After 1987, the agricultural market in Taiwan gradually opened for foreign products. This free market policy has brought economic loss to small farmers, because the local agricultural products could not compete with those produced by transnational agribusiness. However, the pro-capital state regards agricultural liberalization and modernization, as a symbol of national progress and development, and the weak agriculture is a necessary sacrifice, especially if this sacrifice can contribute to Taiwan re-entering international society, for example, GATT and WTO. The further agricultural reform policy to assuage the impact of joining WTO is Farmland Release Policy. Considering the decline of agriculture and the demand for national economic development, this released farmland is supplying for the demand of national infrastructure, for example, high-speed railway, free highway, power plants and industrial area, which will increase GDP and keep economic growth predicted by the state. Moreover, in the new version of the Agriculture Development Ordinance will allow anyone, including the corporations and land developers, to purchase farmland that was only accessible before to the local farmers. This further releasing measure is stimulating some environmental organizations to protest against the new policy, they are claiming that the new policy will generate land speculation, wear away land ethic, destroy agricultural community and bring ecological disaster. However, the ideology of modernization and the strong demand for national security caused the ENGOs incapable to challenge the discourse of development embedded in the new agricultural reform policies, and propose an alternative agricultural project. Agricultural issue in global free market is treated as issue of social welfare for old retired farmers.

Keywords: state, agriculture, environment, WTO, free market, development, nationalism, ENGOs, Taiwan
　
　

    Agriculture is the most primitive activity in which a human being uses different natural resources and interacts with environment. Depending on the potential and limitations of natural conditions, a human being develops diverse cultivation and civilization. However, what is the impact on agriculture, including local farmers and the environment of the global free market at present day? How does the state to manage this situation in the new global economy? What is the resistant strategy of environmental actors to protest state policy? In this paper I utilize the process of Taiwan’s joining WTO (World Trade Organization) and the new agricultural policy of Taiwan’s government to reflect upon these questions. I would like to analyze how the mechanisms of the free market influence the state to make decisions, as well as what the impact of state policy is on local people and environment.

    After 1987, the agricultural market in Taiwan gradually opened to foreign products. This free market policy has brought economic loss to small farmers in Taiwan, because the local agricultural products could not compete with those produced by transnational agribusiness. The suffering farmers have taken several collective actions to protest against the open policy, and these actions are considered as a pioneer of social movements in Taiwan after the abolishment of Martial Law(Table: 1). However, the pro-capital state regards agricultural liberalization and modernization as a symbol of national progress and development. Weak agriculture is considered as a necessary sacrifice, especially if this sacrifice can contribute to Taiwan re-entering international society, for example, GATT and WTO.

    Further agricultural reform policies are being prepared for the impact of joining WTO in the future. Considering the decline of agriculture and the demand for national construction, the state proposed a series of farmland reform policies, the most important one being the Farmland Release Policy. About 160,000 hectares of farmland are being released from the original 880,000 hectares’ of farmland. This released farmland is supplying a demand for national infrastructures, such as, high-speed railways, free highways, power plants and industrial areas, which will increase GDP and keep economic growth as predicted by the state. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the collapse of the agricultural community in Taiwan, the state decided to abolish the restrictions on farmland markets by 1998 in the new version of the Agriculture Development Ordinance, which will allow anyone, including the corporations and land developers, to purchase farmland that was only accessible before to the local farmers. 

    This additional releasing measure is causing some environmental organizations to protest against the new policy. They are claiming that the new policy will generate land speculation, wear away land ethics, destroy the agricultural community and bring ecological disaster. However, the ideology of modernization and the strong demand for national security has caused ENGOs to be incapable of challenging the discourse of development embedded in the new agricultural reform policies and of proposing an alternative agricultural project. Agricultural issues in a global free market are treated as issues of social welfare for old retired farmers.

    In this paper I will try to map the whole picture of the mechanisms of the free market, the role of state and the impact on local farmers and environment (Fig.1). Most of the data is collected from web sites, newspapers and personal experiences and observations. The approach I will use here is political ecology and discursive analysis as well.
 
 

Table 1: The Related Events of Taiwan’s Farmers’ Movement 

Date	Events
8/9/1986	Decreasing the import tariffs of 58 items of US agricultural products
1/1/1987	The Council of Agriculture proposed Agricultural Development Projects.
7/15/1987	The Martial Law was abandoned.
12/8/1987	Farmers from Li-Mountain protest against the Legislator Congress for the import of foreign fruits
3/12/1988	The National Chicken Raising Association protested against the America in Taiwan Association and the International Trade Agency for the import of US turkey.
5/20/1988	The Farmers’ Rights Association protested against the Legislative Congress and resulted in the police’s arrest and violent accident. This event is called the “520 Event”.
10/25/1988	The Farmers’ Right Association demonstrated in Taipei.
1/5/1989	Taiwan-US bilateral agreement achieved to open market for US turkey next year.
6/30/1989	Taiwan-US fishery agreement was achieved.
1/4/1990	Taiwan re-submitted its application to join GATT as a customs territory, titled the “Separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu”.
7/9/1993	“Farmer’s Land Ownership Ordinance”was abandoned.

