Next Article in Journal
The Marginal Effect and LSTM Prediction Model under the Chinese Solar Greenhouse Film
Previous Article in Journal
MutL Significantly Regulates the Formation of Biofilms in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens YT1
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/agriculture14071194
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Evolution Characteristics of Cultivated Land Protection Policy in China Based on Smith Policy Implementation

by
Bo Chen
* and
Na Yao
College of Public Administration, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(7), 1194; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071194
Submission received: 24 May 2024 / Revised: 15 July 2024 / Accepted: 18 July 2024 / Published: 20 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and based on the historical evolution of cultivated land protection policy, we used the Smith model to address the problem of policy implementation bias and provide recommendations on how to ensure that cultivated land protection policy does not deviate in the implementation process. (2) Methods: The historical evolution process of China’s cultivated land protection policy was elucidated using literature analysis and the inductive deduction method; moreover, the issues regarding local evolution were investigated. In addition, utilizing the Smith model, which has an important role in policy implementation, the restoration direction of cultivated land protection in China was summarized. (3) Project: China’s cultivated land protection policy has demonstrated success in two stages of its historical development—from the basic stage of pursuing equal quantity and quality to the new stage of the trinity of “quantity–quality–ecology” of cultivated land. However, the trend of cultivated land protection policy development based on the regional division of labor in China still has some problems, i.e., the total quantity of cultivated land is insufficient, the quality is low, and the implementation of the trinity is unclear. These regional divisions depend on solving the balance of China’s grain security, and using the Smith model to solve the problem of policy implementation has become an important measure to resolve the issue of grain security and achieve the goal of cultivated land protection. (4) Conclusions: The Smith model is suitable for the implementation of China’s cultivated land protection policy. By utilizing the Smith model, the policy target group was found to be conducive to contributing to the maturity of and improvement in China’s cultivated land protection policy.

1. Introduction

The cultivated area in China is 10,886 hectares and only about 11% of China is arable land. China imports about 8% of its food, which affects the world food prices [1]. On account of the overall lack of land resources and the large population base in China, agricultural production is faced with enormous challenges. In this case, the protection of cultivated land (CLP) under the premise of ensuring grain security has become an important measure [2,3,4]. China, which ranks fourth in the world in terms of total population and cultivated land area, firmly adheres to maintaining its arable land area above the red line of 1.8 billion mu, which thus far has been achieved. In recent decades, China has made efforts in CLP, stating that the key to guaranteeing grain security is to protect the quality of cultivated land. This ensures that agricultural land is productive enough to produce cereals. At present, China’s per capita grain output has reached 483 kg, exceeding the international grain security standard per capita by 400 kg [5]. The cultivated land protection policy (CLPP) of China has demonstrated successes throughout its historical evolution and reflects a certain trend in local evolution. But there are still some problems being encountered. Ascertaining how to ensure that policy implementation does not deviate is essential for CLP. Improving the sustainable use of cultivated land [6], enhancing farmers’ understanding and awareness of the protection of CLP, and strengthening enthusiasm for agricultural production are the key measures to promote higher grain production efficiency of cultivated land in order to guarantee grain security [7]. In the course of the CLPP, as can be observed in its evolution, policy guidance for farmers has been enriched by developing CLPP content in terms of the quantity–quality–ecology (QQE) approach [8]. However, the evolution of the CLPP based on the dimension of the farmers’ perspective is missing. A majority of the scholars have only paid attention to the historical evolution of the CLPP, which means that the overall perspective is macro. By studying pathway optimization combined with practical exploration of the CLPP, Niu et al. [9] and Wang et al. identified the future trend of the CLPP based on its historical evolution and demonstrated protection effects [10]. Lu et al. provided suggestions for improving the system in the new era directly from the logical evolution of CLP [11]. Yu et al. discovered countermeasures to strengthen CLP based on the bottom-line approach to grain security [12]. Liu et al. summarized the historical evolution and optimization transformation of China’s CLP strategy from the perspective of ecological civilization [13]. The Smith model provides clear guidance for policy implementation by assigning the target masses the same importance as government and policy, which generates a more benign policy environment. This measure results in the policy implementation process receiving a more favorable response from the target masses [14]. Nevertheless, there is little research on stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and historical evolution of the CLPP. Furthermore, research on farmers and the key implementation subjects of the Smith policy implementation model are mostly based on empirical analysis, which lacks exploration of the evolution of the CLPP from the perspective of policy implementation. Regarding the CLPP, there is more work that could be carried out in the future [15]. Since most of the previous studies are based on the historical evolution of CLPP, this paper adds the local evolution and problems of CLPP in China and then proposes the countermeasures to improve the farmland protection policy with the help of the Smith model. The local evolution contrast of CLPP and the use of the Smith model are the points of innovation in this paper. According to our review, we have found that, in the historical and local evolution of CLPP, there are issues such as an insufficient quantity of cultivated land, low quality, and the unclear implementation of the trinity. Therefore, it is imperative to systematically sort out the historical evolution of China’s cultivated land protection policies based on the two dimensions of policy content and policy tools and put forward suggestions for the future development of CLPP for the sustainable use of cultivated land.

