Stabilizing Grain Output and Increasing Income Are the Twin Bottom Lines of Food Security

It is another bumper harvest year. According to statistics, in 2014 China's grain production achieved an “eleventh consecutive increase,” reaching 1.2 trillion jin for two consecutive years. Although the situation is encouraging, the recently released Central “No. 1 Document” still, as always, puts food security in first place, clearly proposing “stabilizing grain output and increasing income” and requiring efforts to tap new potential in raising grain production capacity. In fact, “stabilizing grain output” and “increasing income” are intrinsically unified and constitute the twin bottom lines for defending national food security. This is also the biggest highlight of this year's “No. 1 Document.”

Food is the first necessity of the people. In governing such a large country, the issue of the common people's food supply must never be taken lightly for even a moment. No matter how economic growth fluctuates, and no matter how strict the means and measures may be, the first bottom line is “stabilizing grain output.” The reason is simple: it is hard for us to imagine what the consequences would be if the food supply of our 1.3 billion compatriots were placed in the hands of others. Precisely because of this, the Central “No. 1 Document” in every year since entering the new century has without exception listed the “three rural issues” as the top priority of the whole Party's work, and has without exception listed food security as the central link in the work on the “three rural issues.”

It should also be noted that “stabilizing grain output” alone cannot stand on one leg. In many places, output increases without income increases, which has already become a long-standing difficult problem, and farmers' enthusiasm for grain production has been severely dampened. The urban-rural income gap remains relatively large: for every 1 yuan urban residents earn, rural residents earn only 3 mao 6. Many people would rather leave their fields barren, and would rather become a marginalized group on the edges of the city, than make a living by scratching food from the soil. This is both an unavoidable pain of urbanization and something that must be faced squarely; economic levers must be used to activate the momentum for grain production, so that the younger generation of farmers can take root in rural areas and their “roots” can be retained.

Take the recently much-discussed “potato” as an example. According to the research of agronomists and nutritionists, the potato is indeed rich in nutrients, easy to store, and not fussy about growing conditions, and is about to become the “fourth staple grain” after rice, wheat flour, and corn. Promoting potato cultivation on a large scale, with high yields and good returns, can build a preventive gate for food security.

From the perspective of increasing income, continuing to grow potatoes in the previous extensive manner will not only make it difficult to meet the needs of food security, since after all people cannot simply steam or boil them for consumption; it is also necessary, through industrialized operations, to improve the deep-processing capacity for potato products. For example, making flour, various side foods, snacks, as well as potato-related storage and transportation; the construction of these industrial chains is itself a transformation of agricultural business models. Whether to let industrial capital simply step in, with urban residents once again taking the lion's share of profits, or to extend industry toward the land so that farmers obtain real benefits and taste the sweetness of it, is the key.

What should be done with rural land? What should be done with rural people? To put it plainly, “stabilizing grain output and increasing income” is precisely about solving these two things. Under market economy conditions, and against the background of new urbanization and agricultural modernization, only by bringing capital and markets to the countryside while not allowing them to seize too much of farmers' interests, and by keeping farmers there while also bringing in funds, technology, and policies, can the “three rural issues” find an ultimate way out. Understanding how difficult this is means understanding the deeper meaning of the “No. 1 Document,” and understanding the hardships of China's complex grassroots reality.