Forestry-to-Solar Conversion"Lee Ken-cheng / The problem isn't just cutting trees, it's Taiwan Sugar's crude approach to pushing it through; zoning plans should be made

Twenty years ago, Taiwan Sugar received large subsidies to plant forests covering more than ten thousand hectares, of which Pingtung accounted for over four thousand hectares. Some of it became flatland forest parks, and some became forests and landscape assets for community-based ecological experiences. There were also other forest lands intended as economic plantations to reserve timber resources, but because Taiwan Sugar was lax in management and the density was too high, the forest stands were poor, making it difficult to achieve the effects of an economic forest.

Twenty years later, the plantation period is about to expire, and by law the owners (including Taiwan Sugar) may fell the trees. Taiwan Sugar stated that, to align with the government's green energy policy, it will use 200 hectares of forest land to develop an "agriculture-integrated solar park," which drew widespread local opposition. The two sides reached no consensus and parted on bad terms.

Lee Ken-cheng, CEO of the Citizens of the Earth Foundation, who has studied afforestation policy in depth for many years and has long promoted energy transition, gave an exclusive interview to Upstream and Downstream, analyzing the gains and losses of 20 years of afforestation policy and the challenges of converting plantation land into solar parks, in an attempt to find a path for social dialogue amid the tug-of-war between the two sides of the issue. Except for the paragraphs marked in red with "Q," the rest is first-person oral content from Lee Ken-cheng, compiled by the reporter from the interview.

Lee Ken-cheng: I don't think plantation land absolutely cannot be touched, but I oppose Taiwan Sugar's crude approach to pushing solar

According to Forestry Bureau data, 20 years ago the nationwide flatland afforestation area totaled 13,854 hectares. Taiwan Sugar was the largest owner, planting 10,889 hectares, while private farmland accounted for 2,965 hectares, with a total cost of NT$12.4 billion from the national treasury.

The afforestation policy was wrong back then, leading to today's deadlock - economic forests without economics, landscape forests without landscape. In this context, I don't think plantation land absolutely cannot be touched; it is just a twenty-year economic afforestation plan. But these plantation lands still retain some ecological functions and are not entirely without value.

But I also oppose Taiwan Sugar's current crude approach to pushing agriculture-integrated solar. My position is that there must be comprehensive planning and a fresh inventory of where Taiwan Sugar's existing plantation lands are located and what functions they currently serve. For example, some are adjacent to communities and have ecological and landscape functions, so they should not be touched and their quality should continue to be improved.

Suppose some are far from communities and not ideal in various respects. If they are to be used for other purposes, there should first be an environmental and ecological survey, and supporting plans should be made on that basis, with efforts to communicate with communities and local governments, rather than suddenly saying they want to use two hundred hectares for solar.

Taiwan Sugar's plantation land is not just its economic forest; it has also become a local public asset

Taiwan Sugar is a state-owned enterprise, and its land is a public asset. Its decisions should conform to the public interest and should not consider only the company's interests. Although the 20-year afforestation policy was a beautiful mistake, it did leave assets. It is necessary to assess, on the basis of landscape and biodiversity, which should be retained.

There may be several scenarios. The first is to preserve them and even enhance their richness and diversity, such as Aogu Wetland, Danongdafu, and Linhousilin, which have already been planned as forest parks. Some have good forest stands, and some have tree species and trees with very good growing conditions; cutting them now would be a pity. Keeping them is, in the long term, accumulating timber resources, and before they are cut they are still shady landscapes. Some places adjacent to communities, with potential for landscape and tourism, should be preserved by every possible means.

If Taiwan Sugar wants to develop agriculture-integrated solar, how should it proceed?

If Taiwan Sugar seriously wants to operate an agriculture-integrated solar business, then first, there must be a "site assessment mechanism," otherwise disputes will keep arising. Second is site selection assessment, which must also include social oversight and public participation: what is the impact on communities? Is there an operating mechanism or benefit-sharing to create a win-win situation?

Some solar facilities should be sited to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and avoid impacting agricultural and fishery production. There may also be communities that need communication. The role of local governments must be to make solar installation friendly to society and the environment, but so far the supporting procedures have not been established, leading to endless disputes.

The next question is to review those government agriculture-integrated solar projects: are they real or fake? Have they achieved the expected benefits? What is the plan Taiwan Sugar is now pushing? Discuss it layer by layer. The backlash now facing Taiwan Sugar's solar case is exactly the government's promotion of ground-mounted solar