還是要變大嗎？一個台灣北部農村有機米產銷班的在地發展

Is Bigger Really Better? The Local Development of An Organic Rice Production and Marketing Group In Northern Taiwan

水頭村配合一味變大的農業政策，在90年代成立有機米產銷班，希望在相關單位的補助與協助之下，種植有機米增加收入，讓班員以農維生。只是20年過去，真正以農維生的班員卻是少之又少，只有達到一定耕種規模的班長，可以勉強以農維生。
在有機米產銷班的發展過程裡，一開始對於資材與設備的補助，以及有機米的高單價，吸引許多在地農民加入產銷班。只是缺乏生產工具與技術，造成產量與品質的不穩定，以及付費委託他人加工，所增加的生產成本，再加上沒有穩定的共同通路，讓產銷班的發展停滯不前。
後來在補助與個人資金的挹注之下，產銷班取得主要的生產工具，並透過農會的協助建立穩定的通路。看似順利穩定的發展，這種產銷班的共同經營卻是轉變成一種以個人為中心的「家天下」，只有班長可以真正以農維生。
政府偏向個人的補助與貸款，以及鼓勵休耕的農業政策，造成產銷班公私不分的情形，引發班員之間的衝突，無法促進共同經營的發展。原本可以利用家族或宗族組織來提高產銷班的合作意願，但受到「有土斯有財」的想法所影響，因為爭產所造成的族內紛爭與農地破碎，也都成為產銷班共同經營的重大阻礙。

In line with the agricultural policy of continual expansion, Shuitou Village established an organic rice production and marketing group in the 1990s, in the expectation that subsidies and other assistance would allow farmers to earn a better income by growing organic rice. However, over the past 20 years, fewer and fewer participants in the group have actually remained full-time farmers, the only exception being the director, who has been able to make a living from agriculture by virtue of the sizable scope of his agricultural operation.
At the outset of the group, the subsidies for materials and equipment, as well as the premium selling price of organic rice, led many local farmers to join. However, inadequacies in equipment and knowledge resulted in instability of output and quality, and paying others for processing turned out to be prohibitively expensive. Add to this the lack of stable sales channels, and it’s no surprise that the group floundered and stagnated.
Later, with the help of additional subsidies supplemented by private funds, the group obtained the required equipment, and the farmer’s association was able to establish reliable sales channels. However, even though it appeared that the group had begun to operate as planned with widespread participation, the only participant who was actually making a living from farming was the director, who had come to regard the group’s resources as his personal property.
The government’s preference for individual subsidies and loans, as well as agricultural policies that encourage fallowing, have blurred the distinction between public and private in the production and marketing group, giving rise to conflict between the participants and making it difficult to adhere to the principle of collective management. In an earlier era, it might have been possible to use the strong sense of family or clan affiliation to gain widespread support for a local cooperative venture, but that sentiment has largely given way to the idea that“land is wealth,”resulting in intra-clan strife and increased fragmentation of agricultural land, all of which have become a major obstacle to the collective management of this type of production and marketing group.