缺乏奧援 農民憂後繼無人 自由時報 記者陳曉宜/調查採訪 「穀東俱樂部」發起人賴青松在宜蘭務農闖出一片天,他說:現在農村最大問題是「後繼無人」。樂天的崑濱伯稱自己是末代稻農,而今他也不免憂心地說:「農村最重要的是要年輕人回來。」 農委會當然也看到農村老人化、空洞化現狀,也聲稱再造農村建設,就是要讓年輕人回鄉團聚,但官員與農民的核心認知卻大不相同:「農民們希望的是年輕人到農村務農生產或進行產業升級改革,但農村再生條例草案卻只著眼在硬體建設的休閒觀光。」 租地價格高昂 新農民無力負擔 想要讓農村再生、後繼有人,政府必須知道農民的問題,才能知道如何提供有效協助。三十五歲的何凱西,放棄師範學歷,來到嘉義民雄務農。完全不懂農事的她,在一年多年前受聘為私人的田間管理員邊做邊學,好不容易得到朋友幫助提供一塊農地,讓她開始學習種植無農藥蔬菜。但在蔬菜還未種植成功前,只能每月以打工收入五千元過活。 何凱西遇到的最大困難是租地和租屋,因為她不是「返鄉」,而是在尋找「新故鄉」。政府推出「小地主大佃農」政策,看起來不錯卻幫不了她,農委會推出的農地銀行,標價都貴得嚇人,一分地一年要價一萬到數萬元,但實際行情卻只要約六千元。 有一回她參加農地銀行說明會,一位農會幹部坦承,因農委會規定每個農會要提供一定筆數出租農地,農會只好拿親友農地充數,為了不讓農地真的被標租走,只好抬高標價。 向農會申請補助不易 另一個案例是年收入曾達二百萬元的林義隆,他辭去竹科主管職務來到台東鹿野務農。與凱西相同的是,台東也是他的新故鄉;不同的是,他有資本自己購地、建屋,才能成功地以「秀明自然農法」,種植出鳳梨、楊桃等水果,並透過產銷合作管道,可月入近五萬元。 他說,農民最需要充足資訊與協助產銷,無知老農會一窩蜂地跟種導致量大價跌,新農則因生產技能與設備不足,導致好幾年無法成功生產,形成收入空窗。 但這些協助,卻無法倚賴農會。林義隆說,他曾因申請機具補助碰壁好幾次,也不知道可申報颱風損失,當地農會對他不聞不問。 台東茶農陳朝榮也說,他曾向農會申請補助有機農作獎金,農會竟以「沒辦過」為由,讓這筆中央撥下來的獎金因屆期未領被收回。某農會更利用農民人頭向政府申請興建民宿補助經費,款項下來後,農會竟自己蓋屋做民宿收錢,農民一毛錢也沒拿到。 林義隆說,所謂再造農村生活,不該只是做些景觀工程,應是生活機能改善,例如協助新農租屋,農忙時幫助農民照顧老人、托嬰,幫助新農融入當地文化,幫助農民進行產銷合作,減少農會、合作社等層層剝削。 台大農推系博士生蔡培慧說,台灣糧食多由小農生產自給,政府最應該要做的是產業創新機制,將生產消費結合,例如美國做社區支持型農業、日本做地產地銷、歐洲做農民市集,都是在面對農村衰敗時,施行的生產消費連結方案,目的在解決農產品流通問題,進行產銷合作。 嘉義民雄西昌村的翁坤明,正職是於台塑上班,下班後與妻子一起種植無化肥水稻。他發現很多四十歲左右的中年人都想遠離都市,返璞歸真,政府要做的就是幫助這些新農民,輕易返鄉或進入新故鄉,這不是花大錢做些無關痛癢的建設就可以,而是要他們喜樂於吃到自己種的米,學習愛這塊土地、愛上農村生活。 建議補助年輕人回來務農 崑濱伯也說,現在失業率這麼高,政府既然有錢,不如補助少年人回來務農,有種田生產的人才可以補助,不要補助休耕者。他語重心長地說:「台灣糧食已經快不夠了,都快全變進口的了,要補助生產,不是補助休耕啊!」 |
Sunday, May 10, 2009
缺乏奧援 農民憂後繼無人
環保志工假期:邊工作邊休假 邊做生態環保
邊工作邊休假 邊做生態環保
2009/05/08 16:19李柏毅
