposes, the measure is based on considerations of public welfare and social obligation, and does not infringe upon or deprive property owners of their constitutional rights.
Besides, the total deregulation of agricultural land without extensive planning does not guarantee a high standard of living, even if beautiful cottages are built on these sites.
Looking back on Taiwan's previous experience in urban development provides an answer: Prior to the passing of the Regional Planning Act (區域計畫法) and Non-Urban Land Use and Control Rules (非都市土地使用管制規則) in 1974, the development of agricultural land was basically unregulated. Many buildings were constructed on both sides of roads, resulting in disordered, leapfrog development.
Buildings were erected densely, but there was a lack of the many public infrastructure facilities required for daily life. Furthermore, without adequate planning, the quality of the living environment not only did not improve, but worsened. In the end, Der Spiegel described Taiwan as a pigsty. Today, in the 21st century, are we going to repeat the mistake?
Due to changing times, a partial deregulation of farmland is inevitable. Yet this change needs to be brought about through adequate planning and deliberation rather than through rushed attempts to lift limitations to allow building on agricultural land.
Currently, if the amendment is passed, almost every piece of agricultural land will be open to construction. The possible consequences are difficult to imagine.
Previously, the government promised that sustainable development would be a fundamental principle in policy making.
We cannot help but ask: Is this kind of deregulation in accordance with Taiwan's sustainable development? Should Taiwan retain agriculture? Would our standard of living be raised by deregulation? Is the government able to provide the enormous expense for public infrastructure after deregulation?
All of these issues deserve deep consideration before the finalization of the amendment.
Hsu Shih-jon is a professor at the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Angela Hong";
Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007, Taipei Times, Page 8
`Without adequate planning, the quality of the living environment not only did not improve, but worsened. In the end, Der Spiegel described Taiwan as a pigsty. Today, in the 21st century, are we going to repeat the mistake?'
ACCORDING TO RECENT media reports, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lin Su-shan (林樹山) and fellow legislators are seeking to ammend Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例), lowering the required amount of agricultural area for a piece of agricultural land containing architectural structures from 0.25 hectares to 0.1 hectares.
If this amendment should pass a third reading, it would be tantamount to the deregulation of all agricultural land, inevitably causing great damage to our country.
This piece of legislation is not only concerned with construction of agricultural structures -- or holiday cottages -- but with whether our country still needs to maintain an agricultural industry.
The possession of agricultural land by farmers and the use of agricultural land for farming have been the two core components of Taiwan's previous agricultural policy. Yet with the social transformation of Taiwan and falling agricultural output figures, policies related to these two areas face serious challenges and are being fundamentally reformed.
The policy restricting agricultural land ownership to farmers was abandoned when amendments were made to the Agricultural Development Act in 2000: The owners and purchasers of agricultural land no longer need to be farmers, and property rights of agricultural land can now be transferred freely. The policy of agricultural land being reserved for agricultural uses has been subjected to similar concessions following enormous pressure from the construction industry. If Article 18 is altered, it will most likely be time to declare the end of the policies altogether.
Therefore, the serious issue which we face is this: If agricultural land no longer is reserved for farming, then what will be left of the agricultural industry?
Is it possible that we no longer wish to have an agriculture industry? What is the value of agriculture? Due to industrialization, the survival of agriculture has become extremely difficult. But consider these examples: Advanced nations such as Germany, the Netherlands and Japan are all actively protecting and developing their agricultural industries and agrarian outlook.
Taiwan needs to work in this direction more. Self-sufficiency in food supply is a security consideration for the country, and the enormous environmental, ecological, cultural, leisure and scenic value of agriculture dictates that we stress the continuity of the agriculture industry and not dismiss it with a narrow evaluation from a purely economic standpoint.
Though the preservation of agricultural land for agricultural purposes limits its use for other purposes, the measure is based on considerations of public welfare and social obligation, and does not infringe upon or deprive property owners of their constitutional rights.
Besides, the total deregulation of agricultural land without extensive planning does not guarantee a high standard of living, even if beautiful cottages are built on these sites.
