生態主義如何介入農業生產政策？論述制度主義的觀點

How Ecologism engages with agricultural production policy? A Discursive Institutional Perspective

江俊宜(Chun-Yi Jiang)

指導教授 ： 林子倫

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/博士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201900215

摘要

當今農業政策的相關討論當中，「生產必須兼顧環境」是相當普遍的原則，深究其中「環境」的意涵，不僅與政府總體對農業生產內涵的管控相關，更帶有達成正當性塑造與實際環境治理之目的。唯當前對此主題的研究，對其中的「環境」意涵，尚待合適的理論和理解架構來理解。
回顧農委會所推出的「農業環境政策」，其本質同時具有農業生產和環境維護意涵，既然如此，本論文就更必須指出「農業環境政策」既非單純的修辭或是市場邏輯所能概括，更無法純然以意識形態、技術與經濟發展、生態國家發展或是農業地理學的功能變遷等觀點來解釋，需以恰當的整合性框架來進行嶄新的理解。
農業環境政策的本質，是農業主管當局（主要為農委會）在政治過程當中為了確保「農業生產」過程中的「環境維護」，所展現的論述框架，並且一再強調兼顧「農業」與「環境」。在不同時期當中，農業主管機關藉以「生態主義」的方式介入「農業生產」，自是政府力量介入的結果。因此，本研究觀察「國家如何在農業政策文本當中使用環境概念」，藉論述制度理論為根本的理論基礎，建構一個新的框架，來理解農業環境國家、農業生產政策，與不同時間當中殊異的「生態主義」主張，三者之間所存在的關係。
第一個時期為「回應型農業環境國家」。呈現生態國家在回應環境意識初興起時，特別對農業污染的注目，成為回應型國家唯一卻又關鍵的任務。針對此問題，回應型國家採取兩個奇特卻理性的策略。首先，對政府內部而言，「生產管理」部門與「環境管理」部門對農業污染問題各自擁有區隔且有限的責任；再者是論述策略，因為既有的污染問題，是農業機關在有限的環境制度能力下，僅能採取回應污染事件的作法，無法以制度變革加以回應，並且與民間同聲譴責污染者。故上述作為，農委會與其他機關仍處在環境相關制度發展不足的前提下，因而選擇回應民怨為主，難以跨足處理污染以外的制度性思維，構成高度侷限的環境治理想像。
第二個時期為「非生產型農業環境國家」，雖然非生產國家採取永續發展委員會的建制將「永續發展」置入政治體系當中，但是細究農業環境相關的內涵，卻是採納永續發展思潮當中片段的內涵¬「減少消耗環境資源」，來建構農業環境政策的總體原則。並且進一步構成以「環境管理」優先於「生產管理」的各種政策，以減少環境上無效率的(稻米)生產行為所造成之環境損失。另一方面，行政院國家永續會之決議，也強化了採取非生產手段以維護自然資源的環境理解
「積極型農業環境國家」旨在回應因應國際糧食危機所帶來的農業環境議程轉變，政府宣示「回復生產」與「兼顧環境」原則，並成為政策主軸。許多「公民農業」的關心人士與研究者，合力推動有益於農業環境條件的生產型態，以及其他衍生的農業環境改革立法、機構設立等等。在這個時期的相關政治議程當中，其爭論顯示公民農業及其反對者對於「兼顧環境」的不同路徑。而官方論述以「綠色競爭力」最具有代表性，為稻作給付的「環境轉向」爭取正當性。此外，積極行動者與官方代表爭取組織改革提案，來爭取農業主管機關在與自身相關環境事務的制度權力。
歸納不同「農業環境國家」，其身處不同政策需要下，設定原則、規範與特定的環境主軸。本論文提出論述制度論架構，整合重要的既有理論，特別是內部含括三個關鍵的部分，分別為「農業環境關切」，以及國家所採取的「農業環境政策」與「農業環境組織」，以此架構提供一個重新釐清農業環境內涵當中，國家角色篩選、加工環境理念，藉以正當化台灣農業環境政策的過程。