【記者李柏毅報導】一面工作,一面環保,可以享受自然美景,為環境保護盡一份心力,參與生態工作假期是一個不錯的選擇。環境資訊協會主編彭瑞祥表示,生態工作假期有很多種表現型態,但主要都是在於棲地保護跟文化資產管理。
生態工作假期短則一天,最長在國外也有長達一個多月。主要的工作在於棲地保護及文化資產管理。例如到陽明山移除優勢種或外來種的植物,像是長的像芒草的李氏禾,還有水族箱裡常見的水蘊草。
環境信託中心主任孫秀如表示,這些維護工作除了避免濕地走向陸域化、保持生態多樣性,它還是一種環境教育的過程,讓民眾親身體驗環境維護的工作。
彭瑞祥指出,生態工作假期起源於英國,「英國國民信託組織」從1967年起,先後展開13種各類型的工作假期。而它的一個重要概念就是與公益信託做結合,也就是將文化資產或保育區委託給公益團體,然後號召志工幫忙。
他舉例,台東成功鎮的環境教育園區,原本是果農跟林務局承租的地,後來果農將使用權捐出給環境資訊協會,做生態資源調查及環境教育活動。
他說,生態工作假期在台灣還不算普遍,但已經有越來越多人參與,也有其他相關單位開始用這個方式進行環境保護,像是台南北門社區大學跟縣政府合作的七股護沙活動。
參與生態工作假期,除了出力也要負擔一些費用。雖然說是志工,但仍要自行支付基本的食住開銷,另外還有生態環境參訪與解說的成本,這些都是對環境保護一項小小的投資。
台東生態:嘉明湖湧入登山客 500人搶6間生態廁所
嘉明湖湧入登山客 500人搶6間生態廁所
2009/05/10 16:28
(中央社記者盧太城台東縣10日電)玉山杜鵑花開,五月初連續假期嘉明湖湧入登山客,500名遊客擠爆向陽和嘉明湖避難屋,搶用6間生態廁所,人潮遠超過當地生態負荷,5月底的連續假情況可能更糟,讓人憂心。
嘉明湖是中央山脈南段主稜上最大的高山湖泊,必須經過向陽、好漢坡和三叉山步道,全長14公里。這條國家步道親近性很夠,難度亦不高,林務局4年前重修整檢步道並於沿途設置向陽和嘉明湖兩個避難小屋,因此最近幾年爆紅,每年湧入上萬人次。
每年4月過後,玉山杜鵑花開,進入登山旺季,登山客大部分集中在週休2日。5月初連續3天假期,根據向陽派出所登記登山客就有484人,加上原住民背工,超過500人,將嘉明湖和向陽避難屋擠的水洩不通。
利稻背工達亥形容當時的情況,避難屋附近可利用的空地都搭滿了帳篷,向陽和嘉明湖兩間避難屋僅有6間可使用的生態廁所,平均近百人搶用一間廁所,環境品質可想而知。
達亥說,人潮除了影響登山品質、對生態造成傷害外,登山客帶來惡劣的競爭,因資源有限,經常發生登山客搶床位、佔地盤、搶水源事件,搞的大家心情惡劣。
向陽派出所憂心的說,現在已經進入登山旺季,接著是5月底的端午節連續假日,預計湧入上千位的登山客,屆時對登山品質的影響可想而知。
農村再生(五):休耕賺更多 間接鼓勵農民廢耕
休耕賺更多 間接鼓勵農民廢耕
2009/05/10 04:09
記者鍾麗華/調查採訪
剛插秧的水田旁邊雜草蔓延,生氣盎然的農地與死氣沉沉的休耕地形成強烈的對比,「穀東俱樂部」發起人賴青松形容,這是「一個農村、兩個世界」。
政府每年支出的休耕補助高達一百零六億元,如種植綠肥、景觀作物每公頃每期作補助四萬五千元,若僅翻耕者則補助三萬四千元。根據農糧署統計,二期休耕面積約二十二萬公頃,其中六萬公頃是兩期皆休耕、十萬公頃只休耕一期,耕作面積僅不到二十六萬公頃,休耕地幾乎快接近耕作面積。
補助超過農民種田所得
新竹縣北埔鄉南埔村雖然仍看得到翠綠農田環繞山城,但兩河文化協會理事長姜信淇說,南埔從前是北埔鄉的穀倉,供應北埔之外,還賣到竹東、寶山,甚至新竹,但現在南埔村七十幾公頃的水田,耕作的只剩下三分之一。宜蘭員山鄉更慘,以前有二千公頃農田投入生產,現僅剩五百公頃在耕作。
