Black-faced spoonbills and fishermen compete for land, wetland aquaculture sparks controversy

Recently, Tainan City Councilor Chen Chao-lai and 700 fishermen from Qigu and Jiangjun in Tainan protested against the Ministry of the Interior for disregarding fishermen's rights by unilaterally designating 6,698 hectares of land as important wetlands, leading to fierce clashes between police and citizens. The councilor sharply criticized that "birds are more important than people," arguing that the Wetland Conservation Act (abbreviated as the Wetland Act) disregards fishermen's rights. However, these wetland areas are almost entirely public land and also serve as important habitat and foraging grounds for the black-faced spoonbill. Is it legal for fishermen to conduct aquaculture on public land? How can the Wetland Act be implemented while also ensuring fishermen's rights?

Hsu Cheng-yu: Should we actually investigate whether aquaculture interferes with wetlands?

In fact, Dongyuwen directly exposes the dilemma of the Wetland Act. Although the law explicitly states that economic uses such as agriculture, fisheries, salt production, and construction within important wetland areas may maintain the status quo unless they severely affect the wetland; however, what fishermen fear is that once they are included in the wetland area, the government will impose more restrictions, affecting their future livelihoods.

In response, Yong Sheng Ocean general manager Hsu Cheng-yu believes that the issue of fish farming in wetlands must set aside the vague legal problems and start from reality by conducting a detailed investigation into whether aquaculture activities in the area interfere with wetland ecology:

"If they do, then we must think about how to allow fishermen to make a living elsewhere and become legal operators." Only in this way can both economic livelihoods be taken into account and the legislative spirit of the Wetland Act be put into practice; otherwise, permanently maintaining the status quo not only disables the Wetland Act, but also leaves the government powerless to correct these nearly 35% of aquaculture fish operators who are relatively ambiguous under the law, and "their farming methods and distribution channels are unclear, posing a potential food safety risk."

However, Hsu Cheng-yu also admitted that the consolidation work is "thankless," and although the Wetland Act grants the central government the authority to designate areas, local governments and elected representatives are under pressure from votes, resulting in the miserable situation where the central government cannot push it forward and local governments ignore and neglect it; unless local residents realize the importance of balancing legal aquaculture, environmental responsibility, and personal economic interests, it will be possible to break through the existing predicament.

The scope will not be changed, but the Branch Office of Urban and Rural Development will strengthen communication

Despite protests from Chen Chao-lai and fishermen, Liao Ming-chu, acting section chief of the Coastal Restoration Section of the Branch Office of Urban and Rural Development, still said that the wetland scope will not be changed after designation; however, because of public backlash, follow-up briefing sessions will definitely be held to explain to the public and to adopt views from all sectors on ways of use within the area.

In response to councilors' criticism that the central government failed to fulfill its communication responsibility and disregarded people's livelihoods, she only responded low-key that "it should be a misunderstanding caused by a communication gap." She also reiterated the spirit of the Wetland Act allowing the status quo to be maintained; however, if future projects, factory construction, and other utilization plans are to be carried out within important wetland areas, applications must be submitted to the Branch Office of Urban and Rural Development and can only proceed after review and approval by experts, scholars, and members of the public.