Taiwan has a massive amount of fallow land. Managed properly, they could put a lot of livestock on it and it would actually improve the fertility of the land. Maybe they’d never be self-sufficient for meat, but they could certainly increase the amount they produce here fairly easily. Subsidies and a lack of immagination make for inefficient and/or destructive farming practices.
Incidentally, regarding rich people buying up farmland, last year, there were two girls at my school whose families have done this. Their fathers are brothers. One was an engineer in Taipei and one in Xinzhu. One quit and moved out here to open a fruit farm. A couple of years later, his brother did the same. My wife has been to one of the farms and talked with them. They make enough money to cover their living costs. I’ve also been to some other kinds of places like that around here, including a tea shop (MM will know the one – it has the statues of the dinosaurs outside) that is run by a couple who moved out here thirty two years ago to become tea farmers from scratch and have since been able to afford to educate their children abroad. If I could ever have a little farm that provided enough income and/or food to cover the bills, I’d quit teaching for sure. Looking around at places now.
The state chooses to subsidise some sectors over others. Obviously Taipower, Taiwan Sugar, Taiwan Salt, Formosa Plastics/Oil, China Air and Evergreen, they are supported by state subsidies. As are many exporters who are given specially zoned land cheap, export rebates, free trade zones, imported low cost workers, low regulations, cheap water and electricity etc etc.
No one is saying that agriculture should not be competitive, at the same time WTO destroyed some farmers liveliehoods, so that should be compensated appropriately. Anyway in the end most farmers are old and not very wealthy, it’s no harm to give them a better pension when they get old and sick. They of course are citizens and not economic units!
GIT , the betelnut farmer of Taidong County, has a nice ring to it. It’s not easy to make money from farming folks. Some years you can win big, other years you can win nothing.
Actually, I wouldn’t try to do much more than provide enough for my own use and maybe some to sell or trade to others. I’d still have other investments.
I think you are talking out of your ass here with all due respect. If anything, being a member of the WTO helps to even the playing field. For example, the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures , which Chinese Taipei is a party to, disciplines the use of subsidies, and it regulates the actions countries can take to counter the effects of subsidies. Under the agreement, a country can use the WTO’s dispute-settlement procedure to seek the withdrawal of the subsidy or the removal of its adverse effects. Read Articles 4.1 to 4.12 of this Agreement!!! wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf
How exactly has is destroyed the livelihood of Taiwan farmers? With the lowering of tariffs in other countries, it has allowed Taiwan products to enter more markets. Hasn’t this helped some farmers? The ones it hurts were probably uncompetitive anyways. Why should Taiwan prop up losing enterprises by protecting their sectors with high tariffs. Isn’t this picking winners and losers—something that government does really badly? Why should farmers get better pensions than other people? Shouldn’t the responsibility lie on the individual? :loco:
Just for your reference, governnment is discussing changes to the Agricultural Development Act and the Regulations Governing Agricultural Dwelling Houses.
From my understanding in discussions with land agent and architecture company (who designs rural houses), the new rules planned for implementation will place many more restrictions on farm land housing. I am interested because I bought farm land just for that purpose (and now appears will be unable to do so).
I agree with previous comments about enforcing rules about actually using your farmland. Rule now is the base of your house can not be larger than 1/10 of land area. I think that is fair to prevent “mansions” which are obviously not for farmers and more prone to be for B&Bs. Another rule prevents speculation…cannot resale home within 5 years after construction finished.
If rule changes to include restrictons that I have been told (and is enforced), then the building of homes on farm land will be almost eliminated.
If true, that would be a great pity, and it completely misses the point. Personally, I think it’s right and proper that farmers should be able to build nice houses, conveniently located on their farmland. It is probably the last remaining incentive for becoming (or remaining) a farmer. If farmers are forced to live in hovels, or live miles from their land in expensive high-rises, the countryside will empty faster than a barrel of rats in a flooding sewer. Everyone loses.
If the law about maximum footprint were enforced, and also the law about farming the remaining land - problem solved. There’s no need to actually change anything. I suppose the only upside is that any new law will be comprehensively ignored, just like 90% of the rest of Taiwan’s legal code.
Yet again, politicians fiddling with stuff they don’t understand.
Most of the farm land around my land is unused…including land left fallow to collect money from government.
Most of those planning retirement to just sit around in their house (no farming) do not buy larger plots of farmland. Like me, I would not buy 1600 pings and fight off the weeds every day without growing anything useful. Those serious about farming buy the larger farm plots. By the way, current regulation states minimum size of farm land that can include a house is 756 pings. In other words, if you buy 755 ping of farm land you cannot build a house on the land.