「休耕補助遠超過農民實際種田所得,誰還想要耕作?」台灣稻農公司董事長王得利拿起筆,仔細計算農民每公頃投入的成本,包括整地、插秧、除草、收割、烘乾與肥料、農藥等,就超過七萬元,以一公頃生產一萬台斤濕稻約可賣得十一萬元,農民實質所得不到四萬五千元,忙了大半年,所得遠低於休耕補助,如果遇到颱風或天災,注定血本無歸。
休耕地荒蕪 影響實際耕地作業
休耕政策也帶給實際耕作農民困擾。賴青松說,休耕地沒有農民固定巡邏,灌溉排水常出問題,他的田也受波及。想借田試驗自己的一些想法,卻因休耕政策「卡住」,農民不願意出借。也因為不算低的休耕補助,讓租地耕作者負擔沉重,一公頃農地至少要拿出與休耕補助一樣租金,農民才肯租地,成本要高出一倍。
農委會推出的「小地主、大佃農」政策,說要活化休耕地,補助租地耕作者,卻要拿出契約才能申請。「農村是人情、人際關係社會,口頭約定取代一切。」賴青松租來的五甲地連一紙契約都沒有。王得利代耕的十二甲田也一樣。
獲得日本米食競賽特別優秀賞的稻農彭鏡興認為,人民勤奮是國家資產,但休耕補助政策等於讓土地放棄生產,不用種田還有錢可領,根本是「天上掉下來的禮物」,卻也讓農民養成好逸惡勞、不勞而獲的觀念,這是國力的消耗,要如何教育、傳承下一代?
從過去兩萬三千元到現在的四萬五千元,休耕補助與老農津貼一樣,成了選舉加碼的工具。事實上,為了鼓勵休耕地投入生產,原本農委會今年計畫取消連續休耕二期的補助,改成一年休耕一期才有補助,卻在反彈聲中又讓步。不過,獅潭村還是有八十五歲的老農民無論穀價多低,還是要繼續種下去,每天依然日出而作、日落而息,因為無法眼睜睜看著農田荒蕪,這是老農對土地的堅持,但老農還能做幾年?而下一代子孫會如何對待土地?是休耕抑或賣地蓋農舍?
農村再生(四):農地流失 台灣恐有缺糧危機
農地流失 台灣恐有缺糧危機
2009/05/10 04:09
記者鍾麗華/調查採訪
「二十年後,我們要吃什麼?」一旦生產農作的農地不斷流失後,台灣恐將面對的就是糧食危機了。
耕地面積下降 10內減少四萬公頃
翻開農業統計年報,耕地面積不斷下降。民國六十六年時還有九十二萬公頃、八十六年為八十六.四八萬公頃,九十六年為八十二.五九萬公頃,短短十年,減少近四萬公頃,若扣除休耕的十六萬公頃的土地面積,實際耕作恐不到七十萬公頃。
台大農藝系教授郭華仁推估,如果九十萬公頃的耕地全部種稻,並以一人一年所需熱量計算,只能養活約一千萬人,但全國人口總數早已破二千三百萬人,顯然台灣自己生產的糧食嚴重不足。
我國糧食自給率為三十.六%,十年來減少近七個百分點,光是稻米自給率就下降二十二個百分點,大豆、玉米、小麥幾乎仰賴進口。反觀世界各國,日本糧食自給率為四成、中國九成,即便如美國、法國等歐洲工業國家也超過百分之百。
去年爆發國際糧荒,稻米主要生產國禁止出口、小麥價格跟著石油攀升,在全球金融危機爆發後才趨緩,但清大教授彭明輝預料,景氣一復甦,國際糧價勢必會飆升比去年更高。因為耕地流失,全球人口卻不斷成長,加上石油枯竭、需求陡增,生質能源與人搶糧,而油價居高不下,糧食的生產與進口成本也增加,都讓國際糧價有理由再漲。
受到波及的不只有小麥、稻米,還有大豆、玉米等飼料作物價格飆升也帶動禽畜肉品,影響民眾動物性蛋白質的攝取。彭明輝強調,在沒有糧食危機時,糧食生產國會循市場機制運作,一旦遇到糧荒,勢必就禁止出口。
安全存糧逐年見底 去年僅剩32萬公頃
面臨糧食危機,政府動輒拿出我國的安全存糧向人民保證,事實上,安全存糧正逐年見底。九十二年還有超過八十四萬公噸,但去年只剩下三十二萬公噸,才六年就少了五十二萬公噸。農委會訂出國人三個月消費量、三十萬公噸為基準,在米價高漲,不斷釋出公糧調節下,現早不到此一標準。當安全存糧也拉警報時,該怎麼辦?
