By Hsu Shih-jung Lai Tsung-yu Yen Ai-ching 徐世榮 賴宗裕 顏愛靜
Taipei Times, Friday, Jan 23, 2009, Page 8
Why is Taiwan’s countryside in such a sorry state, and what can be done about it? A bill for rural regeneration that recently passed its initial review seeks to remedy the situation mainly through “vitalizing” the land, which actually means taking what was originally arable land and reallocating it for construction. Can such a policy solve the problem, or would it make the problem even worse?
We believe the main reason why the rural economy is so depressed is that agricultural values have been overlooked for too long and have not been reflected in the incomes farmers receive.
These multiple values are production, life and ecology. Although these three values have become the mainstay of Taiwan’s agricultural and rural land policy, they have not been reflected in farmers’ incomes.
Agriculture and farmland are of great value for the environment. The land holds and conserves important reserves of groundwater, while crops absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. But what have farmers been paid for this service? Nothing.
Another example: Agriculture and farmland have become an important cultural and tourism resource. City dwellers often go to the countryside on weekends to enjoy rural scenery.
Do farmers earn anything from this? Only a few proprietors of leisure farms make money from it, while most farmers gain nothing.
What about the productive value of farming and farmland? Does it get the recognition it deserves? The answer is disappointing.
As Uncle Kunbin (昆濱伯) says in the documentary Let it be (無米樂), “a pound of rice sells for less than a bottle of mineral water.” What a mockery. This situation has arisen because the government has for years had a policy of keeping grain prices low.
All in all, the ecological and productive values of agriculture and farmland have not been realized through market mechanisms. While successive governments have sought to stabilize consumer prices by holding down the price of grain, input costs have risen.
Caught in a trap, farmers have seen their incomes drop to a pitiful level.
The experience of other countries has been different. Even under WTO rules, EU member states and many other advanced countries do everything in their power to support farmers, largely through direct subsidies, because they recognize the ecological and cultural value of agriculture and farmland.
For example, in Switzerland in 2006, direct payments to farmers accounted for 67 percent of total spending on agriculture — an amount roughly equivalent to NT$75 billion (US$2.25 billion).