2. Evolution Characteristics of CLPP in China

Through the Chinese literature management website, https://www.cnki.net/ (accessed on 5 March 2024), the literature on the CLPP was studied. The authors used VOSviewer 1.6.20 to cluster and integrate the collected literature and identify keywords related to CLP (Figure 1). As shown in the figure, items in the bold black font represent the content extracted more frequently from all the relevant literature. The results of the keyword search showed that, for the last fifteen years, the themes around the core keyword “CLP” have been “farmers”, “land policy”, “land administration”, “grain security”, “cultivated land”, and “countermeasure”. Based on the constituent structure, the farmland protection object of “farmers” was “cultivated land”, with relationships to “grain security” being influenced by “countermeasures”, such as those related to “land administration” and “land policy”, including “basic farmland”, “cultivated land area”, “land use change”, and so on. Moreover, over time, research on the CLPP has started to focus on CLP itself. In recent years, the overall dynamic range of the CLP literature has not changed much, indicating that this area still requires attention. In particular, policy research based on the peasant household dimension requires updating. “Farmers” act as the direct object of the “CLPP”, as can be observed in the upward line connection in the figure; moreover, “economic compensation”, “policy instrument”, and the “local government” are the key factors of this influence and provide the necessary links to the CLPP. There is a generally agreed law that local government CLPP work is closely related to farmers, which directly affects the economic income of farmers. Therefore, from the perspective of farmers, what they value most is economic compensation from the local government. The perspective of farmers is explored further in this study by employing the Smith model to calculate the evolution characteristics of the CLPP in China.
Most of the literature on the CLPP is based on the level of policy formulation conducted by the government. From the logic of the time development sequence, the historical evolution of the CLPP is organized in chronological order. On this basis, the focus shift that occurred in the history of CLPP development is summarized [16]. As the basic resource and production factor in agriculture, cultivated land is the fundamental source of grain security, which must be strengthened in the country’s vigorous implementation of the “storing grain in the land” strategic approach [17]. To ensure the effective performance of the CLPP under the goal of sustainable development, the core concept of ecological civilization construction has been injected into the sustainable use of cultivated land, which is conducive to the long-term development of grain security and an important direction of agricultural development. The goal of CLP is an achievable sustainability aim; however, each generation of society in China has unique missions and responsibilities. By implementing the basic stage in the evolution of the CLPP and improving the quantity and quality of cultivated land area and grain output, the benefits of effective policy can be achieved. When advancing to a new stage in the evolution of the CLPP, the “ecological civilization construction” concept of China should be implemented in CLP. Furthermore, from the perspective of sustainability, China must adhere to the QQE approach in the CLPP.