爆發國際糧荒,國人大可不吃麵包或麵粉,就像幾十年前一樣只吃白米飯,只是「如果農地不見了,連米都沒地方種,沒飯可吃,台灣會不會發生暴動?」
郭華仁說,政府雜亂無章的農地政策,已讓農地破碎化,也導致優良農地消失,不僅建築遮蔭,農作長不好,水泥侵入土壤,如果地下排水系統也沒做好,恐怕污染農地。而農地是國家珍貴的資源,工商、住宅區卻要搶進農地,但他觀察,許多工商、住宅區開發後閒置,政府應利用既有的土地,不要再與財團一同把手伸進農村。
Saturday, May 9, 2009
農村再生(三):農舍變別墅 農村沒人要下田
彭鏡興(左起)、王得利、賴青松對台灣農村的未來發展,憂心忡忡地討論著。(記者鍾麗華攝) |
記者鍾麗華/調查採訪
高聳圍牆圍起生產的農地,不是為了插秧、耕作,而是蓋起美輪美奐的「別墅型農舍」,農舍的主人並非農民,而是有錢有閒的「都市鄉巴佬」。當水泥、混凝土灌進農地,失去的一切就永遠無法復返了。
苗栗縣頭屋鄉獅潭社區發展協會理事長張華文細數著近年的變化,小小的獅潭村就矗立二十幾處嶄新的農舍,退休校長、縣政府公務員住進來,還有一些生意人。常常聽到「誰的田又賣掉了」,他無法理解,「獅潭明明位於只能從事農業生產的『特定農業區』,為何土地買賣與使用沒有限制?」
獅潭村新別墅暴增 土地買賣沒限制?
蓋起的農舍甚至媲美台北陽明山仰德大道上的豪宅,還有電視連續劇三番兩次來借屋取景,但獅潭村令人印象深刻的,絕不是美麗的建築,而是長長四公里主要道路上,一整片的山麓田園光風,除了路頭路尾的「柑仔店」,沒有一家商店,這種純樸的農村景象也正是張華文自豪的。
來到新竹縣北埔鄉的南埔村,年輕農夫魏子強發現,耕地變建地的情況很普遍,他手一指,「又有別墅開始蓋」。賣了土地,新移民就會進來,令他擔心的是,「移民熱中的不是農業生產,而是中產階級的休閒」,捨棄的農業最根本的土地經營,接下來,財團會不會進來?
穿過雪山隧道,映入眼簾的蘭陽平原,不是一整片綠油油的農田,突兀的別墅型農舍以及立在農田中的出售告示牌佔據了視線。農村的寧靜景致被破壞,宜蘭早已隨著農發條例十八條與北宜高通車後,成為台北人的「後花園」,「農村再生條例」草案一旦通過的話,會不會「淪陷」得更嚴重?
蘭陽平原淪為台北人後花園
台灣稻農公司董事長王得利對於住家附近蓋起多少漂亮的農舍,已無法好好計算。他說,農舍裡的住戶究竟是不是農民?從農舍外觀就看得出。從他家往外望,「這種看起來普通、不是很好的,就是農民住的;這一間花了一千五百萬元蓋的,是台北的醫學中心醫師的房子,放假才來住,平常還有守衛管理。」
王得利住的員山鄉,他估計至少一半以上的農地已經淪入台北人手中,整個宜蘭縣的農地,也有三分之一以上被賣了。宜蘭的農地一坪只有一萬元,與台北一坪動輒幾十萬元相比,實在太便宜了,讓建商、炒地皮的財團有機可趁。
看著原本代耕的農地,蓋起別墅型農舍,種田超過四十年的王得利低頭嘆了一口氣,他記得以前買賣農地,還要附耕作能力證明,但現在只要有錢,任誰都能買。宜蘭的農地價格被炒高了一倍,他不解,「難道政府以為炒作農地價格就能提高農民收入?」待價而沽的農地,面對的是土地轉型的商業計算,如何能讓農業生生不息?