I have viewed about 50 plots of farmland for sale…only 2 were actually being farmed at time of viewing. My land was previously owned by son of farmer (inherited from father) who had no plans to continue farming. Next door is owned by previous owner’s brother who has not farmed the land either.
FYI…For land restricted from containing a house, restrictions only allow equipment/storage shed (no toilet).
What gets a lot of publicity is the numerous new homes in Yilan but from what I see most are still on small plots. And other houses sprouting up in places like Hualien are actually on land not designated as farm land even if seen next to “official” farm land.
Flakman or Finley,
I’m curious if you know a venue where foreigners are discussing the Taiwan “Regulations Governing Agricultural Dwelling Houses”. It is an order designed to stop farmhouses development. See taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003515892
IMO there must be alterior motives for passing such a rash “order” when Mainlanders can buy land in July.
I guess the Gov sees a problem approaching and they put together this rash “order” to try to stop it.
But who’s going to gain? My thought is corporations and Mainland real estate speculators. I’m just not sure how corporations will benefit. Thoughts?
Also, people keep telling me variously that separate counties / all of Taiwan have passed zoning laws that now make it impossible to build on farmland. Yilan has apparenly woken up to the fact that it won’t be growing any rice in 10 years time unless some controls are in place. Is this true, and if so is it county or national legislature?
I disagree with that rule. Right now, minimum size farmland required for building a house is 756 ping (2.5 fen). So 1/10 of 756 ping is 75.6 ping - that is already a very large house. If you’ve got 10 fen (3020 ping) that allows for a “farmhouse” of 302 ping - that’s a mansion (or a hotel) by any stretch of the imagination.
Obviously I don’t get to write the laws, but if it was up to me I’d set the upper limit for a house size at 70 ping, which is big enough for any family.
In addition to a house, it should be allowed to have an unconnected storage shed. You don’t really want to be storing farm chemicals or gasoline for the farm tools inside your house.
Hello Niut et. al.,
In my experience in Taiwan, most important news is published in Chinese first, then washed in the media cycle, then whitewashed before publishing in English Taiwanese news. IOW’s it is sanitized, partly because of “Taiwan’s intl image”, and partly because the Gov thinks we are immature.
According to a close Taiwanese source, the law for Mainlanders to buy land here was passed in January 2015. Per year, they can buy 20k residences and lots of land, I can’t remember the number. But it is an eye popping number that doesn’t make since given the high demand for farmland here. I have not seen an English Taiwanese newspaper cover the story. Guess its still in the wash.
Re Ilan: I haven’t been there in years but I’ve heard from a good source, it is a different place since the tunnel and all the mansions built up. I did hear that this “Regulation…” was first introduced in Ilan. This Regulation is a game changer in my area, Hshinchu County. Some articles state it could be retrospective. Which in my dictionary means: “• (of a statute or legal decision) taking effect from a date in the past: retrospective pay awards.” If this is the case I wonder how far back it will go? The opening occurred in 2000. And how are they going to enforce it? Go around tearing down 15 years of construction? That’s sure to make some lasting friends.
So you’re saying that the Regulation is goverment policy across the island?
What exactly does it say - that you can’t build on farmland at all, or is it only over a certain ping.
The only existing regulation that I’m aware of is that farmland under 700 ping can’t be built on.
The established ways of circumventing the current laws are so obvious and well established, that I find it hard to give much thought to any new laws that come in.
There’s still plenty of mansions being built around the edges of Hualien City, and farmland newly up-for-sale too. Plus ca change, ici.
Hi Nuit,
I recommend you read the article in my first post for your own interpretation. My knowledge is second hand at best. That’s why I’m trying to learn more about this.
This “Regulation…” was a rumor a few months ago that hit the national news a month ago.
Some think it will take months to clear the Legislative Yuan, but it isn’t a Law, it is a “Regulation” that can be enacted in June by the Executive Yuan.
Then there’s the “retrospective” part which concerns me.
(Please confirm all this with a local in the know.)
–Min-Hsien Yang, Professor, Feng Chia University; I Han, Assistant Professor, Feng Chia University; “Taiwan Council of Agriculture to Amend the Law Preventing Market Speculations on Farmlands”; Asia Pacific Information Platform on Agricultural Policy, April 14, 2015 ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=410
If anything, being a member of the WTO helps to even the playing field. For example, the 
IOW’s it is sanitized, partly because of “Taiwan’s intl image”, and partly because the Gov thinks we are immature. 