2.1. Basic Stage of the Evolution of CLPP

Beginning in 1949, the pursuit of cultivated land quantity in China has laid a solid foundation for the comprehensive protection and utilization of cultivated land. Agricultural production, which dominated rural economic construction, is closely dependent on cultivated land. The area of cultivated land increased significantly from 1949 to 1954, as shown in Figure 2. In the 1960s and 1970s, the area of cultivated land decreased slightly; however, the trend was not obvious. The main reason for this decrease was the shift in focus from agriculture to the development of heavy industry. By the 1960s, an emphasis on non-agricultural construction of cultivated land was stated several times in the relevant regulations, policies, and reports, in pursuit of the agricultural production mode of cultivated land quantity construction. The loss of cultivated land after 1979, and especially after Deng’s economic revolution, was significant. Developing farmland for cities and industrial sites was common across China. To a certain extent, the development during this period caused a direct downward trend in the change in cultivated land area.
By 1994, the overall area of cultivated land in China was shown to have declined since 1954. This decline was mainly due to the concession of agriculture to other industries. Due to a large number of cultivated land transfer projects, many rural farms have since been lost, and the occupation of cultivated land by township workshops and farmers’ housing has increased. Therefore, China’s central government has increasingly paid great attention to the reduction in cultivated land area.
To reduce the sharp decline in the quantity of arable land, “Regulations on the Protection of Basic Farmland” were promulgated by the government of China, and the important concept of a “basic farmland” was presented. Dividing “basic farmland” from the use of cultivated land has unprecedented significance in improving the actual area of cultivated land used. Since 1949, the Chinese government has successively issued many policies to protect cultivated land. This study lists some important and representative policies to identify the evolutionary logic of CLP (Table 1). The main connection is the “basic farmland” concept. Since the protection of basic farmlands began in 1994, the pursuit of CLP and grain security has been the original core orientation of the history of the CLPP, and it is also an inevitable response to the reduction in cultivated land area.
In particular, in 1999, the Chinese government initiated a pilot program of the policy “Grain for Green”; however, thus far, the quantity of cultivated land area has once again shown a backward trend. This seems to be in conflict with the policy shown in Table 1, the policy of increasing cultivated land. However, in reality, in China’s specific policy implementation environment, this is a key impetus for the shift from the pursuit of quantity to quality of cultivated land. The “Grain for Green” policy requires poor-quality farmland to be restored to natural areas with no agricultural production; this naturalization policy improves the environment, which, in turn, benefits ecosystems, wildlife, and human health. Therefore, the environmental benefits of this policy share a common vision with the CLPP. The “Grain for Green” policy was officially implemented in 2003 after being piloted in 1999; however, it did not demonstrate its achievements until 2004. In 2004, the CLPP began to demonstrate the turning point with the improvement in the “quality” of cultivated land.
In 2004, urbanization in China entered a period of rapid development. Furthermore, other resources in the market began yielding to the progress of urbanization [18]. Improving the quantity of cultivated land to be protected cannot sufficiently match the process of urbanization. This limitation includes the “Grain for Green” policy, which requires improvements in the quality of cultivated land to attain a level of grain security, even if the quantity of cultivated land is reduced. Therefore, balancing the development of all resources and the guarantee of rural agricultural development, the “Grain for Green” policy mainly relies on the construction of high-standard farmland. In 2008, the concept of “permanent basic farmland” was formally proposed in the CLPP, which clearly emphasized the requirements for the quality of farmland. In addition, this component proposed higher requirements on the cultivated grain planting environment and conditions compared with a “basic farmland”. As a unique concept in the development of the CLPP in China, permanent basic farmland had clear guidance for the policy formulation direction of CLP and more stringent requirements for the quality of CLP. The introduction of this concept indicated that China’s CLP officially entered the stage of permanent basic farmland protection with characteristic policy measures for CLP. The higher requirements for farmland quality in the basic stage of the CLPP are reflected in three concepts, namely “basic farmland”, “permanent basic farmland”, and “high-standard farmland”. Table 2 lists the relevant policies. From the perspective of the CLPP from 2004 to 2011, the safeguarding stage of CLP mainly focused on ensuring the steady progress of rural agriculture in fast-paced urbanization. In the next stage of the CLPP, the focus moved toward equal emphasis on both quantity and quality.
During the period from 2004 to 2011, the evolution of the CLPP in China entered the “high-standard farmland” stage. Based on the “basic farmland”, the concept of a “high-standard farmland” would guarantee the quality of cultivated land in order to ensure and maintain its productivity. At present, cultivated land quality construction is mainly reflected in the implementation of high-standard farmland construction projects in China. The history of the CLPP reflects the increasingly high requirements for the construction of high-standard farmland. By improving production conditions according to local conditions and scientifically allocating farmland infrastructure, the quality of cultivated land has been significantly improved, providing a practical guarantee for CLP.