綠島人權論文:GREEN ISLAND ELEGY: HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CHINESE WORLD
GREEN
Paul Monk
In the 1990s, a memorial was built on
Far from
For many mainlanders it is deeply upsetting to confront this history and there are some who still insist that it is not history, but Taiwanese nationalist propaganda. They are mistaken. There were many witnesses to the events at the time, not least among them the American diplomat, George Kerr, who set down accounts of what they saw.[iii] Taiwanese exiles kept the matter alive, claiming that 20,000 people had been massacred. In 1991, two Chinese and one American scholar published a detailed examination of the matter, in which they estimated that the number of deaths, almost all Taiwanese, was between 8,000 and 10,000.[iv] That was a conservative estimate. In 1995, the Guomindang itself apologised for the terrible excesses of 1947 and admitted that the number of Taiwanese killed in 1947 was between 18,000 and 28,000.[v]
These are numbing statistics. An equivalent level of bloodshed in
This is a human rights story which should be much more widely known and understood than it is. It is a paradigm case of democratisation, which merits emulation in a world still grievously beset by ruthless political violence. It is a shining example, within the Chinese world, of what is possible when traditional authoritarianism and ideological bloodymindedness are replaced by magnanimity, imagination and principle. And it is, finally, a dramatic proof that human rights are not something confected by Western civilisation to interfere in the cultural and political domains of post-colonial states. They are fundamental and universal principles, without which barbarous violence and arbitrary government will both occur and go unchecked.
When
By 1946, educated Taiwanese had invented a wry pun to characterise Guomindang rule. The San Min Chu-I (Three Principles of the People), they quipped, had turned into Ts’an-min
Not least among the victims were countless idealistic young students. George Kerr wrote, “We saw students tied together, being driven to the execution grounds, usually along the river banks and ditches about
The White Terror did not involve massacres on this scale. It lasted longer, but was more discriminating in its suppression of opposition to the Guomindang[ix]. It began in 1949, as Chiang Kaishek’s Guomindang fled from defeat on the mainland and sought to both consolidate their hold on the island against the Taiwanese and to root out real or suspected Communist infiltrators in their chaotic ranks. It was in these years that the
Of the thousands of cases of repression from that era, those of Lei Chen, Su Ting-chi and Peng Ming-min are almost paradigm cases of political persecution. Lei Chen was a leading liberal journalist who was arrested in 1961, along with three colleagues, for advocating clean and fair elections. He was sentenced to ten years in prison for this heinous offence. When a young student, Su Ting-chi, organised a petition for clemency on his behalf, he was arrested, tortured, tried for sedition and executed, in May 1962. His wife was sentenced to life imprisonment for refusing to denounce him. Peng Ming-min, a brilliant young, Japanese educated political scientist at
These case histories provide a sense of perspective. They invite searching comparisons with the persecution of democratic dissidents in
The core problem all of these individuals faced, whether under the Guomindang or the Communists, was the repressive nature of Chinese political culture, its inveterate lack of recognition of the dignity of the individual and the rights of the citizen. Bo Yang, a mainlander who fled Communism in the 1940s and then ended up being gaoled by the Guomindang on Taiwan in 1967, for ‘defaming the leadership’, is now the director of the Human Rights Education Foundation in Taipei. In 1984, following his release from Green Island, he delivered a speech at Iowa University, in the United States, which was later published under the title The Ugly Chinaman. His reflections in that speech still cannot be openly published in
“During my incarceration”, he reflected, “I spent a lot of time contemplating my fate. What crimes had I committed? What laws had I broken? I continued pondering these questions after I was released and began to wonder whether mine was an abnormal or special case.” Mainlanders he met in
We now know better. We know that the lack of human rights has a long history in
The breakthrough on
Chiang Ching-kuo was a contemporary of Deng Xiaoping and if Plutarch himself were to write a modern, global Parallel Lives, as he did of Greek and Roman statesmen long ago, then Jay Taylor has shown that he would have to parallel these two lives. The two were classmates together in
It was the confident view of leading Guomindang liberal Shaw Yu-ming, in 1985, that
In 1988, a six part TV miniseries was screened in
Island Elegy would take up where River Elegy left off. It might begin with the statement by
[i] Jay Taylor The Generalissimo’s Son: Chiang Ching-kuo and the Revolutions in China and Taiwan, Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 212.
