How can farmland be used for farming? Review Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act and the regulations on building farmhouses

In recent days, controversy over luxury farmhouses has erupted on all sides. The Taiwan Rural Front, grounded in its position of supporting Taiwan's small farmers and defending the agricultural environment, calls on both the ruling and opposition parties to swiftly amend the law during the current legislative session, and to carry out structural reform of the long-accumulated problems caused by current regulations on farmhouse construction being overly lax and vague, so as to safeguard farmers' rights and the sustainable production environment of agriculture.

The current chaos of reckless farmhouse development began with the 2000 amendment of the Agricultural Development Act, which not only opened up farmland for free buying and selling, but also stipulated that farmland on which a farmhouse is built must be at least 0.25 hectares (756.25 ping); those participating in clustered village farmhouse construction, or building farmhouses in offshore island areas, faced no such restriction at all. Those who acquired or owned farmland before the amendment (2000) were also not subject to the 0.25-hectare area restriction, so many farmhouses today sit on farmland of less than 0.25 hectares.

This threw the door wide open to farmland speculation and the building of luxury mansions. In Yilan, Hualien, Hsinchu, Nantou, Kaohsiung and other areas, many luxury farmhouses quickly appeared on prime farmland, and in many specially designated agricultural zones with convenient transportation, individual farmhouses and clustered village farmhouses built by developers appeared on a large scale. The unrestrained development of luxury farmhouses not only eats away at farmland, but the domestic wastewater and sunlight shadows they create are detrimental to the growth of crops in neighboring fields. Yet as luxury farmhouses sprang up like bamboo shoots after rain, they on the one hand caused farmland fragmentation, and at the same time drove farmland prices soaring, so that many small farmers actually engaged in farming could not acquire farmland at reasonable prices to meet their agricultural production needs. If this continues, it will be detrimental to Taiwan's sustainable development.

In response, the Taiwan Rural Front holds that: so-called farmland should mean land dedicated solely to producing crops; so-called farmers should mean people who participate in the labor of the land and produce healthy food. Our country's current grain self-sufficiency rate is only 32%, far below the level of advanced countries worldwide; yet grain is an important strategic material for a nation, so countries around the world spare no effort to protect their own farmland to ensure an assured supply of grain production. Land in specially designated agricultural zones is all prime farmland and constitutes our country's important grain production base; it should be given strengthened protection and restricted to agricultural use. Building farmhouses on prime farmland will inevitably reduce the area under cultivation, be detrimental to grain production, and harm food security. Therefore farmhouse construction should be permitted as an exception only on the premise of the principles of farmland for farming and farmhouses for farming, and in compliance with strict legal requirements.

However, our country's current laws and regulations define farmhouses only in terms of "volume" (for example: height, number of floors, ping area). We suggest that in addition to volume regulations, a definition of the functional purpose of farmhouse buildings should be added, to avoid the absurd practical phenomenon of farmhouses ranging from sheet-metal sheds to luxury mansions worth tens of millions. In addition, the current Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act and the Regulations on Building Farmhouses on Agricultural Land only regulate by requiring a minimum land area of 0.25 hectares, lacking clear standards for land to be used for agriculture, which has led to the reckless construction of farmhouses, putting the cart before the horse and violating the principle of farmland for farming.

We must also point out that rural areas are not incapable of having houses built; the use zoning of non-urban land already includes building land on which residences may be constructed. But the Council of Agriculture and the Land Consolidation Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior have inconsistent jurisdictions and lack horizontal coordination, and the land use zoning controls for non-urban rural districts have not undergone comprehensive review. Class B building land in rural districts has long gone uninventoried, and rural community land consolidation is out of step with current conditions. As a result, farmers' housing needs, young people's needs to take up agricultural production, and the needs of those relocating to the countryside all pour into farmhouses intended for agricultural use, and farmland becomes a substitute site for rural housing and is massively speculated upon.

In response, we hold that farmland is a precious fixed resource that cannot be increased and that serves national ecological security; its transactions should be strictly controlled, ensuring that every farmland transaction submits documentation proving the farmland is used for agriculture, and that transfer or sale may only proceed after the competent authority has verified and approved it based on the facts. This may curb the speculation of farmland capitalization while also ensuring the housing and production needs of genuine farmers.

In addition, regarding disputes over the sale and transfer of farmland, we believe Taiwan needs innovative institutional design, one that both preserves the right to transfer farmland and ensures the principle of farmland for farming. For example, Germany's land reserve system allows farmland to be sold to the public sector as a reserve, to be used in normal times for ecological conservation, to be rented or sold to young people interested in taking up farming, or, when public construction requires it, to be exchanged for land with farmers who wish to keep their farmland. But Taiwan lacks similar institutional design; if farmers need to transfer farmland, most sell it through market mechanisms to developers and consortia for speculative development, or hope the government will carry out zone expropriation or land consolidation to develop the farmland. We stress that transferring farmland is not limited to market sale alone, and that respecting farmers' wishes and the principle of farmland for farming are not a single-choice question of picking one or the other.

In response to the chaos of farmland development in Taiwan, the Taiwan Rural Front holds:

1. The government should establish the goal of raising food security, clearly define the principle of "farmland for farming" along with operational definitions and procedures, and actively increase the return to cultivation and production of existing fallow land.

2. Immediately review Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act, amend the Regulations on Building Farmhouses on Agricultural Land to set a sunset clause, require that future farmhouse construction and farmland transfer both obtain proof of agricultural land use, and add a definition of the functional purpose of farmhouse buildings, with regular verification by the competent authority and the tax authority.

3. The Ministry of the Interior should promptly formulate operational standards for comprehensive review of non-urban rural districts, strengthen the mechanism for adjusting and changing rural district residential land (Class B building land), and thoroughly distinguish residential use from farmhouse use.

4. Establish a farmland reserve system so that farmers who need to transfer farmland can release it to the public sector for use in ecology, agriculture, and future land planning.

5. Regarding farmers' economic income and livelihoods, efforts should begin with agricultural policies such as improving the production and marketing structure and establishing an environmental payment system.

Taiwan Rural Front press contacts:
Hsu Shih-jung 0911-305938  Chan Shun-kuei 0932-384577
Tsai Pei-hui 0932-349866 Lin Le-hsin 0922-696075

1. Produced by Li Hui-yi, "Whom Did the Agricultural Development Act Benefit," April 14, 2008, "Our Island," an in-depth report on "Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act." Compared with then, the situation has not improved now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewhWT6B36nk
2. Sun Teh-hung, "Architects and Farmhouses: An Apology Letter to the Next Generation of Architects" http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/fleishmannfan/article?mid=1532
3. When the Agricultural Development Act was amended in 2000, the Green Citizens' Action Alliance and many environmental and civic groups formed the "Great Alliance Against the Crude Selling-Off of Farmland," preserving much of the discussion from that time (thanks to Wei-chieh of the Green Citizens' Action Alliance for providing the materials). http://ago.gcaa.org.tw/action/topic/farm.htm

Lead photo for this article by Kuo Chih-jung