2.2. A New Stage of the Evolution of CLPP

The new stage in the evolution of the CLPP in China integrated the concept of “ecological civilization construction” on the premise of the basic stage. The report of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China put forward the significance of sustainable development [19]; thus far, the central government has attached great importance to the CLP “QQE” trinity. Moreover, the management system of “quantity protection, quality construction, and ecological maintenance” is being improved [20]. A more comprehensive policy system has gradually been formed for the CLP. At present, some series of policies and regulations have been issued. This study summarizes some important CLPP content in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, on the one hand, the new stage of the CLPP continues to emphasize the importance of the quantity and quality of cultivated land, while taking “farmland quality”, “permanent basic farmland”, “high-standard farmland”, “prevent non-agriculturalization of farmland” and other objectives as the core elements of the policy. On the other hand, the “National Land Planning Outline” attaches great importance to “Sustainable development of a beautiful homeland” to echo “Ecological civilization construction”, and ecology has become a significant indicator to measure CLP. At this point, the evolution of the CLPP in China is continuing on the path toward sustainable development.
The objectives of a “permanent basic farmland” and a “high-standard farmland” are repeatedly mentioned in the policy changes connecting the two stages of the CLPP. The construction of the “permanent basic farmland” and “high-standard farmland” is also the goal and direction of the sustainable development of cultivated land under the concept of ecological civilization construction [21]. In policy operation, countries need to explore the possibility of realizing the “permanent basic farmland” and “high-standard farmland” objectives to achieve the protection and utilization of cultivated land production capacity. Under the historical evolution of the specific development of China, the focus of the CLPP has been the QQE trinity, which emphasizes a shift from quantity and quality to ecology, which is a scientific direction under the international aim of sustainable development. To identify the most feasible future direction for China, the local policy evolution trend needs to be examined in greater detail. By identifying issues in the evolution of local policy, we can determine methods to improve CLPP overall.
High-standard farming is the construction vision put forward from the perspective of the historical evolution of CLP; however, we should also pay attention to a major problem of grain production. The average size of a farm in China is very small, a hectare or two; therefore, it is difficult to meet the requirements of high-standard construction. This is a significant challenge for an extensive crop because of local differences in the quality of cultivated land. Therefore, China’s main grain crop output is produced by state-owned and state-operated farms. Next, we will demonstrate the characteristics of China’s CLPP from the logic of local policy evolution.