(source:楊碧川:1996)
　
　
　

    Free market, depending on the discourse of liberalization and globalization, actually overcurtains the unequal power relationship between different races, genders, classes, regions and countries. Vandana Shiva, an Indian ecofeminist, argues that “globalization“ is not a new thing and it transforms in different mechanism, institution and discourses of the successive historical stage. The first wave of globalization is the colonization of the Third World by European powers. The second wave began when these colonies became independent and converted to the patterns of production and consumption inherited from Northern industrialized countries. But now Southern countries are stepping into the third phase of globalization, which is exemplified by trade treaties like GATT and the establishment of the WTO (Shiva, 1995:3-4).

    Shiva argues that the influences of the international free market on local agriculture are both deep and broad, especially for the livelihood of local female farmers. She emphasizes that as a result most women in the south Asia are engaged in the agricultural sector, food processing, textiles and garment production, trade liberalization policies can create starvation and famine by removing tariff barriers and importing cheap, foreign food, which ultimately displaces peasants and destroys their entitlements. She insists that protectionism is essential for a country to protect its local production and industry, to protect local farmers and their whole livelihood as well (Shiva, 1995).

    The same situation happens to other Third World’s farmers. McMichael criticizes that the WTO expands Northern agribusiness power at the expense of farmers across the world by ruining rural communities and threatening local food security. He also points out that these global food companies, based on agribusiness imperialism, not only change local agricultural landscape, but also influence agricultural labor—about two-thirds of the Mexican and Chilean agricultural labor forces depend on insecure, low-wage employment of TNCs (McMichael,1998: 107-108).

    National sovereignty of Third World countries is threatened by the global power bloc as well. Martin Khor argues that free trade eventually leads Third World countries to further economic dislocation, the erosion of national sovereignty and environmental deterioration. He also predicts that in the future the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank will integrate their policies toward Third World countries and pressure them to accept (Khor, 1993).

    However, not only the small farmers of the Third World are oppressed by the power of the global economy. Mark Ritchie proves that free market also destroys family farms in the U.S., obstructs sustainable agriculture on the global scale, reduces consumer confidence, consumes higher energy, threatens genetic diversity, creates conflicts between farmers and consumers, weakens consumer health and environmental safety standards, and undermines local, state and national authority and democracy (Ritchie, 1993).

    On one hand, “free market” eliminates the livelihood of small farmers and female farmers, who are incorporated with nature and responsible for their crops by traditional methods of cultivation; on the other hand, it breeds the growth of agribusiness that employs more machines, chemical fertilizers and biotechnologies. The monoculture of agribusiness erases all the diverse agricultural cultivation according to various local environmental conditions. Altieri concludes several consequences of monoculture of agribusiness:

1. Most large-scale agricultural systems show fragmental structured farm components.

2. Cycles of nutrients, energy, water, and wastes have become more open, rather than closed as in a natural ecosystem.

3. Agroecosystems become unstable and susceptible to pests due to crop monoculture or simple rotations.

4. Intensified chemical controls are required to overcome increasing pest potential.

5. Modern agriculture relies on a continuous supply of new varieties rather than many different varieties planted on the same farm at the same time.

6. The efficiency of use of applied pesticides and fertilizers is decreasing and the yields are declining, because the unsustainable practices erode the productive ability of land (Altieri,1998: 62-63).

    The global free market also destroys our grassroots democracy and breaks the connection between farmers (producers) and citizens (consumers) as well. Local people lose the autonomy of their own ways of life and the basic demand for survival—food. The food we consume now is transported from distant places and we can not control the process of production. On the global scale, Ralph Nadar criticizes that multilateral organizations like GATT and NAFTA would establish a world economic government dominated by transnational corporations, but they do not propose a democratic rule of law to regulate this global economic government (Nadar:1993).

    Finally, Wendell Berry raises fundamental questions which may break the myth of free market. He asks: “Does it make sense that a country or a region destroys its own capacity to produce its own food in favor of international trade?…If people lose their ability to feed themselves, how can they be said to be free?” (Berry, 1993:160-161) 

    Ultimately, the free market challenges the meaning of life for human beings. Exchange value overwhelms use value and becomes the goal of life. The human being is treated as a number, a figure or an ant in the global gaze. A new cosmology is born, with freedom of trade at its center and objective that everyone should strive for(Shiva, 1995: 37).

