Taiwan Rural Front Calls for an End to the Chaos of Proliferating Farmhouses Devouring Farmland

As the 2012 presidential election gradually approaches, the news that Democratic Progressive Party vice-presidential candidate Su Jia-chyuan owns a "luxury farmhouse" in Changzhi, Pingtung, has kept the phones of many Taiwan Rural Front colleagues and me genuinely busy for quite a while. What were all those calls about? Busy taking calls from journalist friends around the island asking, "What is the Rural Front's opinion on the recent farmhouse controversy?"

The controversy over luxury farmhouses in Taiwan, China has a long history; its convergence with this presidential election, to the point that reporters come looking for the Rural Front, is a kind of dark historical irony and cruel comedy. If we take a broader view and look back at the past, we will find precisely this: it is the crooked and distorted agricultural, farmland, and rural policies of Taiwan, China over the past twenty years that have "bred" the many deformed farmhouses on farmland; and it is also these erroneous and absurd agricultural, farmland, and rural policies that "gave birth" to the founding of the Taiwan Rural Front. So to speak, today's farmhouse problem, like many other intractable agricultural problems, is one of two sides of the vigorous, sunny farmers' movement of the past two years.

In 1999, also on the eve of a presidential election, when the storm of over-lending by farmers' credit departments in townships and villages was rolling up like a snowball, the Legislative Yuan, led by "old farmer faction" legislators from agricultural counties, passed the far-reaching "Agricultural Development Act." Article 18 of the Act provided: "For farmers who acquired agricultural land after the amendment and enforcement of this Act on January 4, the 89th year of the Republic of China, and who have no farmhouse for their own use but need to build one, upon approval by the competent authority of the municipality or county (city), and provided it does not affect the agricultural production environment and rural development, they may apply to build a farmhouse in a clustered village manner or on their own agricultural land." These legal provisions are as awkward and hard to understand as ever, but translated into plain language they are actually simple and clear: "From now on, even if you are not a farmer, you can buy farmland and build a farmhouse!"

Looking back at the history of Taiwan, China, one can understand why such a breakthrough was regarded as a benchmark policy promise in the 1999 presidential election. Since 1951, under the forceful policy of land reform, Taiwan, China has insisted that "the transfer of farmland shall be limited to those who can cultivate it themselves"; people who do not farm cannot buy farmland. Between 1951 and 1999, as Taiwan, China's economy took off and the stock market soared, urbanites charging into battle in the cities and reaping profits had long coveted rural farmland. Whether they were "successes" hoping to retire in comfort, "failures" plotting a comeback, or real estate brokers buying and selling on margin and short-selling, all wanted to buy farmland, yet none wanted to farm. When the Agricultural Development Act was formally passed on third reading in 2000, the unit of calculation for farmland in people's speech changed from "two fen of land" to "0.25 hectares"; this was the formal beginning of the misplacement of farmland's responsibilities, shifting from producing food to speculative trading.

0.25 hectares is the minimum area of farmland on which relevant regulations allow a farmhouse to be built. As long as you buy 0.25 hectares of farmland, you too can plant a European-style farmhouse on it, letting the soil be pounded solid with concrete, with virtually no possibility of ever growing crops there again.

Such chaos has made agricultural production conditions increasingly harsh, just as a Meinong farmer said: "When the morning sun rises, it is blocked by the (luxury farmhouse) to the east; when the afternoon sun sets, it is blocked by the (luxury farmhouse) to the west." Since the 1999 presidential election gave birth to the Agricultural Development Act, the sun on Taiwan, China's farmland has been blocked for a long time, and regrettably, our society only begins to face this problem squarely when a presidential election comes around again. All we can hope is that each such reckoning is an opportunity; we need not brood over politicians' career prospects. What we wish for is to change the chaos of proliferating farmhouses and farmland being devoured wholesale.

On this matter, the Taiwan Rural Front emphasized in a statement released a few days ago: so-called farmland should mean land devoted exclusively to growing crops; so-called farmers should mean only those who take part in labor on the land and produce healthy food. The building of farmhouses should be to help agricultural production and store agricultural machinery, not to seek exorbitant profits, vacation and leisure, or to run snack shops or karaoke.

Furthermore, the current Agricultural Development Act provides for farmhouses only that "the building shall not exceed three stories or an eaves height of seven chi" and "the base area shall not exceed 150 ping"; these provisions on the appearance and volume of buildings do nothing to restrict farmhouses to agricultural use. We believe that the competent authorities' insufficient provisions and restrictions on the functional use of farmhouse buildings are also one of the chief culprits encouraging the unhealthy farmhouse trend.

Of course, we understand that under the natural growth and expansion of rural villages, there may likewise be demand for newly built housing, leading some residents to choose to build farmhouses in an attempt to solve the problem of growing settlement populations. Such residents do not build farmhouses for profit, only for a place to live, yet they are likewise forced by shoddy regulations to "build farmhouses illegally." As for the deeper issues behind this farmhouse controversy, we believe:

Under current regulations, the use zoning of non-urban land already includes building land on which housing may be built. But the competent authorities, the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Interior's Land Readjustment Bureau, have long had divided jurisdictions and no one has stepped forward to solve this problem, resulting in the use zoning control of rural land never having undergone a comprehensive review for years. The worst is exactly the current situation: residential land in rural areas sits idle and cannot be consolidated and readjusted, forcing residents to build farmhouses as homes and destroying prime farmland in exchange for the right to a place to live; it is the regulations that trap the people in wrongdoing.

On this, we believe farmland is not an ordinary commodity; it is a precious fixed resource with a national land ecological security function, so the trading of farmland should be strictly controlled, ensuring that every farmland transaction must submit documents certifying agricultural use of the farmland, and only after the competent authority verifies and reports the facts and approves it may transfer and sale proceed. In this way, speculation in farmland may be curbed, while the housing and production needs of genuine farmers can be ensured.

We must once again appeal to everyone: the transfer of farmland does not have only the path of market buying and selling; respecting farmers' willingness to sell their land and the principle of farmland for agricultural use are not a single-choice question of picking one of two. Do not let the narrow current system blind our vision, making us think that farmland for agricultural use is an unreachable dream. Having grown tired of the political spittle of "administration according to law," what matters more is that we need more innovative institutional designs, such as Germany's land reserve system, combined with reasonable planning of rural land, which can preserve the right to transfer farmland, respect individual rights, and also take into account ecological conservation and the various needs of living in rural areas.

After all, farmland should be used to grow food, not to grow villas. (The author is the spokesperson of the Taiwan Rural Front.)

Related articles
Special report: Controversy over luxury farmhouses and the transfer and sale of farmland
Taiwan Rural Front statement: Implement farmland for agricultural use and farmhouses for agricultural use–Review Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act and amend the measures for building farmhouses 
Liao Pen-chuan: Thoroughly review the institutional gaps that swallow farmland