Land transfer must not become a feast for a privileged few

The government must not overstep its role by taking over transfers wholesale, nor be absent and leave them unattended. Hold firm to the policy bottom line, advance land transfer in an orderly way, so that the broad masses of farmers truly benefit and farmers' rights are truly protected.

During visits to major grain-producing counties in Northeast China, one modern agricultural park after another was truly spectacular: tens of thousands of mu of farmland formed contiguous blocks, with irrigation canals linked into a network and roads forming loops. Speaking of the returns, local officials were in high spirits: "Run by a big company, large-scale operation, 1 jin of organic rice sells for 40 yuan!" With returns this good, how much can farmers earn? The officials said that once the land is transferred to the company, farmers can collect land rent and still go to work in the park, equivalent to earning two incomes.

But when the villagers were asked, they were not buying it. Farmers complained that the rent is only a few hundred yuan per mu, and no matter how much the company earns, it has nothing to do with the farmers. As for working, farming is now all mechanized; tens of thousands of mu need fewer than 20 people, so how could so many people all go? Despite their reluctance, the county had assigned a hard task at the outset, and village officials went door to door to persuade people, and only then was all the land transferred out.

Why was the government so eager to promote transfer? This official said that modern agriculture requires scale and industrialization, a high starting point and large investment, and cannot be done by individual households alone, so what else can be done but seek out big companies? With the government pushing, land transfer was advanced across whole villages, even to the point of resorting to administrative orders. Thus the government gained political achievements, the company gained returns, while farmers became the ignored majority; a modern agricultural park was built, and hidden risks of conflict were planted as well.

This phenomenon is not uncommon; in some places companies going to the countryside to farm has intensified. Data show that in 2012 the area of land transferred to enterprises increased by 34% year on year, and in 2013 it increased by 40% year on year. Land transfer disputes also remain high, with 188,000 cases accepted nationwide last year alone.

For whom exactly is land transferred? The "Opinions on Guiding the Orderly Transfer of Rural Land Management Rights and Developing Moderate-Scale Agricultural Operations" recently issued by the central authorities once again stressed: "adhere to collective ownership of rural land, take farmers as the main body, and uphold lawfulness, voluntariness and compensation." This is the policy bottom line that land transfer must hold to, with the aim of letting the broad masses of farmers truly benefit and ensuring farmers' rights are protected in accordance with the law. Whether land is transferred, how the price is determined, and which form is chosen are all decisions for farming households, and the proceeds of transfer should belong to the contracting farming households. The government must not launch a great leap forward, must not use coercion or command, and must not issue arbitrary administrative directives.

Land transfer is a gradual process and cannot be divorced from national and agricultural conditions. China has many people and little land, and rural conditions vary greatly. In some developed areas, the level of urbanization is relatively high, large numbers of farmers have become urban residents, and land transfer naturally proceeds smoothly. But in most rural areas, for a considerable period to come, ordinary farming households will still make up the majority, farmers' non-agricultural employment opportunities are limited, and land bears functions such as farmers' employment and social security. If transfer is forced ahead regardless of reality and farmers are pushed off the land, it will bring a series of social problems.

In fact, moderate-scale operation is not limited to the single path of land concentration, nor is it impossible without companies. In some places farmers have spontaneously joined in joint cultivation and cooperative operation, achieving the economies of scale of "individual households." In other places, socialized services have been developed and the scale of services expanded to make up for the insufficiency of land scale. It can be seen that land transfer is not better the faster it goes; farmers must be respected and trusted, innovative operating models encouraged, and the broad masses of farmers left free to choose independently.

What should the government do? To advance land transfer in an orderly way, the government must not overstep its role by taking over transfers wholesale, nor be absent and leave them unattended. At present, two-thirds of counties and townships nationwide have no land transfer service platform, and nearly 40% of land transfers have no contract signed. The government should provide good service and guidance, standardize transfer conduct, and at the same time strengthen market oversight, set strict entry thresholds for industrial and commercial capital going to the countryside, and strengthen post-event supervision. Land transfer must not be allowed to become a feast for a privileged few.