The Organic Agriculture Act will incorporate eco-friendly farming, but how will it be defined?

After the new government took office, it expressed the intention to enact a new law specifically for organic agriculture, and it is expected to incorporate eco-friendly farming beyond organic certification. All sectors are watching closely. But how should the new law be drafted so that it can resolve the current difficulties facing organic agriculture? How should "organic" and "eco-friendly" be defined? This has sparked widespread discussion.

Organic agriculture in our country has been developing for thirty years, yet to date the planted area is only 6,489.96 hectares, accounting for 0.8% of cultivated land, and expansion has been quite slow. Because the land is narrow and densely populated, and individual farms are small, crops are easily contaminated by pesticides from neighboring fields. In addition, the certification procedures are complicated and organic standards are strict, so farmers willing to engage in organic farming are extremely rare. But in recent years, more and more farmers have been using no pesticides and no chemical fertilizers; although they uphold the concept of eco-friendly farming, they do not necessarily apply for organic certification.

Compared with neighboring Japan and the Philippines, both of which have enacted special laws on organic agriculture, and South Korea, which has the "Act on Promotion of Environment-Friendly Agriculture," our country's current organic regulations are clearly incomplete. Guo Huaren, professor emeritus of the Department of Agronomy at National Taiwan University, pointed out, "Our country's current regulations only define 'organic agricultural products'; they do not define 'organic agriculture.'" Chen Shixiong, dean of the College of Science and Technology at Nanhua University, also said, "The current regulations only emphasize penalties; they say nothing about how to promote organic agriculture."

Current regulations only provide management, with no promotion or advancement

The main domestic regulations on organic farming are the Agricultural Production and Certification Management Act and the Regulations Governing the Certification and Management of Organic Agricultural Products and Organic Agricultural Processed Products. The provisions regulate the management of organic agricultural products, but say nothing about the aims and promotion of organic agriculture. In 2009, the Council of Agriculture announced the Regulations and Fines for the Investigation and Handling of Organic Agricultural and Processed Products, which explicitly provide that detection of pesticide or chemical additive residues constitutes a violation, with fines of 30,000 to 150,000 yuan. This strict "zero detection" rule is the main reason many farmers hesitate to pursue organic certification.

Su Murong, CEO of the Tse-Xin Organic Agriculture Foundation, said that in 2012 the Yangshan Foundation and relevant experts and scholars jointly proposed a draft of the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act, which was revised successively after the change of ruling party, and on July 14 this year they again visited Premier Lin Chuan of the Executive Yuan to push for a special organic law. Last year the Council of Agriculture also formed an Executive Yuan version of the Organic Agriculture Act, which is still gathering opinions. Although some consensus has been reached, there are still quite a few differences between the two versions at this stage.

"The goal of promoting the new law is to increase the possibility of transforming more conventionally farmed land in Taiwan, China into organic land, so the legislative spirit lies in promotion and development, unlike the goals of previous regulations." Su Murong believes the focus of the new law should be on the word "promotion," encouraging more farmers to adopt farming methods that do not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides, opening up broader space beyond the original organic certification, and building a transitional ladder from conventional farming to organic farming.

The new law incorporates the "Participatory Guarantee System" and eco-friendly farming

Chen Shixiong pointed out that the "Participatory Guarantee System" (PGS) advocated by IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) is a second-party certification different from third-party certification (which is determined by a fair and independent certification body). It consists of consumers and producers forming mutual-trust groups that supervise and guarantee one another through an open and transparent model, producing and consuming agricultural products from eco-friendly farming. The PGS system conforms to the direction of "Organic 3.0," and in the world there are already smallholder countries such as Brazil and India whose governments officially recognize the PGS system.

At present, both the civil-society version and the official version of the draft organic law plan to incorporate the PGS system and eco-friendly farming into their provisions, but there is still no conclusion on the definition of eco-friendly agriculture, how eco-friendly and organic can proceed in parallel without conflict, or how eco-friendly farming should be managed.

Wang Zhonghe, chairman of the Taiwan Organic Agriculture Promotion Association, recently sent a sternly worded advisory letter to all sectors, pointing out that the foundation of trust in organic certification has been hard to accumulate over many years, and that there are strict accreditation and certification systems observed in common worldwide. If the government wants to incorporate eco-friendly environmental farming into the new law and provide subsidies for it, it must clearly define: "What is called eco-friendly? Which body certifies that it is eco-friendly?" so that the public can clearly distinguish the difference between eco-friendly and organic, lest the organic system painstakingly built over more than twenty years be destroyed.

Guo Huaren emphasized that PGS and organic certification are different market orientations. When consumers identify with PGS, they will also expand demand for organic-certified products, so the two should complement each other. If a product is to bear the word "organic," it must pass third-party certification; PGS cannot do that, and this is a major distinction.

Farmers: "Eco-friendly farming" has many schools and factions - how is it defined?

The civil-society version of the draft Organic Agriculture Promotion Act has already incorporated support measures for eco-friendly farming, namely "ecological subsidies for the land." "As long as no chemical pesticides or fertilizers are used, the government gives encouragement." Guo Huaren gave an example: farmland that may suffer contamination from neighboring fields would be subject to strict regulation in organic certification, but if the farmer's practices conform to the definition of eco-friendly farming, there can still be policy support.

In recent years, the Green Conservation Label jointly organized by the Tse-Xin Foundation and the Forestry Bureau is another certification attempt beyond organic certification. One example is the water caltrop fields in Guantian, Tainan, which, limited by shared water sources, cannot fully isolate contamination from neighboring fields, but farmers who protect pheasant-tailed jacanas by not using chemical fertilizers or pesticides can obtain the Green Conservation Label. Su Murong said that in the future the Green Conservation Label will also gradually transition to the PGS approach, starting with a trial run among producers and consumers at the "Footprints in the Field" market.

On the farmers' side, Wang Yuzhang of Gengxin Farm in Yunlin believes that current organic standards are too strict, which is not conducive to developing organic agriculture in the broader environment. "Society weighs and measures organic farmers to the last ounce; certification companies treat you like a thief, ready to shoot you at any time."

But he also worries that if the government wants to regulate eco-friendly farming, it might end up harming farmers again."Eco-friendly farming methods have many schools and factions - how can they be regulated? As long as it is clearly defined, that is enough; do not keep clinging to old rules. The people who do this are all people with ideals, and consumers can visit the farm at any time."

Fang Yunru, project director of the Renhe Environmental Ethics Development Foundation, suggested that eco-friendly farming should clearly state the certification category and disclose the production history, so consumers can assess whether to trust it. "'Eco-friendly' is inherently a relative practice and mindset, not a result."She believes that once farmers achieve basic practices such as not using pesticides or herbicides, flexible space should be preserved. If a positive list is set out in regulations, it may stifle the various existing eco-friendly goals and methods, "especially since, like us, using farming as a means to restore other ecological functions, a unified standard could not possibly cover it all."

Fang Yunru also pointed out that "eco-friendly" is a very broad term, and if in the future this commonly used broad term is turned into a standard term specifically for regulations, it will only add confusion.

Even regarding the name of the new law, scholars and experts have differing views. To avoid internal friction and build consensus, an eco-friendly farming seminar will be held on August 27, where further lively discussion from all sectors is expected.

Official version of the Draft Organic Agriculture Act

Civil-society version of the Draft Organic Agriculture Promotion Act

(This article was supported by the Jianzhen Environmental Education Foundation with project funding for personnel and expenses, but it does not interfere at all with news topic selection or interview writing, ensuring journalistic independence.)