[ii] Ibid. p. 479n27.
[iii] George H. Kerr
[iv] Lai Tse-han, Ramon H. Myers, Wei Wou A Tragic Beginning: The Taiwan Uprising of 28 February 1947, Stanford University Press, 1991, pp. 164-66.
[v] Jay Taylor op. cit., p. 148.
[vi] Lai Tse-han, Ramon Myers, Wei Wou op. cit. p. 193.
[vii] Murray Rubinstein (ed) Taiwan: A New History, M. E. Sharpe,
[viii] George H. Kerr op. cit. pp. 300-303.
[ix] Ho Ching-t’ai White Archives,
[x] Peter Chen-main Wang in
[xi] For an excellent introduction to the democratic movement in
[xii] Wei Jingsheng The Courage To Stand Alone: Letters From Prison and Other Writings, Viking Penguin, 1997.
[xiii] Geremie Barme and John Minford (eds) Seeds of Fire: Chinese Voices of Conscience, Bloodaxe Books,
[xiv] In 1972, Chiang Ching-kuo “told his cabinet that the Chinese people had suffered thousands of years of arrogant treatment from officials”. He told the
[xv] Annette Lu remained in prison until 1987. She is now the Vice-President of Taiwan.
[xvi] According to
[xvii] The chief go between, from 1980 to 1987 was none other than Lee Kuan Yew, who became a close friend and confidant of Chiang Ching-kuo in these years.
綠島國際報導:Taiwan's Green Island losing its lustre
Taiwan's Green Island losing its lustre
By Ralph Jennings
The aptly named 15-square-kilometre Green Island, an hour's ferry ride from Taiwan's main isle, is fast losing its luster due to garbage and excrement dumped into its azure waters and shrinking reefs plundered by coral-robbing tourists.
"The water is not as clear as it used to be," a dismayed Taiwan Vice President Annette Lu told Reuters after surveying Green Island by boat in October. "That's what happens when a place chooses to grow."
Coral reefs, colourful fish, a warm ocean current, mild off-season weather and ferry links make Green Island arguably one of East Asia's best places to dive or snorkel.
'Now a shadow of its former self'
Corals have deteriorated and once common sea turtles and hammerhead sharks are seldom seen around the island.
"When I first dived on Green Island 16 years ago, it had abundant marine life, and it is now a shadow of its former self," said Taiwan-based diving trainer Andrew Gray.
"Unless (the government acts), the underwater environment will be steadily depleted and eventually everyone will suffer."
Once infamous for its prison for political dissidents during Taiwan's pre-democracy era, Green Island began looking to its underwater scenery and a rare salt water hot spring in 1991 to draw tourists from the crowded, overbuilt cities of Taiwan.
Visitors reached 382 908 last year, up 40 percent from just five years earlier, according to government statistics.
Some tourists cause damage by taking bits of coral from the reefs despite warnings in a video shown aboard the Green Island ferries for the past year. Tourists on return visits to the island are noticing murky water and trash along the shore.
"You could see more of the ocean before," said Joy Wu, 19, who is on her fourth visit to the island.
Wu like many others who have seen Green Island in its heyday blames development and the tourist industry for the damage.
"There's no way to stop (growth). If there's a way to make money, people here will do whatever it takes to make some."
The government is now considering constructing a water treatment plant but it may take years for it to be built.
'We're still discussing impacts'
Those in the local tourist trade say things are not as bad as they seem and note that some hotels and restaurants treat their waste on site.
"Environmental protection is being done well on Green Island," said Chen I-hsiang, owner of the 50-room Kungkuan Hotel. "It's better than (on the main island of) Taiwan, since we have no major industry."
Laws on the island ban high-rise hotels and sprawling luxury resorts, but authorities have so far resisted calls to limit the tourist headcount or risk upsetting travellers by charging environmental impact fees.
Such fees are required for diving spots elsewhere, such as rock islands in the South Pacific nation of Palau and on the Philippine island of Boracay.
"We're still discussing impacts," said Wu Chin-sheng, chief of the Green Island Ranger Station. "We have no way to control things now. People have the right to go where they want."