    Except the powerful actors who sit behind the curtain of free market…
 
 

    Formally GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, was not an international organization, but an inter-governmental treaty. It emerged from a fundamental perception that multilateral institutions facilitating cooperation between countries were important not only for economic reasons, but also for reducing the risk of war after the Second World War. The role of GATT was supposed to facilitate the reduction of barriers of trade and ensure greater accessibility to the market for contracting parties (Hoekman, 1995:12-13). By 1990, Canada’s trade minister, John Crosbie, proposed to create WTO, the World Trade Organization. By 1994, the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations under GATT achieved an agreement to strengthen the international trading system and to found a formal international organization, the World Trade Organization. On 1 January 1995, the WTO was born (Krueger, 1998). 

    In 1994, the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiation braught agriculture into the general discipline of GATT. (Dixit, 1996: 18) The agro-exporting nations including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, and Uruguay, formed the Cairns Group at Cairns, Australia in 1986, and contributed to the Uruguay Round on agricultural liberalization. This group seeks to remove the trade barriers and substantial reductions in subsidies affecting agricultural trade for their countries’ interests (Lopez,1997: 24). For example, in previous GATT Rounds, the U.S. always insisted that agriculture should be an exception of the liberation of world trade in order to protect local agriculture from import competition. However, since the mid-1980s, the U.S. changed this position and opposed agricultural protection because of its agro-exports (McMichael, 1998: 102). 

   Another important actor contributing to agricultural free trade in GATT and WTO is TNCs (Transnational Companies). In fact, the original U.S. proposal to the Uruguay Round was written by Cargill food company’s former senior vice president, who is also a former officer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (McMichael,1998:102). The big grain traders (Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland [ADM], Continental, Louis Dreyfuss, Bunge & Borne, Mitsui, and Feruzzi) have used their power to regulate supplies, control grain prices in the global market, and set up the rules of agricultural liberalization in GATT and WTO.

    TNCs has gradually gained control of the global food market, which will seriously influence local agriculture. For example, in 1994, 80 percent of U.S. beef was produced by three packers: Iowa Beef Packers (IBF), ConAgra, and Cargill. Agro-exports from the U.S. occupied 36 percent of wheat trade worldwide; 64 percent of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats; 40 percent of soybeans; 17 percent of rice; and 33 percent of cotton (McMichael, 1998: 103). Food companies benefit from the global free trade most. In 1994, two companies. Cargill and Continental shared 50 percent of U.S. grain exports. Cargill is the largest private company and the eleventh largest company in the world. It employs 70,700 people in 800 locations in sixty countries and over fifty different businesses—from grains to beefpacking to fertilizer, peanuts, salts, coffee, transportation, steel, rubber, fruits and vegetables (McMichael, 1998 : 105). 

    Consequently, food travelling from farmland to dinner plate now takes an average 2,000 miles in the global food system. This system undermines the institutional bases of national agricultural sectors both in the North and the South. In the U.S.A., the average family farm earns only 14 percent of its income from farming, and 95 percent of American food is manufactured and sold by corporations. Even though the food industry is the largest American industrial sector, it still can not produce food security, about 30 million Americans do not get enough to eat (McMichael,1998: 105).
 
 

    Although joining the WTO, the World Trade Organization, may cause economic damages for most peripheral countries, Taiwan, which is not officially recognized by international society, regards its entry into the WTO as an exhibition of national sovereignty. Taiwan in fact is the 13th-largest trading country. The Republic of China, Taiwan’s official name, is one of the 23 founding members of GATT, the predecessor of the WTO in 1948. The KMT government of R.O.C., however, withdrew its membership in 1950 after losing control of the Mainland China and retreating to Taiwan.

    Taiwan re-submitted its application to join GATT in January 1990 as a customs territory, titled the “Separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu”. However, the China government pressured the WTO to change the applicant’s name to “Chinese Taipei”. China wants to join WTO first, although it still has to reform its centrally planned economy, and Taiwan’s admission process is rapidly nearing completion (Far Eastern Economic Review: 1995) .

    As part of the admission process, Taiwan has entered into bilateral negotiation with most of its more than 180 trading partners. The major trading partners are the United States, Japan, France, Germany and the U.K. The most important bilateral talks are with the U.S. and Japan. Taiwan has agreed to almost every concession, which include reductions in industrial and agricultural tariffs, market-opening measures and a rollback of other restrictions on foreign investment (Table 2). The talks with the U.S. are the most crucial. These negotiations have already covered some 2,700 of the more than 8,000 items on Taiwan’s tariff schedule; the most important items are cars, alcohol, rice and tobacco. As for the agricultural items, Taiwan has already agreed to remove price supports from corn, soybeans and sorghum and to reduce agricultural supports 20% overall by 2001, even though Taiwan has argued that subsides for rice farmers and rice self-sufficiency, are very important for national security. However, Taiwan has promised to remove price supports from Taiwan’s 160,000 full-time rice farmers. Because rice imports are now banned, and the cost of Taiwanese rice is more than triple the international price, this concession will have a huge impact on Taiwan’s rice farmers. About 40% of Taiwanese farming households are engaged in full-time or part-time rice production (Far Eastern Economic Review: 1995).

