Liao Pen-chuan Opposes Backfilling Farmland with Bottom Ash, and a Discussion of the Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Farmland

Lead image courtesy of / Tsai Chih-hao (Taiwan Ecological Society)
 
On November 18, 2011, conservation groups and legislators held a press conference, revealing that farmland in Qingshui, Longjing and other areas of Taichung had been backfilled with bottom ash from garbage incinerators. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) officials at the meeting said the operators had applied legally and had not violated the EPA's reuse regulations, but Council of Agriculture officials held that the on-site stockpiling by the operators had already violated farmland use rules (non-agricultural use of farmland).

On February 13, 2012, the Executive Yuan's EPA held a public hearing on the "Draft Amendments to the Management Methods for the Reuse of Bottom Ash from Garbage Incinerators," which included: "Article 7 is amended to provide that when products are used on farmland, they shall not be used within the scope of direct agricultural use, so as to reduce the risk of pollution transmitted through the food chain; if not used within the scope of direct agricultural use, isolation measures shall be provided during application, and the approval of the competent authority in the locality shall be obtained." The next day (the 14th), the EPA issued a press release responding to media reports that "incinerator bottom ash is being cleared for farmland," clarifying that "this is tightened management, not clearing the way for backfilling farmland."

From the EPA's actions and statements, several things can be confirmed:

First, backfilling with incinerator bottom ash does carry pollution risks.
Second, the EPA's draft amendments are indeed "tightened management" for bottom-ash operators, because in the past there was no management at all.
Third, it is also confirmed that the draft amendments open the door and "clear the way" for farmland use and agricultural food safety management, because the original regulatory system (legal and administrative) did not permit it.
Fourth, and most absurdly, the EPA has suddenly become the competent authority for farmland use, using it however it pleases, while the real competent authorities (the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Interior) stand aside.

In 2000, the "Agricultural Development Act" was amended, and under the policy declaration of loosening restrictions on farmland ownership by farmers and implementing agricultural use of farmland, free trading of farmland and construction of farmhouses were opened up. The Ministry of the Interior (Construction and Planning Agency) and the Council of Agriculture jointly enacted the "Regulations for the Construction of Farmhouses on Agricultural Land" in 2001, jointly controlling the qualification of farmhouse applicants, building specifications and so on. But backfilling farmland with bottom ash is itself a kind of farmland use behavior, yet its management approach is led by the EPA, which unilaterally divides what may and may not be used, and how it may be used. Clearly, the entire government's administrative system is a cart pulled by many horses in chaos, and the threat of social risk in Taiwan (farmland crisis, food security) is no longer merely at the city gates, but is playing out as a reality show.

All right, if the EPA wants to take on the whole business alone, then it must concretely answer the following questions:

1. On what basis can bottom-ash backfilling be divided into direct and non-direct agricultural use, and what is the rationale? And why does direct agricultural use require reducing the risk of pollution transmission, while non-direct agricultural use does not?

2. For farmland where bottom ash is backfilled for non-direct agricultural use, what will be the scope, area and geographic distribution of the affected farmland? What impact will there be on farmland health and agricultural food safety? Has a comprehensive assessment been completed?

3. Is the reuse of bottom-ash backfill a land-use behavior? If not, why not, and what would count as one? If it is, how do current laws and regulations govern it? If they cannot govern it, how can this be remedied?

4. Agricultural use of farmland is the primary goal of farmland policy. Is backfilling farmland with bottom ash "agricultural use"? If not, why open the door and clear the way for it?

Beginning in the 1990s, many countries, mainly in Europe, reaffirmed the value of agriculture and rural identity, holding that the role agriculture plays and the value of farmland are not merely rural economic production, but more importantly the maintenance of the environment and landscape, management of water resources, control of flooding, and the inheritance of society and culture. This concept of Agricultural Multifunctionality has also become the basic position of the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, China, South Korea and other countries in opposing the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s views on agricultural trade, and in protecting their own agriculture, farmland and farmers' interests.

On May 10 and 11, 2011, the Council of Agriculture held the "National Food Security Conference," which produced 14 key strategies. Its important conclusions included: setting a domestic food self-sufficiency rate to be raised to 40% by 2020 (currently 32%); setting food security risk management and strengthening farmland maintenance, effective use of agricultural water, and so on. The Council of Agriculture's press bulletin also stated: the two-day conclusions will be incorporated by the relevant ministries into policy planning items and concretely implemented, in order to safeguard domestic food security. The multifunctionality of Taiwan's agriculture and the multifunctional value of farmland are self-evident.

Yet backfilling farmland with bottom ash, whether for direct or non-direct agricultural use, is already a kind of utilization behavior that seriously harms the agricultural food production environment. Could it be that the EPA is thinking innovatively, intending to create a new global landscape of agricultural and farmland multifunctionality: bottom-ash backfill?

The enmity between people and land is precisely the first step in people's enmity with themselves. The EPA should rein in at the edge of the precipice and not contaminate the agricultural production environment in the name of environmental protection; this is to make an enemy of agriculture and to expose all citizens to risk threats. And the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Interior should bravely step forward and say no to backfilling farmland with bottom ash; this is merely fulfilling a due duty and responsibility.

Related reports
Farmland in Qingshui, Taichung backfilled with "incinerator bottom ash," nearby groundwater exceeds heavy metal limits by Tsai Chih-hao
http://www.peopo.org/portal.php?op=viewPost&articleId=89717
On-site report video by Tsai Chih-hao
http://www.peopo.org/portal.php?op=viewPost&articleId=90005