Forestry land converted to solar power raises problems? Li Keng-cheng criticizes Taisugar's crude approach for blocking green energy

Twenty years ago, Taisugar received a large subsidy to plant forests on more than ten thousand hectares, of which Pingtung accounted for over four thousand hectares. Some of it became flatland forest parks, and some became forest and landscape assets for community-developed ecological experiences. Another portion of the forest land was economic afforestation meant to reserve timber resources, but because Taisugar neglected management and the density was too high, the forest stand was poor, making it difficult to achieve an economic forest effect.

Twenty years later, the term of the afforestation land is approaching, and according to law the owners (including Taisugar) may cut the trees. Taisugar stated that, to cooperate with the government's green energy policy, it will use 200 hectares of forest land to develop an "agriculture-integrated solar park," which was met with widespread local opposition. The two sides reached no consensus and parted on bad terms.

Li Keng-cheng, chief executive of the Citizens of the Earth Foundation, who has studied afforestation policy in depth for many years and has long promoted energy transition, accepted an interview with "Upstream and Downstream" to analyze the gains and losses of 20 years of afforestation policy and the challenges of transforming afforestation land into a solar park, attempting to find a path for social dialogue amid the tug-of-war between the two ends of this issue. Except for the paragraphs marked in red with "Q," the rest is first-person oral content from Li Keng-cheng, compiled by the reporter from the interview.

Li Keng-cheng: I do not think afforestation land absolutely cannot be touched, but I oppose Taisugar's crude approach to promoting solar power

According to Forestry Bureau data, 20 years ago the nationwide flatland afforestation area promoted totaled 13,854 hectares. Taisugar was the largest owner, afforesting a total of 10,889 hectares, while private farmland accounted for 2,965 hectares of afforestation, costing the national treasury a total of 12.4 billion yuan.

The afforestation policy at the time was wrong, leading to today's deadlock - economic forests had no economy, landscape forests had no landscape. In this context, I do not think afforestation land absolutely cannot be touched; it is just a twenty-year economic afforestation plan, but these afforestation lands still retain some ecological functions and are not entirely without value.

But I also oppose Taisugar's current crude approach of promoting agriculture-integrated solar power. My position is that there must be comprehensive planning and a fresh inventory of the locations of Taisugar's existing afforestation land and the functions it currently serves. For example, some are adjacent to communities and have ecological and landscape functions, so they should not be touched and should continue to have their quality improved.

Suppose some are far from communities and are not ideal in various respects. If other uses are to be made, there should be an environmental and ecological survey, and supporting plans should be made on that basis, trying to communicate with communities and local governments, rather than suddenly saying it wants to take two hundred hectares for solar power.

Taisugar's afforestation land is not only its economic forest, but has also become a local public asset

Taisugar 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. Based on landscape and biodiversity, it must be assessed which areas should be retained.

There may be several scenarios. The first is to preserve them and even further enhance their richer 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 various potentials for landscape and tourism, should be retained through every effort.

If Taisugar wants to develop agriculture-integrated solar power, how should it proceed?

If Taisugar seriously wants to operate an agriculture-integrated solar power business, first, there must be a "site assessment mechanism," otherwise controversies will keep arising; second is site selection assessment, which must also add social oversight and public participation. What is the impact on communities? Is there an operating mechanism or benefit-sharing to create a win-win?

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 try to make solar installation friendly to society and the environment, but so far the supporting procedures have not yet been established, leading to endless controversy.

The next question is to review those government agriculture-integrated solar projects - are they real or fake? Have they achieved the expected benefits? What exactly is the plan Taisugar is now promoting? Discuss it layer by layer. The backlash now encountered by Taisugar's solar case is exactly what the government's promotion