Good policies for agriculture, rural areas and farmers are hard to implement on the ground, and there are still quite a few cases where good intentions failed to produce good results

To shore up the weak links in agriculture, rural areas and farmers, supportive policies must not be absent. Go out into the fields more often, sit down in old farmers' homes more often, and do not let good policies be merely "nice to look at"

Many financial policies supporting agriculture have been introduced, but many farmers still find it hard to get loans. The experiences of two large-scale growers heard about recently are thought-provoking:

A large-scale corn grower in a certain northern province said that not long ago the local authorities organized a matchmaking meeting between banks and large-scale growers, at which the banks all pledged to implement guarantee and mortgage policies as soon as possible and increase lending to farmers. But the meeting was lively and the follow-up was cold. He went to the banks one by one, and the thresholds were still very high. The "god of wealth" was hard to meet, and in the end it was all joy in vain.

Another large-scale rice grower from Anhui had a different situation. He said that the local finance department set up a risk fund, and not only did he successfully get a loan using his land management rights, but he also got an interest discount. What was even more thoughtful was that, considering the agricultural production cycle, the interest could be repaid quarterly.

With the same policies from above, why are the results on the ground different? The key still depends on whether the relevant local departments take them seriously and whether the measures can be down-to-earth. Difficulty in obtaining rural loans is a "hard bone." For new types of business entities, investment is large and capital is what they lack most. But loan procedures are numerous, the process is complex, and the amounts are low and the terms short, which restricts their development. For banks, agricultural risks are high and farmers have no collateral or guarantees, so "reluctance to lend" is understandable. To solve this problem, the central government has continuously introduced policies to clear away obstacles to rural lending. However, good policies require coordination between higher and lower levels. If people just sit in offices and make decisions off the top of their heads, or if measures become mere formality, simplifying demand matchmaking into holding symposia, without finding the root causes or solving the difficulties, then no matter how good the policies sound, farmers will not be satisfied.

Among the policies introduced across various places to strengthen agriculture, support agriculture and benefit farmers, there are still many cases where good intentions failed to produce good results: in some places, structural adjustment plans were introduced, but agricultural input services and technical guidance could not keep up, so farmers did not dare to plant or did not know how to plant; in some places, support policies for returning-home entrepreneurship were formulated, but the thresholds were too high, so entrepreneurs urgently needing startup capital could not benefit; free training was provided to farmers, but the content was simple and repetitive, so farmers' enthusiasm to participate was not high. These good policies "look beautiful," but they are not down-to-earth. Why? In some cases, research was not thorough enough and the match with farmers' needs was not precise; in some cases, supporting measures could not keep up, leading to "orders that are hard to carry out"; in some cases, departmental interests were fragmented, "racing to pick the fruit when it ripens, and taking detours when difficulties arise."

At present, the momentum of rural and agricultural development is fairly good, but there are also many difficulties. The task of structural adjustment is heavy and difficult, rural infrastructure is heavily indebted, and the urban-rural gap is still large. To shore up the weak links in agriculture, rural areas and farmers, supportive policies must not be absent. Farmers are often heard complaining: "Why is it that even after running our legs off and wearing our mouths out, good policies still do not reach us?" It can be seen that if policies are not down-to-earth, it will not only affect farmers' sense of gain, but also hurt their hearts.

To make good policies down-to-earth, the government should strengthen its "internal strength." To improve policy formulation, it may be better to go out into the fields more often and sit down in old farmers' homes more often, think what farmers think and solve farmers' difficulties. Only then will the policies introduced have more of the smell of the soil. Policy implementation capacity also needs to be strengthened. The farmer group is increasingly differentiated: there are elderly people and children left behind in their hometowns, migrant workers, traditional farmers who hold fast to their own small plots, and new types of business entities that dare to lead the way. How good policies can precisely match the needs of different groups and comprehensively benefit the different development conditions of different villages is an issue that urgently needs to be solved. Officials should have more "fear of incompetence," continuously improve and perfect their own abilities, discover problems from reality more often, make policy details more solid, and open up the last kilometer between top-level design and grassroots implementation.

To solve the various contradictions and problems facing agricultural and rural development, the fundamental approach is to rely on deepening reform. Historical experience shows that no matter how reforms are carried out, the intensity of policies to strengthen agriculture, benefit farmers and enrich farmers must not be weakened. With more helping hands extended to fellow rural residents and broader shoulders to lean on, farmers will be more steadfast and confident on the road to a moderately prosperous life.