    The U.S. has raised unusually high hurdles, pressing Taiwan to adopt standards that are typical of a fully developed industrial country and in many cases exceed those of existing WTO members. One reason is that during the past decade Taiwan had already granted access to goods and services on a bilateral basis with U.S. exporters. American firms have had privileged access for items such as apples, wheat, beef and manufactured goods, including cars, as well as financial services. Other trading partners demanded to follow this pattern. The result will be that Taiwan’s tariffs are much lower than those of other countries at the same stage of development (Far Eastern Economic Review: 1995). 

    The potential trade impacts of joining WTO which have been counted by the state are the fluctuation of GDP and the amount of international trade. According to national accounting, Taiwan’s net food imports would rise by more than $0.6 billion. The increased net imports of grain would be almost $100million. The non-grain crops imports would account for 60 percent of the increased U.S. agricultural exports, and processed food for an additional 30 percent. More than half of Taiwan’s export expansion would consist of processed food, following a restructuring of its agricultural sector away from production of land-intensive crops like feed grains (down by 60 percent), and toward high-value crops and processed food (Agricultural Outlook: 1997).
 

Table 2: Admission Price
 

Taiwan’s proposed concessions to enter the WTO

Across-the-board reduction of all tariffs

Removal of protection for most agricultural products

Ending a ban on rice imports

Privatization of tobacco, wine, and bear monopolies

Stricter patent and copyright laws

Opening of government procurement to foreign suppliers

Removal of bans on imports of Japanese consumer goods

Opening insurance industry to foreign investors

Easing restrictions on foreign commercial banking

Ban on subsidies to the aerospace

(Source: Far Eastern Economic Review, 1995:67)
 

    Actually, for Taiwan’s government, the agricultural sector is a necessary sacrifice for economic development and the symbol of national sovereignty. According to conservative estimates from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, joining WTO could cause losses of about NT$ 15 billion in the first year of entry and would increase in subsequent years. The government would incur additional costs in helping the private sector, especially the agricultural sectors; about NT$10 billion is reserved to assist the farmers disrupted by the WTO’s entry. However, the Ministry of Economic Affairs optimistically predicted entrance in the WTO would add one to two percentage points to the country’s GDP growth annually, and could offset a projected decline in Taiwan’s medium-term economic growth rates. Most important of all, Taiwan will finally step into the global community next year, and the government is willing to pay any price to complete this mission, although the China government is still protesting (Far Eastern Economic Review: 1995).
 
 

    Taiwan is a subtropical island with an area of nearly 3,600,000 hectares, roughly two-thirds is mountain, while only one-fourth is arable. Paddy fields and dryland account for 52.3 percent and 47.7 percent of the total cultivated land respectively (Table 3). With a population of 21.35 million, Taiwan has one of the world's highest population densities. Because of these factors, the average size of Taiwan's farms has remained at only slightly over one hectare for years (www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm).
 

Table 3: Cultivated Land Area
 

Year	Total	Paddy field	Dry land
1952	876,100	533,643(60.9)	342,457(39.1)
1955	873,002	532,688(61.0)	340,314(39.0)
1960	869,223	525,580(60.5)	343,643(39.5)
1965	889,563	536,772(60.3)	352,791(39.7)
1970	905,263	528,927(58.4)	376,336(41.6)
1975	917,111	515,852(56.2)	401,259(43.8)
1980	907,353	509,326(56.1)	398,027(43.9)
1985	887,660	494,535(55.7)	393,125(44.3)
1990	890,090	476,997(53.6)	413,093(46.4)
1995	873,378	459,335(52.6)	414,043(47.4)
1996	872,158	456,166(52.3)	415,992(47.7)

Source: Taiwan Agricultural Yearbook, Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Taiwan Provincial Government (PDAF)

Unit: hectare
 

    Agriculture was a key element in the early stage of Taiwan's economic development. Over the past five decades, Taiwan has developed from an agriculture-based economy to a newly industrialized one. As much research has pointed out, the KMT regime rebuilt its domination in Taiwan after it failed in the civil war in 1949 in China and lost its power there. In order to stabilize its dynasty in Taiwan, the KMT government had to implement some land reform policies to reduce the influence of the big landlords and favor the bulk of tenant farmers on this island. Some of these important land reform policies were “Land Rent Decrease”, ”Common Land Redistribution” and “Farmer’s Land Ownership”. These policies allowed farmers to own their own land, and this inspired them to work more diligently. Farmers, however, had to pay more money to buy fertilizer and machines than they received from agricultural products. Therefore because of higher production the government could use the surplus profit from the agricultural sector and invest into the industrial sector. Moreover, a surplus of laborers from rural villages immigrated to cities and became workers in industrial sector, which led industrial growth to be called “Economic Miracle”. In this period, Taiwan’s agricultural policies were characterized as the “developmental squeeze.”(Lee, 1972; Hsiao, 1981:55-56)

    However, agricultural growth has slowed down during the past ten years. The number of farm households in 1996 was 779,427, nearly the same as in 1985. However, the population employed in agriculture notably decreased from 1,297,000 to 918,000 during the same period. The average size of a farm was 1.10 hectares in 1995 and only 28 percents of farm households had a farm of more than 1 hectare (Table 4). Farm income includes both agricultural income and non-agricultural income. Before 1970, farm income came mainly from agricultural income. After 1971, however, the rapid development of industrial and commercial organization led to an increase in employment opportunities off of the farm. Thus, the ratio of non-agricultural income began to increase (Table 5) (www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm).
 