Divers also want Taiwan to crack down on fishing for consumption and aquariums. Some have suggested forming a Green Island marine park off limits to fishing boats.
"It's about people realising that a fish is worth more underwater than on a plate," said Eddie Viljoen, a Taiwan-based diving guide.
Friday, May 8, 2009
農村再生?無米樂變調 萬安村富足樂活
觀光VS.產銷 給農村一個機會?
觀光VS.產銷 給農村一個機會?
自由時報 記者鍾麗華/調查採訪 「農村再生條例不過,農村建設就沒有錢可做,今年的補助款到現在都撥不下來,就是因為條例沒過,請給農村一個機會!」這是新竹、苗栗、宜蘭的五個農村再生試辦區的聲音,他們面對農運團體、學者專家反對條例,在網路上串聯連署的做法,無法理解。 為了推動農村再生條例草案,去年農委會水保局在宜蘭縣、新竹縣、苗栗縣分別選了冬山鄉大進社區、北埔鄉南埔社區、三義鄉雙潭社區、頭屋鄉象山社區與獅潭社區做為農村再生試辦區。除了大進社區獲得近九百萬元的補助外,其他每個社區平均補助一百萬元左右,好讓其他農村觀摩,進而發掘未來農村再生推行的改變與困難。 南埔村修了通往百年水車的路;雙潭村設計兩個點的木藝原鄉造街,將當地木藝老師傅的作品放在街旁;象山村將破舊的豬舍改建涼亭,並在當地的信仰中心玉衡宮旁做造景;獅潭村則設立茅草涼亭及蘿蔔試驗田,希望未來蘿蔔四季都能採收。大進村主要是改善閒置農地、整頓環境、並興建奉茶站等。此外,水保局還特別補助四百多萬元興建水草植物園區。 今年農委會要試辦區再提計畫,南埔社區提出三、四千萬元的經費規劃,要改善三公里長的水圳;雙潭社區則是木藝原鄉造街、活動中心與天后宮木藝造景共二千二百萬元;象山村則是一千七百萬元的三處生活環境改善工程;獅潭村則是社區公園、水圳等一千萬元。大進社區則一口氣提了接近一億元,除了要讓當地的野燒陶重現外,也要進行環境美化等。 翻開計畫書,整個農村再生計畫是從九十八年到一○一年,正好跨過下一任的總統大選,象山社區農村再生促進會長劉成亮說得明白:「馬政府如果再選上,計畫又可以再延續下去。」村民提供五年無償公共使用的「豬舍涼亭」,就可以永久下去。 象山村規劃的三處生活環境改善工程,地要怎麼來?劉成亮表示,其中的生活遊憩區,將向村民請求五年的無償公共使用,五年之內也可買賣,但買方仍要提供公眾使用。如果後代子孫鬧分家,不想做為公用該怎麼辦?他說,還沒想到那麼多。他也知道,農民最怕租用、借用的地收不回去,政府如果又來個三七五減租、土地改革,地就變成別人的,這也是村民的疑慮。 雙潭的木藝原鄉造街、活動中心與天后宮木藝造景,會不會離農業太遠?三義鄉民代表張玉鳳坦言:「當初向水保局提計畫時,講了很久才通過。」但造景、造街改變農村景象,吸引觀光客來雙潭,參觀在家從事木工藝術的老師傅雕刻,也會帶動當地發展。 過度依賴休閒觀光,是否忽略了農業生產的本質?新竹文史工作者、兩河文化協會理事長姜信淇說,峨眉鄉湖光村有一個有機蔬菜產銷班,生產有機的白玉苦瓜、番茄等,還分裝賣到台北,曾經一度運作得不錯,但當地發展休閒觀光後,農民開起餐廳、咖啡店、小吃店,做起生意來,產銷班形同解散。 然而新增了硬體建設,就等同是農村再生嗎?苗栗縣頭屋鄉獅潭社區發展協會理事長張華文認為,先改善農村的景觀、居住環境,增加誘因,年輕人才會願意回鄉居住,農業生產面才是接下來的問題。 但兩千億的基金都用於景觀建設,錢燒完了,最困難、最癥結的、政府老是做不好的農業產銷該怎麼辦?農業生產問題繼續晾在一邊,建設卻在逐年老舊,也沒有經費維護,農村破敗依舊,年輕人真的會因為美麗的造景建築而回鄉嗎? | ||||||||||