2.3. The Evolution Trend of Local

The local implementation of the CLPP is divided into the basic modes of grain transportation and sales. The primary goal is the strictest adherence to the CLPP. The CLPP also provides the basic model for China to deploy food security under the condition of large differences in cultivated land resources in different places. To solve the problem of grain security [22], various provinces in China are divided into the following three major regions: the main grain production areas, the main grain sales areas, and the production and sales balance areas, according to the grain transportation and sales pattern. Among them, the main grain production areas are the administrative provinces with good cultivation of land resources, such as Heilongjiang and Hebei provinces, which have fertile arable land. These provinces can still export grain when they have sufficient grain to meet their needs. The main grain sales areas are most of China’s coastal areas, which mainly rely on the development of industry and tertiary industry. Therefore, areas with a large population and less land experience a large gap between grain production and demand. The balance of the various provinces in China is represented by the production and marketing areas, which have limited agricultural production conditions and relatively settled economic development. Therefore, the contribution of the production and marketing areas to national grain production is limited; however, these areas can remain self-sufficient. On account of the evolution of the CLPP, this study compared the effectiveness of the CLPP in three major regions represented by the Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, and Guizhou provinces. Furthermore, the effects of the implementation of grain transportation and sales zoning in the CLPP were summarized to identify possible trends in the local evolution of the CLPP in China (Figure 3). As can be observed in Figure 3, in the implementation of the three regional differentiation policies, there are issues limited to each place, which urgently need to be addressed.
In major grain-producing areas, the CLPP emphasizes quantity over quality. Since the reform and opening up of China in 1979, economic construction has been the focus of the national coordination effort. Therefore, the previous grain production areas showed a trend of development towards industry and tertiary industry. In particular, cities near the sea are a window to the world; thus, the main task of grain production shifted to the central and western regions. Until now, China’s largest grain production responsibility has been placed on the main grain-producing areas, which are mainly composed of administrative provinces with relatively rich cultivated land resources, smooth land formation, and suitable climate. To consolidate the advantages of growing grain in these places, local governments vigorously invest in agricultural facilities and related economic support to increase grain production. For example, because black soil is a valuable cultivated land resource and its fertility is very conducive to the growth of crops, the state has legislated the black soil protection project in Northeast China [23]. Taking Heilongjiang province as an example, the area of typical black soil is 156 million mu, accounting for 56.1% of the area of typical black soil in Northeast China. Therefore, Heilongjiang province is an important “world-class granary”. Under the framework of the existing national CLPP, to ensure the quantity of cultivated land, China’s red line of cultivated land has been strictly defined. Because of the existence of areas with good cultivation of land resources, the Chinese government has made more efforts to increase the quantity of cultivated land compared with the main grain marketing areas and the production and marketing balance areas.
However, in promoting the implementation of the CLPP, there has been a problem in the main grain-producing areas where CLP is relatively focused on quantity while neglecting quality improvement. Taking Heilongjiang province as an example, there is still a lack of further tracking and improvement in relevant policies to ensure the quality of cultivated land [24]. The major grain-producing areas such as Heilongjiang province aim to increase grain output. In the process of cultivation, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides exceeds the standard, and farmers lack the attention to sustainable CLP. The lack of supervision of farmers by local governments allows farmers to continue to pursue the rapid growth of crops in a way that destroys the quality of black soil. Therefore, insufficient use of scientific and green farming methods damages the original microecological environment of Heilongjiang province [25], which is unfavorable to the development of black soil resources. Similarly, the destruction of such precious farmland resources threatens the long-term stability of grain security. These above-mentioned problems receive the most attention from major grain-producing areas in terms of attaining the quantity objectives in the CLPP; however, as a result, the objectives related to quality improvement are ignored.
Next in importance, CLP in major grain sales areas emphasizes supervision over governance. The pattern of grain transportation and marketing has shifted from the reform and development of China, and the main grain marketing areas pay more attention to economic development than agricultural production. However, due to the overall situation of the lack of cultivated land resources, the main grain marketing areas attach great importance to the supervision and administrative work of CLP. Taking Zhejiang province as an example, the quantity of cultivated land is insufficient compared with the main grain-producing areas; therefore, the government pays more attention to the control and supervision of the existing cultivated land. Moreover, based on the development advantages of high-tech industries, it is easier to obtain profits in other industries than in agriculture. To effectively enforce the CLPP, the government spares no effort to invest in supervision. Zhejiang province has even used Internet-based cloud technology to implement a digital monitoring system. The use of this technology undoubtedly results in greater compliance from farmers, ensuring they strictly follow the CLPP. This also ensures effective implementation of the CLPP in rural areas.
However, in promoting the implementation of the CLPP, an issue has been identified in the main grain-producing areas. The CLPP is relatively valued, and regulatory systems have been established while neglecting the joint governance of farmers. For example, Zhejiang province has a large population with rapid economic development and a large number of migrant workers from all walks of life. Therefore, a complex farmland ownership problem is expected here. In particular, factories in the cultivated land on the edge of the city and the economic development areas are bound to compete for the ownership of cultivated land. Farmers may also be reluctant to cultivate arable land due to being paid more to work directly in factories. At the same time, overly strict rules and regulations for farmers may cause a reduction in farming initiatives. Especially in the more developed grain production and marketing balance areas, under the strict supervision system, farmers are more willing to engage in non-agricultural work. This is a terrible phenomenon, meaning that farmers in the main grain marketing areas are not directly involved in the management of CLP. Therefore, under the strict supervision system of the “military order” CLPP, the incentive for farmers to cultivate independently is lacking. This is a problem of heavy supervision and light governance in CLP in the main grain sales areas.
At length, CLP in the production and sales balance areas emphasizes benefits over compensation. With the acceleration of industrialization and urbanization, if the grain production and sales balance zones cannot be self-sufficient in grain production, it will increase regional development costs in the cross-regional flow of grain. While maintaining basic grain production, the need to promote the speed of regional economic development is also a priority, which puts higher requirements on the effectiveness of local protection work in the balanced areas of grain production and sales. Taking Guizhou province as an example, as a plateau province with typical karst landforms, the ecological environment of Guizhou is fragile [26]. At this point, China’s grain production and marketing balance areas seem to have to consider the fragile natural conditions of the ecological environment [27]. On the one hand, in the face of the requirement of self-sufficiency in grain output, the CLPP in the balance areas of production and marketing pays more attention to the planting of cash crops, to gain greater benefits. On the other hand, the fragile ecological environment requires “Grain for Green” to have more development space here, and even planting trees benefits more than farming, which also generates considerable policy support. In the process of vigorously developing ecological advantages, the central government has allocated more resources to the development of ecological policies such as “Grain for Green”. This is undoubtedly a valuable benefit trend for local development.
However, in promoting the implementation of the CLPP, there has been a problem in the production and sales balance areas. The CLPP is relatively focused on the establishment of policy implementation benefits and neglects the compensation needs of farmers. Taking Guizhou province as an example, a large number of policies are issued so that farmers can naturally choose the best policy implementation approach based on their own interests. Because the economic development of the production and marketing balance areas is limited by geographical conditions, the cultivated land conditions of grain production are backward, and the ecological environment is fragile. Therefore, farmers mainly rely on policy subsidies because CLP subsidies are not as appealing as the “Grain for Green” initiative. Therefore, one extreme phenomenon that may occur is farmers preferring to receive subsidies from the “Grain for Green” initiative, thus giving up access to arable land. Cultivated land is also lying idle in uncultivated environments. Therefore, the incentive effect of CLP is not obvious, which is a problem in terms of prioritizing benefits over compensation in the production and sales balance areas.

