Why should we establish a new concept of food security?

Before 2004, China's grain self-sufficiency rate had remained above 95%, but over the past 10 years, the grain self-sufficiency rate has been declining, dropping to around 85% by 2014. It is worth noting that the decline in the self-sufficiency rate was not caused by a decline in grain production, but occurred under the circumstances of an "eleventh consecutive increase" in grain output, which exceeded 600 billion kg in 2014. This shows that the decline in China's grain self-sufficiency rate was caused by a sharp rise in grain demand. This has given rise to debate about the concept of food security. Some people are deeply worried about this situation, believing that China's food security is under great threat and that grain production should be increased at all costs to raise the grain self-sufficiency rate. Equating food security with the grain self-sufficiency rate, with the higher the self-sufficiency rate the more secure, is the traditional concept of food security.

In recent years, the central government's understanding of food security has changed, proposing a new national food security strategy of "taking ourselves as the mainstay, basing ourselves on domestic production, ensuring production capacity, moderate imports, and technological support." This new strategy is a major shift in the concept of food security, which we call the new concept of food security. Compared with the traditional concept of food security, which emphasizes that the higher the grain self-sufficiency rate the better, this is a major change in understanding.

A 100% grain self-sufficiency rate is of course the most secure, but from China's national conditions, this kind of food security is neither economical nor necessary.

First, China's land resources are limited. The per capita arable land area is only 40% of the world average, and high-quality arable land is even scarcer, with high-quality arable land of grade three or above accounting for only 27% of total arable land. On the basis of a very high grain self-sufficiency rate, every one percentage point increase in the grain self-sufficiency rate will raise grain costs by several percentage points, and the higher the self-sufficiency rate, the more costs rise geometrically. This is the so-called law of increasing marginal costs at work. According to relevant research, China's grain production costs have been rising since the mid-1980s, with the per-mu cost increasing 15-fold, an average annual increase of more than 8%, and the production cost per 100 kg of grain increasing 6.7-fold, an average annual increase of around 6%. On the other hand, China's industrialization and urbanization are not yet complete, and demand for land will continue to increase substantially. If each urban resident occupies 100 sq m, then if the urban population increases by 200 million, an additional 2 million hectares of land will be occupied, and industrial construction and the construction of roads, railways and other transportation facilities will also occupy large amounts of arable land. Under such circumstances, if more land is used to produce grain, then land for industrial production and urban development can only be strictly restricted, and industrialization and urbanization will be seriously hindered. Sacrificing industrialization and urbanization to raise the grain self-sufficiency rate by a few percentage points is not worth the loss. What is more, most of China's high-quality grain fields are located in densely populated and relatively economically developed areas, such as the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River and the Huang-Huai-Hai region, while areas with poor soil and severe salinization, such as the northwest region, are also sparsely populated and relatively slow in economic development. To maintain a very high grain self-sufficiency rate, developed areas would have to give up industrial and urban development to protect grain fields, which is extremely economically inefficient.

Second, China is severely short of water resources. Water resources, like arable land resources, are a decisive factor in grain production. Although China is the world's fifth-largest country in terms of water resources, per capita water resources have been declining year by year, reaching only 1,993 cubic meters per person in 2014, only one quarter of the world average, about three fifths of Japan's, one fifth of the United States', and one sixteenth of Russia's, ranking 104th in the world and listed as one of the 13 water-poor countries. Moreover, with the rapid development of China's industrialization and urbanization, industrial and urban water consumption is growing, squeezing water for grain production and greatly increasing the cost of agricultural water use. What is more, China's water resources are extremely unevenly distributed. The proportion of inland renewable surface water resources in the north is only 19.7%, while the proportion in the south reaches 80.3%. Before reform and opening up, the south was the main grain-producing area and had always shipped grain north. But with economic development, arable land in the south was gradually occupied by industrialization and urbanization, and the comparative benefit of growing grain became lower and lower. As a result, the water-scarce north gradually became the main grain-producing area, and the south-to-north grain transfer gradually evolved into a north-to-south grain transfer. To solve the water shortage in the north, the state built the South-to-North Water Diversion Project, transferring water from the south to the north and then transporting grain from the north to the south. This is an unavoidable outcome. If an excessively high grain self-sufficiency rate is emphasized, the cost in terms of water resources alone is astonishing.

