Li Genzheng / TSC push photovoltaic method is too rough, on the contrary, the green energy is hindered, what is wrong with the afforestation land?

369 sharing

Twenty years ago, Taiwan Sugar received a large subsidy for afforestation of 10,000 hectares, of which Pingtung accounted for more than 4,000 hectares, some of which became flat forest parks, while others became forest and landscape assets for the development of ecological experience in the community. In addition, some woodlands aim to reserve economic afforestation of wood resources, but the forest appearance is poor due to Taiwan Sugar's neglect of management and high density, so it is difficult to achieve the economic forest effect.

Twenty years later, the life of the afforestation land is approaching, and the owners (including Taiwan Sugar) can be felled in accordance with the law. Taiwan Sugar said that in order to tie in with the government's green energy policy, it will use 200 hectares of woodland to develop a "camp-agriculture photoelectric park." there was no consensus between the two sides, and broke up in discord.

Li Genzheng, CEO of the Earth Citizen Foundation, who has deeply studied the afforestation policy for many years and has promoted the energy transformation for a long time, accepted an exclusive interview with "upstream and downstream" to analyze the gains and losses of the afforestation policy for 20 years, as well as the challenge of transforming the forestland into a photovoltaic park, trying to find a way to carry out social dialogue while the two sides of the issue are pulled together. In addition to the following paragraphs marked "Q" in red, the rest are dictated by Li Genzheng in the first person, which were interviewed by reporters.

Li Genzheng, CEO of Earth Citizen Foundation. (photography / Fu Zhinan) Li Genzheng: I don't think the afforestation land can't move at all, but I object to Taiwan Sugar's rough promotion of optoelectronic practices.

According to data from the Forestry Bureau, 20 years ago, a total of 13854 hectares of flat land were afforested across the country, with Taiwan Sugar being the largest owner, with a total of 10889 hectares, while private farmland was afforested of 2965 hectares, spending a total of 12.4 billion yuan on the state treasury.

The wrong afforestation policy at that time led to today's deadlock: ─ economic forest has no economy, and landscape forest has no landscape. In this context, I do not think that the afforestation land can not move at all. It is a 20-year economic afforestation plan, but these forest lands still leave some ecological functions, not completely worthless.

However, I also oppose Taiwan Sugar's current practice of recklessly promoting agricultural optoelectronics. My opinion is that it is necessary to make a comprehensive plan and re-check the location of the existing Taiwan Sugar forest land and the function it now plays. For example, if some neighboring communities have ecological and landscape functions, they should not move but continue to improve their quality.

Assuming that some are far away from the community and that all aspects are not so ideal, if we want to make other uses, we should have an environmental and ecological survey, make supporting plans on this basis, and try to communicate with the community and local governments. instead of saying at once that 200 hectares should be used for photovoltaics.

Taiwan Sugar's forest land is not only its economic forest, but also a local public asset.

Taiwan Sugar is a state-owned enterprise, land is a public asset, its decisions should be in line with the public interest, should not only consider the interests of the company. Although the 20-year afforestation policy is a beautiful mistake, it does not leave assets. What should be left behind must be assessed on the basis of landscape and biodiversity.

There may be several situations, the first one is to preserve or even promote its richer diversity, such as the Aogu Wetland, Da Nong Da Fu, and the four forests behind the forest, which have been planned as forest parks. Some forest appearance is good, some tree species grow very well, now it is a pity to cut it down, it is a long-term accumulation of wood resources, or shady landscape before cutting. Some neighboring communities, places with all kinds of potential for landscape and tourism, should be preserved.

If Taiwan Sugar wants to develop camp-farming optoelectronics, how do you need to do it?

If Taiwan Sugar is to seriously operate the agricultural optoelectronics business, first of all, there must be a "location evaluation mechanism", otherwise disputes will continue to arise; the second is site evaluation, coupled with social supervision and public participation. what is the impact on the community? Whether there is an operating mechanism or benefit sharing to create a win-win situation.

For the location of some optoelectronic facilities to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and avoid the impact on agricultural and fishing production, there may be communities that need to communicate, and the role of local governments must try to make photovoltaic settings socially and environmentally friendly, but so far the supporting procedures have not been established, leading to disputes.

The next question is whether it is true or false to review the photovoltaics of the agricultural sector in the Government. Have the expected benefits been achieved? what is the plan that Taiwan Sugar is promoting now? Let's talk one layer after another. Now the backlash encountered in the Taiwan Sugar Photoelectricity case is promoted by the government.