Looking back on Taiwan's previous experience in urban development provides an answer: Prior to the passing of the Regional Planning Act (區域計畫法) and Non-Urban Land Use and Control Rules (非都市土地使用管制規則) in 1974, the development of agricultural land was basically unregulated. Many buildings were constructed on both sides of roads, resulting in disordered, leapfrog development.
Buildings were erected densely, but there was a lack of the many public infrastructure facilities required for daily life. Furthermore, without adequate planning, the quality of the living environment not only did not improve, but worsened. In the end, Der Spiegel described Taiwan as a pigsty. Today, in the 21st century, are we going to repeat the mistake?
Due to changing times, a partial deregulation of farmland is inevitable. Yet this change needs to be brought about through adequate planning and deliberation rather than through rushed attempts to lift limitations to allow building on agricultural land.
Currently, if the amendment is passed, almost every piece of agricultural land will be open to construction. The possible consequences are difficult to imagine.
Previously, the government promised that sustainable development would be a fundamental principle in policy making.
We cannot help but ask: Is this kind of deregulation in accordance with Taiwan's sustainable development? Should Taiwan retain agriculture? Would our standard of living be raised by deregulation? Is the government able to provide the enormous expense for public infrastructure after deregulation?
All of these issues deserve deep consideration before the finalization of the amendment.
Hsu Shih-jon is a professor at the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Angela Hong";
Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007, Taipei Times, Page 8
2007年12月15日 星期六
終結農地 農業還剩什麼？
據報載，林樹山等立法委員於日前成功修改了重要的農業發展條例第十八條條文，將農舍坐落之農地面積下修，由○‧二五公頃降低至 ○‧一公頃，此修正條文倘若不幸通過三讀，如同是農地的全面釋出，必將造成國家重大的傷害，因為此條文所牽連的議題並非僅是農舍（或別墅）之興建，而是關係著我國是否還需要保有農業。
