Council of Agriculture to Legislate Natural Disaster Relief: Lin Tsung-hsien Clarifies It Is Not an Abolition
Recently, an official document bearing the seal of Council of Agriculture (COA) Minister Lin Tsung-hsien left farmers furious. The document stated that the "cash subsidies for agricultural natural disaster" were being abolished. Many farmers pointed directly at the COA, the agency in charge of agriculture, saying that it had pulled its hand away at the very moment when the public most needed help, which was unacceptable. Some lawmakers also raised questions about this today. In response to public doubts, Lin Tsung-hsien clarified that this was not about abolishing natural disaster relief, but rather about upgrading the existing administrative rules into regulations and moving toward "institutionalization" so as to more effectively protect farmers' rights and interests.
In addition, Lin also mentioned that although the currentlydrafted Agricultural Insurance Act draft can run on a dual-track basis alongside "natural disaster relief," in the future it is bound to move toward a "choose one of two" approach, at which point farmers will be left to make the choice themselves.
Lin Tsung-hsien: Making disaster subsidies "institutionalized," with a higher legal status
Regarding the COA's announcement on the 11th abolishing the "items and amounts of cash subsidies for agricultural natural disasters," many farmers who depend on the weather for their livelihood were generally dissatisfied. Among them, a banana farmer surnamed Chiu pointed out that this practice was originally based on a concept similar to a benevolence grant and was an important policy for looking after farmers. If it was suddenly to be abolished, the public would have nothing to say, but at the very least farmers had to be given an explanation. Another farmer surnamed Chen, who grows coarse grains, also stressed that natural disasters are hard to avoid, and only with cash subsidies do farmers have a chance to keep going, and he hoped the agricultural authorities would think it over carefully.
In response to a wave of public backlash, lawmaker Wang Hui-mei also raised doubts today when handling the case to freeze the COA budget, including whether cash subsidies for agricultural natural disasters were really being abolished? If abolished, what kind of regulations would replace them? Would there be a gap period? These are all issues of considerable concern to frontline farmers.
In response, COA Minister Lin Tsung-hsien stressed that the "items and amounts of cash relief for natural disasters" had been the practice since 104 ROC year (2015), and the reason for it was that last year three typhoons struck and disaster conditions were reported widely across the country. In order to simplify disaster damage reporting and use more technological methods for region-wide determination, it was abolished, and at the same time the existing cash subsidies were incorporated into Article 6 of the "Regulations Governing Relief for Agricultural Natural Disasters."
As for how it differs, Lin also explained that the revision is moving in a more "institutionalized" direction, the content has not changed, and there is no so-called gap period problem. Farmers can still refer to Article 6 of the regulations and apply according to the subsidy amounts for disaster damage to various crops. The main difference lies in the interpretation of legal status, just as the Constitution is higher than other laws. In the past, it was issued through "administrative rules," which have the lowest legal status; now it is handled through the higher-status "relief regulations," so in actual enforcement the administrative agencies are in fact more rigorous, which can effectively protect farmers' income.
However, because it caused farmers' doubts, Lin Tsung-hsien also said that in the future, for announcements involving broad rights and interests like this, relevant units will be reminded again not to release information unilaterally only, but to widely communicate the information. This part will be further considered and reviewed.
(The upper image is the original official document; the lower one is the clarification post produced by the COA)
The COA produced a clarification post to make clear that farmers' rights and interests had not been harmed (Image source/COA)
Agricultural Insurance Act draft returned by the Executive Yuan; in the future it will be choose one of two with natural disaster relief
The draft Agricultural Insurance Act that came out this year was recently returned by the Executive Yuan. Since it belongs, along with the "Regulations Governing Relief for Natural Disasters," to subsidies for natural disasters, the differences and choices between the two have also become a focus of lawmakers' attention. In response, Lin Tsung-hsien replied that, according to the instructions of the Executive Yuan, it is hoped that the items covered by agricultural insurance will continue to expand. At present, promotion has continued to Pingtung's grouper and sugar apple, among other items. However, because the risks of agricultural natural disasters are very hard to assess, and under circumstances where the law of large numbers is difficult to establish, the pilot situation is still being worked on. Reference will be made to South Korea's subsidy amounts to increase incentives, and on the other hand there will also be consultations with local governments, inviting them to add matching funds and come in.
On the difference from cash relief for natural disasters, Lin pointed out that the subsidy amount for cash relief is about one quarter, while the insurance payout amount can reach one half. Therefore, during the pilot period a dual-track system will be adopted, that is, cash relief and agricultural insurance running in parallel. In the future, once the items and practices of agricultural insurance become more diverse, when facing the risk of natural disasters, it will "absolutely be choose one of two." Under the premise that the government subsidizes premiums, whether to choose the 20 percent natural disaster subsidy payment or agricultural insurance will be left to farmers to decide for themselves.