The Swiss government gave on average NT$1.2 million in financial support to each farmer in lowland areas and NT$1.4 million to those in the mountains in 2006. Government support for farmers in Taiwan pales by comparison.
In fact, the land has always been full of life — it is farmers’ incomes that are moribund. Many farmers have become so poor that all they have left is their land. If we want to help them, is “vitalizing” their land by building on it really the best way to go about it?
What will farmers be left with if they sell their land? Surely it would be better to have them keep their land and gradually raise their incomes.
Hsu Shih-jung, Lai Tsung-yu and Yen Ai-ching are professors in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
2009/1/23發表於Taipei Times
2009年1月23日 星期五
2009年1月11日 星期日
活化農民所得，農村才能再生！
活化農民所得，農村才能再生！
徐世榮、賴宗裕、顏愛靜
台灣農村為何是那麼的凋敝？這個問題該如何來解決？農村再生條例主要欲借助於「土地活化」，也就是企圖將「農業用地變更為建築用地」，但這有可能解決這個問題嗎？有否可能反而讓問題更加的惡化？
我們認為台灣農村凋敝的根本原因，乃是在於農業及農地的多元價值長久以來都被嚴重忽視了，致使這些價值並沒有如實反映在農民的所得當中。農業及農地的多元價值包含了什麼？這就是老生常談的「生產、生活及生態」三生價值，而它也已經成為我國農業及農地政策的主軸，但是，遺憾的是，這個三生價值並沒有充分體現於農民的所得裡。
例如，農業及農地提供了重要的環境生態價值，它涵養了重要的地下水，農作物吸收二氧化碳，也相對釋放出許多的氧氣，但是農民有因此增加所得嗎？沒有。又例如，農業及農地已經是重要的文化景觀，許多都市居民喜愛於週末假期到農村享受田園風光，但是農民有因此增加所得嗎？除了少數休閒農場經營者外，大多數農民都是沒有的。
至於生產價值有否受到重視？答案也是讓人失望的。《無米樂》昆濱伯故鄉所種出來的頂級稻米，「一斤米的價格竟然比不上一瓶礦泉水」！這是何等強烈的諷刺，而這是政府長期以來低糧價政策所造成的結果。總之，農業及農地的生態及生活價值無法經由市場機制來體現，而政府為了穩定物價，又是刻意壓低糧價，兩相夾擊下，農民的所得因此陷入於萬劫不復的境界。
但是，國外的經驗卻非如此。縱然是在WTO體制內，歐盟許多先進國家都費盡心血，直接對個別農地進行補貼，因為農業及農地有生態及生活文化的重要價值。舉瑞士為例，在二○○六年，瑞士的農業直接給付占農業支出的百分之六十七，約為新台幣七五○億元，如此龐大的財政資助，使得二○○六年瑞士河谷地區的每一農戶獲得的直接支付約為一二○萬台幣，在高山地區平均每一農戶獲得的直接支付約為一四○萬台幣。反觀台灣，我們又直接支付了多少？
其實，土地一直都是活的，所沒有活化的，是農民的所得！如今，許多農民已經窮的僅剩下土地了，將他們的土地「活化」成建築用地，會是對他們最有助益嗎？若他們把土地賣了，還會剩下什麼？讓他們保有土地，並細水長流的活化他們的所得，這是否才是正途呢？
（作者皆為政治大學地政學系教授）
2009/01/11 發表於自由時報
徐世榮、賴宗裕、顏愛靜
台灣農村為何是那麼的凋敝？這個問題該如何來解決？農村再生條例主要欲借助於「土地活化」，也就是企圖將「農業用地變更為建築用地」，但這有可能解決這個問題嗎？有否可能反而讓問題更加的惡化？
我們認為台灣農村凋敝的根本原因，乃是在於農業及農地的多元價值長久以來都被嚴重忽視了，致使這些價值並沒有如實反映在農民的所得當中。農業及農地的多元價值包含了什麼？這就是老生常談的「生產、生活及生態」三生價值，而它也已經成為我國農業及農地政策的主軸，但是，遺憾的是，這個三生價值並沒有充分體現於農民的所得裡。
例如，農業及農地提供了重要的環境生態價值，它涵養了重要的地下水，農作物吸收二氧化碳，也相對釋放出許多的氧氣，但是農民有因此增加所得嗎？沒有。又例如，農業及農地已經是重要的文化景觀，許多都市居民喜愛於週末假期到農村享受田園風光，但是農民有因此增加所得嗎？除了少數休閒農場經營者外，大多數農民都是沒有的。
至於生產價值有否受到重視？答案也是讓人失望的。《無米樂》昆濱伯故鄉所種出來的頂級稻米，「一斤米的價格竟然比不上一瓶礦泉水」！這是何等強烈的諷刺，而這是政府長期以來低糧價政策所造成的結果。總之，農業及農地的生態及生活價值無法經由市場機制來體現，而政府為了穩定物價，又是刻意壓低糧價，兩相夾擊下，農民的所得因此陷入於萬劫不復的境界。
但是，國外的經驗卻非如此。縱然是在WTO體制內，歐盟許多先進國家都費盡心血，直接對個別農地進行補貼，因為農業及農地有生態及生活文化的重要價值。舉瑞士為例，在二○○六年，瑞士的農業直接給付占農業支出的百分之六十七，約為新台幣七五○億元，如此龐大的財政資助，使得二○○六年瑞士河谷地區的每一農戶獲得的直接支付約為一二○萬台幣，在高山地區平均每一農戶獲得的直接支付約為一四○萬台幣。反觀台灣，我們又直接支付了多少？
其實，土地一直都是活的，所沒有活化的，是農民的所得！如今，許多農民已經窮的僅剩下土地了，將他們的土地「活化」成建築用地，會是對他們最有助益嗎？若他們把土地賣了，還會剩下什麼？讓他們保有土地，並細水長流的活化他們的所得，這是否才是正途呢？
（作者皆為政治大學地政學系教授）
2009/01/11 發表於自由時報
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)