3. Based on the Smith Policy Implementation Model

In the historical evolution of the CLPP, the evolution of policy core values has laid the foundation for successful experiences. However, in the specific process of policy implementation, it is still difficult to avoid practical implementation problems, which may lead to policy deviations. As in the local evolution of the CLPP, issues need to be addressed during policy implementation. The Smith policy implementation model is a useful reference to ensure that the implementation process does not deviate from the core requirements of the CLPP.
The most prominent feature of the Smith model is that it integrates the other three elements of policy implementation, namely the executing agency, target group, and environmental factors, into a unified system with idealized policies. These three elements play an equally important role in the CLPP, and the interactive factors between them are the key to smooth policy implementation. In the CLPP, the ideal implementation of CLP is always carried out in the interaction reaction between the government, farmers, and environmental factors (Figure 4).
The formulation and implementation of policies are a dynamic process of inter-related policy cycles. In the process of improving and supplementing the CLPP, it is necessary to combine the operational characteristics of the policies themselves to ensure the effective implementation of the policies to achieve the CLPP objectives. In the operation of the CLPP system, the government must gain experience from the overall macro perspective and evolutionary logic; moreover, in order to make further policy adjustments, the policy target group must actively cooperate in the policy operation environment and provide timely feedback on the success of policy implementation and related issues. Among them, the government’s control of the policy intention of the target group is the top priority. This not only involves complex elements and diverse links but also considers the practical interests of the policy target group, which is directly related to whether the policy can proceed.
However, in the current literature analysis of the CLPP, the consideration of the target group involved in the policy is far from sufficient for the government and the CLPP itself. Based on the Smith model, we identified farmers as the policy target group and assigned them importance equal to the CLPP and the government implementation mechanism environmental factors. We directed the focus to the farmers who are the main target group of the CLPP. From the perspective of the impact of farmland policies on farmers, we elucidated the direction necessary to improve the CLPP. Next, we have summarized the problems of the CLPP in policy implementation based on the characteristics of the historical and local evolution of the policies described above.