Table 4: Average Farm Size and Type of Farm Household
 

Year	Per household	Full-time(%)	Part-time(%)
1952	1.29	-	-
1960	1.11	49.3	50.7
1970	1.03	31.2	68.8
1980	1.02	9.0	91.0
1990	1.04	13.0	87.0
1995	1.10	12.8	87.2

Source: Taiwan Agricultural Yearbook, Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Taiwan Provincial Government (PDAF)
 
 
 

Table 5: Sources of Farm Family Income
 

Year	Total	Net agri. income	Non agri. income
1966	32,320	21,314(66.0%)	11,006(34.0%)
1970	35,439	17,257(48.7%)	18,182(51.3%)
1975	86,061	39,853(46.3%)	46,208(53.7%)
1980	197,533	58,511(29.6%)	139,022(70.4%)
1985	261,456	95,929(36.7%)	165,527(63.3%)
1990	388,855	136,841(35.2%)	252,011(64.8%)
1995	623,023	241,985(38.8%)	381,038(61.2%)

Source: Taiwan Agricultural Yearbook, Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Taiwan Provincial Government (PDAF)

    Agricultural exports played an important role in the early development of Taiwan's economy for they were the major source of foreign exchange. Because of the rapid growth of industrial production and a trade-oriented policy, the share of agricultural trade has declined over the past years. However, agricultural trade has continued to grow. In 1995, two-way trade was valued at $12.6 billion U.S. dollars with $8,127 million imports and $4,527 million exports (www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm). 

    At the same time, Taiwan has encountered growing pressure from its trade partners to abide by WTO's liberal principles and open up its domestic market. Foreign competition is squeezing local farm products out of export markets, while imports of foreign products have flooded the domestic market. As a result, the increasing choices of food change the diet habit; per capita consumption of rice reached 134 kg in 1970 and went down to 60 kg in 1994. During the same period, per capita consumption of fruits, meat and other supplementary foods increased tremendously. Fruit consumption was up from 46 kg to 137 kg; meat, up from 25 kg to 73 kg; egg, from 4 kg to 15 kg; dairy products, sea food, oil and grains, have also shown significant increase. The government will scale down agriculture protection by helping fruit farmers find ways to make their farms more profitable. These include such things as more mechanization, increased technology, improved farming techniques, better land allocation, diversification, and establishing an equilibrium between production and consumption (www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm). 

    Agricultural production, which constituted 3.8% of the gross domestic product in 1992, dropped to 3.6% in 1995. The surface area for rice cultivation, which was 4.29 million hectares in 1991, dropped to 3.63 million hectares in 1995, the quantity of unpolished rice reduced from 1.82 million metric tons to 1.69 million metric tons. The area of cultivation for dry land crops is maintained at around 90,000 hectare as they are protected by purchase at a guaranteed price (www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm).

    However, joining in the WTO is a symbol of national sovereignty by being recognized by international society. The agricultural production in Taiwan has already become a minor sector that contributes less in the GDP (Table 6), and the state has to implement a series agricultural reform policies to resolve the impact of free market on agricultural sector. In 1993 the KMT government proposed the “Farmland Release Project”, which incorporated several plans and acts to release 160,000 hectares of farm land (about 18% of the original amount) for national economic development. The farmers’ occupation percentage will decrease from 11.5%(1993) to 8%(2000) until 2000. The Council of Agriculture and the Council of Economic Construction are the major actors responsible for this project, but the Department of the Interior Affairs, the Department of Transportation, local governments and other implementing agencies have to cooperate to revise all the related national or regional plans and laws (Table 7).
 

