Is the Council of Agriculture's push for eco-friendly farming truly helping small farmers, or is it just meddling?
The Council of Agriculture is set to begin subsidizing farmers under the name of "friendly farming" this month, and seeing this news really put me in a bad mood. It is obvious that we small farmers who lease land from landowners under the name of "friendly farming" cannot get any subsidy in reality at all, and now we have to keep explaining to the outside world that we do not receive any subsidy from the Council of Agriculture for farming. To me, this policy of the Council of Agriculture is simply a mess.
Therefore, starting today, I will no longer say the words "friendly farming" on any occasion. If I am forced to say what my farming method is, then I will say that in farming I do not use any chemical products, including pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, etc. So what is the abbreviation for that? Then let us change the name and call it "eat-dirt farming" instead.
Is the Council of Agriculture's "friendly farming" policy a mess? Landowners simply will not sign leases
Why do I say that this policy of the Council of Agriculture is a mess? Because a very key point in this subsidy policy is that small farmers applying for the subsidy must provide "photocopies of the land registration transcript, zoning use certificate, land lease contract or land cultivation use consent form, etc." From the perspective of the Council of Agriculture, requiring these documents may be correct, but it has already become detached from our reality. Because these documents either require the landowner to apply, or require the landowner to sign a document, yet in reality we small farmers can almost never get these documents from the landowner.
In reality, as for many of the fields we lease, not to mention that we simply never see the landowner, even if we know who the landowner is, asking him to sign a land lease contract is harder than reaching the sky, because the policies of the 37.5% rent reduction and land-to-the-tiller back then were policies that let actual cultivators directly receive land from landowners, and the shadow of that old policy still generally exists in the hearts of landowners who now own farmland.
Under such a shadow, when a cultivator asks a landowner to help apply for some document or sign some certificate, just opening one's mouth is enough to make the landowner's heart beat faster, his ears perk up, and his mind immediately suspect what on earth you are trying to do? And the little bit of goodwill you originally had, as well as the little bit of trust that carried almost no weight at all, immediately collapses. If you were the landowner, why would you take such a big risk to help this person who is very much a stranger to you? If it were me, I would rather not lease the land to this person who wants me to sign this and sign that.
Government subsidies often distort the operation of the free market
In fact, when I first initiated the Two Hundred Jia new farmer incubation platform, I was very certain that this platform would not accept government subsidies, and the simplest way was for Two Hundred Jia not to apply to register as a legally recognized organization, so that it could simply be like an ordinary hobby group among the public. Without registering and filing with the government, the government would simply have no way to subsidize it at all.
Why was I so certain about not accepting government subsidies in farming? My most original thought was that the reason we were able to go into farming was that there was new demand in the consumer market, everyone was afraid of eating pesticides, including myself, so I came in to DIY, to produce agricultural products for myself to eat, and then also to share them with my relatives and friends. And for this to last long, it must stand up in the free market; relying on government subsidies will only weaken our motivation to strive in the free market. If the market does not need such agricultural products, then we should just not grow them!
Government subsidies often distort the operation of the free market and cause unfair competition, and what makes people feel regretful is that the key to the unfair competition caused by this policy is actually this: whoever can obtain the landowner's cooperation can get the government subsidy. What does that have to do with farming methods! People who work harder at the "friendly farming" the government wants will not have the slightest advantage in getting government subsidies; on the contrary, they are very likely to be at a competitive disadvantage under the fluctuations of this policy. We were originally farming just fine, and now we have to spend a lot of energy facing the impact the government brings to us through subsidies.
Our partners have already figured out how to respond when landowners come asking, "Have you received government subsidies?" If they have, then he will raise the land rent to get a share. Then we will reply, "Then let us sign a lease contract! Only after signing will there be a subsidy." Someone has already tried it, and it seems quite effective; the landowner immediately stops asking.
To be honest, consumer support is the most important force for us to continue producing rice without using pesticides.
Keep it up, Council of Agriculture, do well what you ought to do
First, let me briefly list some problems in the production environment that need the Council of Agriculture's help and that also cannot be solved with money. When there is a chance, I will list some more matters in marketing that need the Council of Agriculture's help. Officials big and small in the Council of Agriculture have known about these problems for a long time. As a result, now the Council of Agriculture is just loudly proclaiming, "Come, come and register, and I will hand out a little money to subsidize you." Why do this? The Council of Agriculture's goal has also been stated clearly, which is to push the area of organic and friendly agriculture in Taiwan, China from 7,000 hectares to 10,000 hectares this year.
Without actively thinking of ways to improve the various environmental predicaments small farmers face on the production end and the marketing end, how can they promote what they call "friendly farming"? Under such circumstances, handing out money is called sprinkling money; it merely registers the long years of effort and achievement of the public as the Council of Agriculture's performance, so that there will be achievements to boast about in the presidential election.
What is even more miserable is that tiny bit of subsidy money is actually only the operating expense for administrative statistical services to satisfy this policy of the Council of Agriculture (including various face-to-face communications, administrative management, mobile phone call charges, transportation costs, paper, etc., personnel costs and miscellaneous expenses). For small farmers, these are all extra administrative costs, and cannot even count as substantive subsidies for the "friendly farming" the Council of Agriculture talks about! This is what our highest agricultural administration and authority unit can do for the small farmers striving on the front line of Taiwan, China's agricultural transformation and development.
Keep it up, Council of Agriculture! Do well what you ought to do.