3.1. The Limited Quantity of Cultivated Land

The insufficient total per capita cultivated land area in China is currently the primary issue in CLP. From the historical experience of the basic stage of the CLPP, the faster the economy develops, the more it is necessary to lay a solid foundation for protecting the total area of farmland. At present, the distribution of China’s reserve cultivated land resources is not concentrated enough, and there is a fragmented terrain layout. The well-cultivated land resources, mainly occupied by major grain-producing areas, have always been a small part of China. Facing a population of 1.4 billion, the limited quantity of cultivated land is still the primary problem to be solved [28].
Based on the Smith policy implementation model, farmers are unclear about the classification of land use types, which is an urgent problem to be solved in the context of insufficient total cultivated land. For farmers, there is a certain difficulty in understanding the boundary between the “general farmland”, “permanent basic farmland”, and the “high-standard farmland” [29]. There are practical difficulties in clearly dividing the utilization and classification of farmland, which is based on the cultural level of farmers themselves, and there is a certain degree of difficulty with universality. Based on the ambiguity left by the government in dividing the types of cultivated land, there is a problem of insufficient communication with farmers. For example, in village organizational life, village chiefs do not strictly distinguish the specific types of cultivated land use and do not efficiently communicate land use information to farmers, resulting in natural policy cognitive biases among farmers.

3.2. Low Quality of Cultivated Land

According to the current national survey data on the quality level of cultivated land in China, the quality of cultivated land in the main grain-producing areas weakens with the increase in development efforts. The black soil layer in the area of Northeast China is gradually thinning, and insufficient organic fertilizer input leads to soil degradation, which cannot be remedied. The cultivated layer in the tidal soil areas of North China and the Huanghuai Plain is also gradually thinning, with a great risk of soil fertility decline and no technical method to reduce soil salinization. Heavy metal pollution is severe in some soils of the Middle and Lower Yangtze Valley Plain. The poor water retention and lack of technical solutions to soil salinization and desertification in the northwest arid region have led to a lower overall quality of cultivated land, which is a background factor that must be taken seriously in carrying out CLP.
Based on the Smith policy implementation model, unscientific farming by farmers during the cultivation process is an urgent problem to be solved in the context of low farmland quality. For farmers, the quality of cultivated land is low, and the harvest is poor. To ensure the family’s grain output, there is inevitably a tendency to strengthen the intensity of cultivation. Therefore, due to the lack of scientific and urgent cultivation methods by farmers, the process of protecting cultivated land tends to “push the seedlings too far”. In the process of CLP, if farmers cannot use scientific farming methods and equipment for grain crop production, it will further increase the problem of low farmland quality in China [30]. This is not only based on the labor capacity and agricultural capital of farmers themselves but also on the government’s support for farmers to purchase farming equipment and the implementation of scientific farming technology guidance and training in the process of implementing the CLPP [31].