Table 6: Industrial Origin of Gross Domestic Product
 

Year	Agriculture %	Industries %	Services %
1952	32.22	23.23	48.09
1955	29.09	26.87	47.68
1960	28.54	30.21	44.59
1965	23.63	30.21	46.16
1970	15.47	36.83	47.40
1975	12.07	39.92	47.38
1980	7.68	45.75	46.57
1985	5.78	46.28	47.94
1990	4.13	42.53	53.34
1995	3.55	36.25	60.20
1996	3.29	35.65	61.06

Source: Taiwan Agricultural Yearbook, Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Taiwan Provincial Government (PDAF)
 
 

(http://www. coa.gov.tw/ch/soil/tr.htm)
 

    Most of the farmland released is used for infrastructure and industrial construction. From 1995 to 1998, 13,919 hectares of farmland were released and changed zoning, about 36% were changed to transportation use, 31% were changed to industrial zoning, and 17% were changed to golf courses (http://www.coa.gov.tw/ch/soil/tr.htm). Moreover, in order to provide the private sector easy access to the farmland for construction projects and share the financial burden of the government, the state is now allowing the private sector to apply for zoning change, which was only managed by the state previously. Through readjusting agricultural zoning, abandoning the restriction of farmland change, and simplifying the process of zoning investigation, large amounts of farmland are being released for purposes other than agriculture. As a result, the rural landscape changed dramatically in a short period (http://www. coa.gov.tw/ch/soil/tr.htm).

    Large amounts of farmland now stop cultivation and some old farmers are waiting for a high price to sell their land. Illegal trades of farmland are proceeding. Local business and land developers have bought farmland in contracts with farmers, who are the legal identities protected by Land Law to own farmland. According to an informal evaluation, about one quarter of the area of farmland has been bought by these local businesses and developers. Some of them are waiting for zoning to change in order to build residential housing or industrial facilities, but most of them are waiting for further implementing of the Farmland Release Policy to speculate land property.

    Another disaster comes from the demand of sand and soil for infrastructure. Many public infrastructure constructions are implemented in the name of Expanding Interior Demand Project to keep excellent performance of GDP. These projects are power plants, shopping malls, industrial parks and transportation construction. Some farmland was released for a construction site, such as, the High-Speed Railway of 12.5 billion U.S. dollars from Taipei to Kaosiung, across the west coast plain of Taiwan. However, some of the farmland that is not located in these construction areas cannot avoid the environmental impact as well. The demand for sand and rock to construct infrastructure is driving people to excavate these materials from nearby farmlands. According the price of the sand market, if one hectare of farmland is dug about 30 meters, the amount of sand can be sold for about 30 million N.T. dollars (about 1 million U.S. dollars). The price is even higher than the average price of fertile farmland, which is about 10 to 20 million N.T. dollars per hectare. The traditional value of cultivation is reversed, the farmers stop farming, sell the valuable sand and soil, and then use the farmland as landfill of garbage or construction waste to gain profits again. 

    The state has perceived the serious situation of local agriculture, but it is powerless when facing the trend of global liberalization. Especially because economic power is the only passport for Taiwan to enter the international society. Agriculture is the necessary sacrifice because the feedback is national pride. However, the state realizes that the minimum agricultural production should be protected for food security, especially because Taiwan is an island economy and has to face the threat from China all the time. 720,000 hectares of farmland is reserved for agricultural use. But the mode of small farmers’ cultivation, which has contributed to Taiwan’s economic growth in the last fifty years, should be reformed anyway. 

    Modernization of agriculture is the policy to keep the competitiveness when Taiwan imports a large amount of foreign agricultural products. As Vice President Lian pointed out in 1996, competitive ability is the central axis of national policy in the conference of "Reaching for the Top in Global Competitiveness -- Cross-Century Commitment and Approach". He also claimed that Taiwan has to realize the aim of becoming a modernized and developed country in the year 2000.

    The new agricultural policy based on "Support Measures for Agricultural Products Negatively Affected by Imports," is described as below:

A. Develop key industrial technologies

    Research and develop key industrial technologies which meet market demands and environment protection; develop exquisite native products which are localized, high-quality and high in added value; increase the market competitiveness for local and export marketing; as well as research and develop resource conservation technologies to maintain and care for environmental safety and ecological balance.

B. Strengthen research and development, as well as the application of biological technologies

    Integrate biological technologies with traditional agricultural technologies, so as to complement each other. In concern with "Project to Boost Biotech Industry," flowering plant, biological pesticide and animal vaccine will be the prioritized items for development, and economic efficiency for production procedures will be enhanced, allowing biological technology to play one of the major roles in agricultural production and marketing.

C. Integrate research groups and regional extension systems.

    Boost the function of the research groups for agricultural technologies and integrate regional extension systems for the agricultural industry. Combine various levels of labor from production to marketing, so as to plan integrated research and development of technologies and technical guidance, promote high tech production and marketing, and practice agricultural technology on farms.

D. Accelerate automation in the agricultural industry and utilization of information technology

    By applying automation technology, increase the efficiency of agricultural production, distribution and marketing service, integrate information in the agricultural industry and ensure a sound information structure for the agricultural industry.
(www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm).

    Modernization of agriculture and expanding the scale of farms is the medicine prescribed by the state for the agriculture fading away in Taiwan. As a result, agribusiness with technology and capital is encouraged to revive the agricultural industry. The small farmers now are the obstacles of new agricultural reform. They are described as old, low educated, low skilled, conservative and lack of competitiveness in the modern agricultural market, especially when Taiwan enters into WTO. By 1998, in the “National Agricultural Technology Exhibition”, the Director of the Council of Agriculture stated that:
 

    “In order to enhance our adjustment ability when we face the challenge from joining WTO, the Council of Agriculture will further release our farmland restriction and attract higher level capitals and labors importing into our agricultural sector.”