關鍵字

農業中的環境概念 ； 生態國家理論 ； 論述制度論 ； 環境關切 ； 農業生產管理 ； 環境管理

並列摘要

Environment concerns within agricultural policy have become a critical part of the recent discussion. The environmental contents contain not the logistic of administrative management in agricultural production, but legitimating environmental governance. Nevertheless, the existing theories have their flaws; therefore, there is still a theoretical and framework vacuum. This dissertation was developing an appropriate framework inclusive of adopted, combined, and adapted theories.
Reviewing the production side of the ‘Agri-environmental Policy,’ the research suggests that ‘Agri-environmental Policy,’ which could not be as pure as a political rhetoric or a market-driven phenomenon, need to recognize those paradigms such as ideologist development, technology and economic development, ecological ends of nation-state, and agricultural geography.
The dissertation analyzes the discursive institutional actions by the agriculture administration (mainly Council of Agriculture, COA). ‘Taiwan’s agri-environmental policies in agricultural production,’ which emphasizes balance with agriculture and environment development, has been generating from the very political process of ensuring environmental protection within the domestic agricultural productions. Put it institutionally; what COA has done in agri-environmental policy has also constructed a specific and particular field of discourses. It quarries how environmental ideas, concepts, and discourses embed and function on agri-environment policy via a discursive institutionalist framework, to realize the relationship between ‘Eco-State,’ agricultural production management, and environmental management.
Encountering environmental awareness, the first period-‘Responsive Agri-Environmental state’ (RAES) had its task to cope with the agricultural pollutions and the carefulness of activists. To deal with pollution, RAES suggested two wield but reasonable measures; one was inner measure, of which set separated and limited accountability in the department of production management and the department of environmental management; the other was an outward discursive strategy of standing by the victims via blaming those polluters out of the limited environmental capacity and capability. While it revealed that the agriculture administration could only have responded to the ever-growing pollution events and derivative complaints, it posed a limited environmental-protecting imagination as it revised the irresponsibility and unaccountability of the agricultural (environmental) administration.
Period two was the ‘Non-Production Agri-Environmental State’ (NPAES). Although NPAES constructed an establishment of sustainability, it embraced a limited part of natural-resources-saving from those existing sustainable thoughts. Therefore, to fulfill the political goal of water-saving, NPAES set the long-term goals to reduce agricultural (rice) production. Besides, the National Council for Sustainable Development, Executive Yuan, had made agreements on emphasizing the non-production way’s effects and efficiency.
The third period was ‘Active Agri-Environment State’ (AAES), Initiating from the international food crisis, accidentally had been transforming previous agri-environmental agendas worldwide. The awakened citizens built alliances with scholars, who have studied the “green” way of agriculture production, had pushed many agri-environmental institutions reform such as law-making and institute-building. There are disputes about principles, ways, thinkings, policies, and executive methods between civic agriculture and their dissenters. The administration” marked “green competitiveness” as one of the spreading discourses (in international trade view) in the policy arena. Accurately, in order to improve the persuasiveness of rice payment measure, both environment and agri-economy views had been functioning on the discourses of the policy-‘Green Environment Payment On Land Area.’ Besides, to pursue COA as a leading role over agri-environmental affairs, many agri-environmental activists and officials had strived for an aggressive for governmental reorganizing projects in the “Council of Food, Agriculture, and Rural Area Policies” and other important meetings.
After categorizing different ‘agri-environmental states,’ it represented the eco-state’s central role in setting principles, governing rules, and specific themes according to its policy needs. From the discursive-institution framework, composing of environmental concerns, agri-environmental policies, and organization to legitimate, the research has presented an integrated way to clear understanding ‘Taiwan’s agri-environment.’ The research solves the puzzle of how environmental ideas and concepts influence agri-environment in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

environmental concepts in agriculture ； eco-state theory ； discursive institutionalism ； environmental concerns ； agricultural production management ； agricultural environmental management

參考文獻

Abdelal, R., Blyth, M., & Parsons, C. (2015). Constructing the international economy: Cornell University Press.

Abramson, P. R. (1997). Postmaterialism and Environmentalism: A Comment on an Analysis and a Reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press), 78(1), 21-23.

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in human geography, 24(3), 347-364.

Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77-86.

Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., . . . Wreford, A. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(3), 335-354.