Third, because China's per capita arable land is limited, agricultural production is still dominated by smallholders, and household operating area is very small. By comparison, in countries with few people and much land, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina, family farms are enormous in scale, and labor productivity is dozens or even hundreds of times higher than in China. Given the huge differences in labor productivity, China's grain production costs are much higher than abroad. Even if grain from the United States, thousands of miles away, is shipped to China, the price of imported grain is still 50% lower than the price of domestically produced grain, or even more. In addition, rising wage levels in China have sharply increased the labor cost of grain production, also pushing grain costs upward continuously. Faced with the dual dilemma of a price ceiling pressing down and a production cost floor pushing up, the more domestic grain is produced, the greater the loss, the lower farmers' incomes become, and they may even abandon their fields. If the government purchases at high prices, it will greatly increase the fiscal burden and storage pressure. Therefore, moderately importing grain is far more economical than producing it oneself.

Finally, pollution brought by agricultural production is becoming more and more serious. To produce more grain, more chemical fertilizers, pesticides and plastic film must be applied, which leads to declining soil fertility and increasingly serious environmental pollution. In recent years, the "eleventh consecutive increase" in grain output was achieved through the heavy use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural film. China's use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides greatly exceeds the world average. According to relevant data, nearly 1/4 of China's land surface soil is polluted to varying degrees by various toxic and harmful pollutants, the types and amounts of residual pesticides increase year by year, and grain, agricultural and livestock products and vegetables all have quality and safety problems such as excessive pesticide residues.

It can be seen that maintaining a very high grain self-sufficiency rate in China will come at enormous resource, economic and environmental costs. But some people may say that grain is not an ordinary commodity but a strategic commodity related to feeding 1.3 billion Chinese people, and no matter how great the cost, complete grain self-sufficiency must be ensured. Indeed, maintaining a relatively high grain self-sufficiency rate is necessary, because China's population accounts for about one fifth of the world's population. If the self-sufficiency rate is low, large-scale grain imports will be required, which will cause a huge shock to the world grain market and international grain prices will rise sharply. If those major grain-exporting countries encounter years of great famine and grain production falls sharply, grain prices will not only rise like rockets, but grain shortages will also cause large-scale famine in China and other parts of the world. Therefore, from this perspective, China must maintain a relatively high grain self-sufficiency rate no matter what, in order to ensure food security in China and the world. There is no doubt about this point.

However, maintaining a 100% grain self-sufficiency rate is unnecessary. Moderately importing grain does not mean reducing food security. At present, many countries in the world have relatively low grain self-sufficiency rates, but they have not experienced food shortage crises. For example, Japan and South Korea have long had relatively low grain self-sufficiency rates, and these have also shown a downward trend. From 1990 to 2011, Japan's grain self-sufficiency rate fell from 22% to 20.3%, and South Korea's grain self-sufficiency rate fell from 35.6% to 25.8%. Yet with such low grain self-sufficiency rates, Japan and South Korea have not felt that there is a problem with food security. European countries such as Italy and Spain also have relatively low grain self-sufficiency rates, and they too have no worries about food security. It can be seen that a high grain self-sufficiency rate does not equal a high food security coefficient, and vice versa.

Some people may worry that if China's relations with other countries in the world deteriorate sharply, or even if extreme events such as war occur, a grain embargo might be imposed on China. This is completely unfounded anxiety! China's territory is so large, and with its markedly enhanced economic strength, it can be said that no country can effectively blockade China. Moreover, grain production and grain production capacity are two different concepts. Appropriately reducing grain production, leaving part of the grain fields idle, or switching to other crops, while maintaining the existence of grain production capacity, is a new way of thinking for implementing a food security strategy. Once a worldwide grain production reduction occurs, or a grain embargo is imposed on China, we do not need to worry. As long as we maintain a six-month grain reserve, that is enough, and after six months grain supply can be restored.

It can thus be seen that, whether economically or in terms of necessity, maintaining an excessively high grain self-sufficiency rate is not the optimal choice. Ensuring production capacity and moderate imports are the best food security strategy. The history of past great famines makes people's fear of food shortages understandable, but the present is not what it used to be, and the concept of food security must also change with the times.