    “In this exhibition, we can see the research achievements supported by the Council of Agriculture in the last five years. We have wiped out the banal image of agriculture, which has to depend on the weather and natural conditions.”

    “Compared to those advanced countries, agricultural technology contributes about 60 percent to total agricultural growth; in Taiwan, we have already achieved about 71 percent. Agriculture is an industry of intensive capital and technology, we are advancing to this goal with diligence.”

(Central Daily News:10/26/1998)

    Taiwan’s industrial structure is changing under the pressure of global liberalization. The agricultural problem actually is not only issues of food production, but also the issues related to the industrial structure, land use, wealth redistribution, national security, environmental conservation, land ethics and social value. As in the state’s description, the new agricultural policy is a cross-century’s project, which deepens the legitimacy of modernization and development. However, this great project, which will seriously transform the rural landscape, is not proceeding smoothly. The grassroots actors and ENGOs have been attacking this project, although partly and weakly.
 
 

    Lacking understanding of rural society and the agricultural sector, Taiwan’s ENGOs, whose major members are urban elites and academic intellectuals, are limited in their resistance to the Farmland Release Policy, which is embedded in the ideology of development and modernization. Although the farmers’ movement is regarded as the pioneer of diverse social movements in Taiwan after 1987, and “520” (May 20th) is a symbol of the anniversary of social movements for many social actors. Due to the decline of the agricultural sector, agricultural organizations in rural areas did not adsorb many new activists. Agricultural issues have not been discussed deeply and broadly enough to produce an alternative agricultural project. On the other hand, environmental movements resulted from protests against industrial pollution and anti-nuclear power plants at the same period that rural areas attracted many local activists, academic intellectuals and college students. These people are capable of getting environmental information from the First World and disseminating related environmental discourse effectively. 

    However, the state is continuing to release the restriction of major farmland to the free market in new versions of the “Agricultural Development Ordinance” because of pressure from KMT’s legislators, who represents the positions and interests of local business and land developers. The ENGOs realize that corporations and land developers obtain major farmland simply for land speculation, as a result; the further liberalization policy will cause food crisis and soil deterioration. The Ecological Conservation Union, one of the most important ENGOs, is incorporating several important ENGOs and declaring that the state should restrict corporations purchase of major farmland, enhance mechanisms of supervision, and prohibit the speculation of farmland. According to previous experiences, more profits from land speculation rather than cultivation will allure corporations to violate the farmland regulations, and to exert their influence on local politics to change zoning for increments.

    The legislator Jen of the DPP (Democracy Progress Party, which is the greatest opposition party), who was devoted himself to the labor movement previously, is pointing out that the Farmland Release Policy has been causing 15% higher price increase for farmland, and about 100,000 hectares of land changes ownership each year. He also provided a list of land corporations in Taiwan (Table 8) and stated that many industrial businesses close their factories and sell their land, but the profits from the land sale are far more than the gains from industrial production. Free market of farmland actually only benefits private corporations, but injures social justice and agricultural development. 

Table 8: Ten major landowner corporations in Taiwan
 

Corporations	Land Ownership	Major Industrial Products
Agricultural and Forest Company	4914.7 hectares	Process food
Tai-Fon Company	1528.3 hectares	Process food
South-Asia Company	588.4 hectares	Plastic products
Iue-Lon Company	317.3 hectares	Automobiles
Taiwan Plastic Company	294.5 hectares	Plastic products
Taiwan Chemistry Company	290.9 hectares	Chemical products
Ta-Tung Company	155.4 hectares	Electrical appliance
Wei-Chuan Company	102.5 hectares	Food industry
Liau-Fu Develop Company	905.8 hectares	Housing and amusement park
Taiwan Paper Company	886 hectares	Paper products

    The small farmers’ agriculture has given up by the silent consensus of the whole society. Even the ENGOs cannot challenge the discourse of the new agricultural policy, which incorporates the ideology of science, technology modernization, and most important, national development. The controversial issue of social justice for retired old farmers is treated as a social welfare problem. Some legislators of the DDP proposed a plan of compensation and subsidy for retired, old farmers to alleviate the impact of joining WTO. No one in ENGOs or DPP inquiry the process of Taiwan’ entering WTO and the global agricultural hegemony and try to imagine any other alternative agricultural future in Taiwan.

