Sustained Development of Farmer-Community Direct Supply Still Needs Support from Multiple Parties
When I first started reporting on the topic of “farmer-community direct supply,” I went in with a very optimistic attitude. Because it sounds wonderful, solving both the difficulty farmers have selling vegetables and the expense citizens face buying vegetables, a win-win situation that seemed certain to go smoothly. However, during the actual interviews I discovered some unexpected problems, and some problems need support from multiple parties to be solved.
Citizens' welcoming attitude toward “farmer-community direct supply” is beyond doubt: convenient, with agricultural products delivered to their doorstep; cheap, with many intermediate links reduced; healthy, with the agricultural products of cooperatives participating in “farmer-community direct supply” having reliable quality. However, this is after all not a public welfare undertaking, and cooperatives also need to make money to maintain normal operation. The actual situation is that although cooperatives sell products directly in communities at a slightly higher price than selling to middlemen, they must take into account logistics costs, delivery labor costs, costs of opening stores in the city, and so on, including restricted truck access in urban areas, urban management, industrial and commercial licensing, and so on. A careless mistake can lead to fines, further squeezing profit margins, causing many cooperatives to have little enthusiasm for the “farmer-community direct supply” matter that “sounds wonderful.”
During the interviews, I was deeply impressed by the Cotton Community Network of the Penghou Subdistrict Office in Qiaoxi District, Shijiazhuang. This form of “farmer-community direct supply” expressed through residents' group buying was carried out vigorously, and many residents interviewed praised it endlessly. The purchase quantities and savings amounts mentioned in the article also explain why residents identified with it. But these tedious coordination tasks were actually all done through the voluntary dedication of community officials. Each time a group buy was conducted, the responsible community officials were so busy for several days that they could not accomplish anything else, and sometimes could not even eat on time. Although this is also doing practical things for residents, after all they themselves also bear heavy regular duties, and considering future problems such as product quality and normal spoilage, this is not something community officials can fully take on.
“Farmer-community direct supply” is not a public welfare undertaking, and community officials are not a professional team. A third-party institution should be introduced and operated in a corporate form. On the government side, first, it should balance the interests of multiple parties; second, it should coordinate transportation, urban management and other relevant units to give the green light to “farmer-community direct supply”; third, it should consider whether to provide corresponding funds to support and encourage cooperatives in opening stores in communities, and so on.