眾所皆知，農地農有及農地農用為過往台灣農地政策的二大核心，惟隨著台灣社會的轉型及農業經濟產值的低落，此二大政策皆面臨嚴峻之挑戰，並作了根本的變革。農地農有政策已經於民國八十九年農業發展條例的全面修正而被突破，農地之承買人並不需要具有農民之資格，農地產權因此是可以自由的移轉；而農地農用政策也在農舍興建的龐大壓力之下，屢次的退卻，此番農發條例第十八條倘若再作下修，大概是可以宣告農地農用政策終結的時候了。
因此，我們所面對的嚴肅課題是，農地若不再堅持作農用，那台灣的農業還剩下什麼？
我們有可能不要農業嗎？農業的價值在哪裡？由於工商業化的結果，農業的生存是相當的艱難，但若是以先進國家的經驗為例（德國、荷蘭、及日本），他們無不積極在維護及創造他們的農業及農村的景象，而台灣更是需要做這方面的努力，為什麼？這是基於糧食部分自給的國家安全考量、農業龐大的環境及生態價值、及農業具有文化及休閒美觀的價值等因素，讓我們必須堅持繼續擁有農業，無法純然由狹隘的經濟產值面向來予以對待。
此外，管制農地繼續作農業使用，會限制農地無法作為他用，然這是基於公共利益及社會義務的考量，並無侵害或剝奪了憲法所保障之私人財產權。
再者，農地在未經整體良善規畫之前，就作全面的釋出，雖然在基地內興建了美輪美奐的別墅，但就能夠保證獲得優良的生活品質嗎？回顧台灣過去的城鄉發展經驗或許就可以得到答案，在民國六十三年「區域計畫法」及「非都市土地使用管制規則」制定之前，農地的開發基本上是不受到限制的，許多的房屋建造於道路的兩旁，形成了蛙躍式的無秩序發展。
當時，房屋建築硬體是密密麻麻的蓋了起來，但相對的，卻是非常欠缺生活機能所必須的許多公共設施，進而在土地沒有適當規畫的情況下，人們的居住環境品質並未隨著改善，甚至於是每下愈況，後來竟被德國《明鏡雜誌》形容為「豬舍」。如今，處於二十一世紀的台灣，我們還要重蹈覆轍嗎？
由於時代的演變，部分農地的釋出是必然的現象，但這是需要良善的規畫與妥適的審議，而不是企圖經由農舍的興建，變相的解除農地的管制。此刻，修法之議倘若通過，每一塊農地幾乎皆可興建農舍，其可能帶來的嚴重後果實在是讓人難以想像。
以往，主政者信誓旦旦以永續發展的追求來作為政策制定的主要依歸，我們不禁要問，這樣的開放是否符合台灣的永續發展？台灣是否要繼續擁有農業？人民生活品質得否因此釋出而提升？政府是否有能力提供後續相當龐大的公共設施建設的支出？這都是在作修法決定之前，相當值得深思的課題。
2007/12/14 發表於《中國時報》，A22，時論廣場。
眾所皆知，農地農有及農地農用為過往台灣農地政策的二大核心，惟隨著台灣社會的轉型及農業經濟產值的低落，此二大政策皆面臨嚴峻之挑戰，並作了根本的變革。農地農有政策已經於民國八十九年農業發展條例的全面修正而被突破，農地之承買人並不需要具有農民之資格，農地產權因此是可以自由的移轉；而農地農用政策也在農舍興建的龐大壓力之下，屢次的退卻，此番農發條例第十八條倘若再作下修，大概是可以宣告農地農用政策終結的時候了。
因此，我們所面對的嚴肅課題是，農地若不再堅持作農用，那台灣的農業還剩下什麼？
我們有可能不要農業嗎？農業的價值在哪裡？由於工商業化的結果，農業的生存是相當的艱難，但若是以先進國家的經驗為例（德國、荷蘭、及日本），他們無不積極在維護及創造他們的農業及農村的景象，而台灣更是需要做這方面的努力，為什麼？這是基於糧食部分自給的國家安全考量、農業龐大的環境及生態價值、及農業具有文化及休閒美觀的價值等因素，讓我們必須堅持繼續擁有農業，無法純然由狹隘的經濟產值面向來予以對待。
此外，管制農地繼續作農業使用，會限制農地無法作為他用，然這是基於公共利益及社會義務的考量，並無侵害或剝奪了憲法所保障之私人財產權。
再者，農地在未經整體良善規畫之前，就作全面的釋出，雖然在基地內興建了美輪美奐的別墅，但就能夠保證獲得優良的生活品質嗎？回顧台灣過去的城鄉發展經驗或許就可以得到答案，在民國六十三年「區域計畫法」及「非都市土地使用管制規則」制定之前，農地的開發基本上是不受到限制的，許多的房屋建造於道路的兩旁，形成了蛙躍式的無秩序發展。
當時，房屋建築硬體是密密麻麻的蓋了起來，但相對的，卻是非常欠缺生活機能所必須的許多公共設施，進而在土地沒有適當規畫的情況下，人們的居住環境品質並未隨著改善，甚至於是每下愈況，後來竟被德國《明鏡雜誌》形容為「豬舍」。如今，處於二十一世紀的台灣，我們還要重蹈覆轍嗎？
由於時代的演變，部分農地的釋出是必然的現象，但這是需要良善的規畫與妥適的審議，而不是企圖經由農舍的興建，變相的解除農地的管制。此刻，修法之議倘若通過，每一塊農地幾乎皆可興建農舍，其可能帶來的嚴重後果實在是讓人難以想像。
以往，主政者信誓旦旦以永續發展的追求來作為政策制定的主要依歸，我們不禁要問，這樣的開放是否符合台灣的永續發展？台灣是否要繼續擁有農業？人民生活品質得否因此釋出而提升？政府是否有能力提供後續相當龐大的公共設施建設的支出？這都是在作修法決定之前，相當值得深思的課題。
2007/12/14 發表於《中國時報》，A22，時論廣場。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)