    The traditional agricultural community is fading away and nostalgia is coming from the hopelessness of agriculture in Taiwan. A series of agricultural reports written in a tone of nostalgia in the China Daily, one of the most popular newspapers in Taiwan, reminded most urban elites’ memory of the countryside. Many reactions are printed in the newspapers, including some cultural anthropologists and planners. Professor Cheng, who was the vice chairman of the Council of Cultural Construction previously, strongly criticized the new version of the “Agricultural Development Ordinance” and argued that:
 

    ”The agricultural problem in Taiwan is not a problem about farmers or technology, but a problem about price and market of agricultural products. However, this is a global market led by the industrial and financial sectors. Agriculture and farmers are oppressed and exploited by the global capitalist system. The free market crushes Taiwan’s agriculture; Taiwan’s economic growth defeats the farmers and the rural village.”

    “We need agriculture and farmers to watch national land for us. But now the change of economic structure has made them unable to continue cultivation, the first thing the state should do is to compensate our farmers and agriculture with the surplus profits from industrial and financial sectors, just as the agricultural sector bred the industrial sector before. Those advanced countries exert the income from industrial development to protect their national landscape and resources; on the contrary, our state exploits our landscape, ecology and villages to cater to the global economic market.”
 

(China Daily, 9/12/1998)

    The campaign between the global market and local agriculture is still going on. However, the weakness of the agricultural sector, the ideology of modernization and the characters of urban elites of ENGOs result in a powerlessness to resist the new agricultural policy and propose alternatives for environmental activists. However, the disappearance of the rural landscape, the distortion of land ethics and the memory of village life described by the mass media may stimulate some reaction in the public consciousness. The result is still left unknown, nevertheless, how to employ discourse and mass media as an important issue for the ENGOs to resist the policy made by the state.

    Using Taiwan as a case, we can analyze how the mechanisms of the free market influence the state to make policies, and how policy influences local people and the environment. Especially in this case, Taiwan is a country that is not official recognized by the international society, so we can see clearly the unequal power relationships between central countries and peripheral countries and how the relationships sway mechanisms of the free market. There are really invisible hands controlling and manipulating free market. However, the power relationship in the free market is ignored by the mainstream discourse of global liberalization, which dominates our daily life through the global agricultural politics. 

    Global free markets and agribusiness create an illusion of efficiency in agriculture. and that consumers can benefit from the cheaper food supply. Actually, many costs and subsidies have not been counted in, for example, the cost of irrigation, transportation and the impact on local agriculture and environment. Moreover, the organic farming, which is ecologically sound, the autonomy of local people, and the livelihood of small farmers are destroyed by the power of the free market. The representatives of different countries sitting in the air-conditioned conference hall of the WTO cannot feel the pains of local people and the environment, not because they are silent, but because they are ignored. Finally, only the market is set free, but the people and the environment remain caged by the invisible global system.
 
 
 

Bibliography
Altieri, Miguel (1998), "Ecological Impacts of Industrial Agriculture and the Possibilities for Truly Sustainable Farming", Monthly Review, Vol. 50,3, 60-71.

Berry, Wendell (1993), "A Bad Big Idea", in The Case against Free Trade—GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power, San Francisco: Earth Island Press.

Dixit, Praveen (1996), "Agriculture & the WTO: The Road Ahead", Agricultural Outlook, No.236, 15-23.

Far Eastern Economic Review (1995), "Trade", Far Eastern Economic Review. Vol.158, No.14, 66-72.

Hoekman, Bernard M, and Michel M. Kostecki (1995), The Political Economy of The World Trading System: From GATT to WTO, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Hsiao, H. H. Michael (1981), Governmental Agricultural Strategies in Taiwan and South Korea: A Macrosociological Assessment, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Taopei.

Khor, Martin (1993), "Free Trade and the Third World", The Case Against Free Trade—GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power, San Francisco: Earth Island Press.

Krueger, Anne O. (1998), The WTO as an International Organization, London:The University of Chicago Press.

Lee, Teng-Hui (1972), Inter-sectoral Capital Flows in the Economic Development of Taiwan: 1895-1960, Ithaca: Cornell University.

Lopez, Michael & Wang Zhi, (1997), "WTO Accession for China & Taiwan: Potential Trade Impacts", Agriculture Outlook, No.242, 18-21.

McMichael, Philip (1998), "Global Food Politics", Monthly Review, Vol. 50,3, 97-111.

Nader, Ralph (1993), "Introduction: Free Trade and the Decline of Democracy", The Case Against Free Trade—GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power, San Francisco: Earth Island Press.

Ritchie, Mark (1993), "Agricultural Trade Liberalization: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture", The Case Against Free Trade—GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power, San Francisco: Earth Island Press.

Shiva, Vandana (1995), Trading Our Lives Away : An Ecological and Gender Analysis of 'Free Trade' and the WTO , New Delhi, India : Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy.

www.coa.gov.tw/en/coa85en/la.htm

www.coa.gov.tw/ch/soil/tr.htm

Central Daily News,10,26,1998

China Daily,9,12,1998

楊碧川 (1996), 台灣現代史年表, 台北:一橋.

廖正宏等 (1993), 光復後台灣農業政策的演變, 台北: 中央研究院民族學研究所.