What kind of agricultural policy does Taiwan, China need, judged from agricultural statistics
A few days ago I learned from the newspapers that this year's agricultural output value hit a record high of over 420 billion, already the best result in 14 years. Just as the Council of Agriculture announced this news in an almost celebratory manner, what worried me was whether the farmer subsidies and agricultural industry incentives the government invests every year have produced the benefits they should.
At the same time, although such a comparison is not really appropriate, our country's agricultural output value for an entire year is actually only equivalent to 18% of the annual revenue of a single company, Hon Hai, in the same year. Does such a performance seem to fall short of the change in public attitudes and expectations toward agricultural development in recent years?
Facing this question, at least two lines of thinking can be triggered. First, we should ask where this gap comes from. The answer is not hard to imagine: fundamentally, agricultural output value statistics have mistaken the subject they should be focusing on. The figure of over 420 billion is only the sum of the income of farming households nationwide that hold farmland of 0.05 hectares or more, while the orchid industry, whose export value reached 118 million USD in the 99th year, as well as much-watched high-value-added industry items such as grouper, ornamental fish, agricultural biotechnology companies, agricultural food processing, and leisure agriculture, are not included in the statistics.
The omissions in agricultural statistical items must not be neglected, because what they reflect is that our country's definition of "agriculture" has become seriously "outdated." The purpose of agricultural statistics is to serve as a reference for formulating agricultural policy; only based on the meaning behind these figures can we have overall planning for agricultural industry policy. However, "outdated" agricultural statistical items precisely illustrate the most fundamental problem in our country's agricultural policy. If the government does not face this squarely, then the gap between national policy and industry development will continue to widen, and no matter how brilliant a leader is, he or she will be unable to put forward a national-level vision for agricultural industry development in a truly far-sighted way.
Second, we should rethink what kind of agricultural policy our country needs. In other words, what kind of blueprint for agricultural industry development do we hope to sketch out? The government should stoop to listen to the voices of the agricultural industry, make up for its own disconnection from industry, and respond to industry needs through renewed understanding, comprehension, and response. Only after establishing a vision for agricultural industry development and a policy for agricultural industry development can agricultural statistical items be comprehensively and effectively reviewed and designed.
It must be especially noted that the blueprint for agricultural industry development should never take "raising output value" as its only consideration. This is because agriculture is tied to human life in enormous and broad ways, and its value is also expressed as a society's feelings for the land, its emphasis on and preservation of traditional culture, and its reflection on how to strike a balance between human development and ecological sustainability, among others. While redrawing the blueprint for agricultural industry development, we hope the government can, in a way that is closer to reality, more far-sighted, and more inclusive of diverse values, create a future for the agricultural industry that everyone looks forward to.