3.3. The Implementation of the Trinity Is Vague

In the process of achieving sustainable utilization of cultivated land in China, achieving the integration of QQE is currently a key issue in CLP. At present, in the division of “three zones and three lines” in China, cultivated land is delineated by three departments consisting of both urban space and ecological space, and thus spatial overlap is inevitable. Strictly defining the permanent basic farmland protection red line is not only for protecting cultivated land but also for protecting the basic benefits of farmers. However, in the implementation of ecological compensation mechanisms, some interests of farmers may be limited. Understanding how to balance the ecological compensation policies such as “Grain for Green” with CLP, from the perspective of farmers, is reflected in farmers’ direct benefits from government subsidies. Moreover, how to clarify the standards and boundaries in implementation has become a thorny problem that must be solved [32].
Based on the Smith policy implementation model, the interests of farmers are limited in the mechanism of CLP and ecological compensation, which is an urgent problem to be solved in the context of implementing the “QQE” trinity of CLP. For farmers, the “three zones and three lines” lack clear boundary delineation in government orders; moreover, the lack of a timely and sensitive grasp of “red line awareness” makes farmers’ interests the main behavioral driving force. If farmers’ expectations for farmland labor cannot be met, the implementation of the “QQE” trinity of CLP is not achievable. In the process of CLP, if the interests of farmers are restricted by the mechanism of ecological restoration compensation, the implementation of the three-in-one system will become even more unattainable [33]. This predicted outcome is not only based on the value orientation of farmers themselves; our assessment also considers government on-site research on the construction of the ecological civilization concept in industries in towns and villages during the process of issuing the CLPP, as well as the practical understanding of the policy orientation of farmers.

4. Discussion

In the implementation of the CLPP, grasping the policy execution intentions of target groups such as farmers, further optimizing the CLPP through farmer supervision feedback, and encouraging more social participation to support the systematic engineering of CLP are feasible directions for the improvement in, and supplementation of, the future CLPP. Based on the Smith model, this study divides the structure of the CLPP and proposes directions for improving the future CLPP.

4.1. Strict Classification of Cultivated Land Types

Farmers are the primary target group of the CLPP, and their understanding of CLP directly affects whether the implementation of the CLPP can be sustained for a long time. By directly addressing farmers’ dissatisfaction with farmland conservation policies, key issues can be resolved. Based on the overall low education level of Chinese farmers, in the process of policy implementation, the form and standard of cultivated land division are scientifically sorted out under the premise of multifunctional farmland [34]. In the strict division of cultivated land types, strengthening farmers’ understanding of the types of cultivated land use can greatly improve farmers’ recognition of the CLPP [35].
At present, the classification of farmland types in the CLPP is based on farmland quality, which is mainly divided into general farmland, permanent basic farmland, and high-standard farmland [36]. Under the red line standard of three zones and three lines, the classification of farmland types should be more concise. Based on the three control lines of urban development boundary, the permanent basic farmland protection red line, and ecological protection red line, the practical solution is to clearly define the classification of permanent basic farmland [37]. Especially for farmers with overall poor education, the inclusion of too many land use concepts will lead to lower implementation. Determining how to transition permanent basic farmland to high-standard farmland construction is a systematic and long-term project in the current context of accelerating urbanization and deepening the concept of ecological civilization construction. The designation of cultivated land as permanent basic farmland can strengthen farmers’ awareness of the benefits of CLP, encouraging them to not leave their land lying idle. In the form of a “field chief system”, local administrative officials should be held responsible for the designated farmland, and farmers should have a clear sense of boundaries for their land. Moreover, farmers should have greater autonomy under their annual farming arrangements, thereby enhancing their recognition of CLP. The education level of the farmers varies but, based on their life experience and knowledge of the cultivation of farmland, effective utilization and protection of their land are still evident. It is important to issue the CLPP in line with farmers’ understanding and provide them with a practical model to execute.

4.2. Stimulate the Enthusiasm of Farmers

The enthusiasm of farmers in the construction of farmland is directly related to the efficiency of cultivation and plays a key role in securing the sustainable development of farmland while ensuring the production capacity of agricultural products. For farmers, improving scientific cultivation methods, techniques, and equipment can also drive the greater production capacity of farmland and achieve a higher crop economy. This is a policy measure that is beneficial and harmless. Government investment in the construction of scientific cultivation has greatly increased the enthusiasm of farmers for building farmland.
Among the requirements in the construction of high-standard farmland, protective tillage technology equipment ensures a high yield in standard farmland [38]. With the development of new urbanization, the serious loss of rural working populations along with cultivated land and good farming ability has become a mainstream issue. Only by vigorously developing conservation tillage technology and improving scientific practices can farmers regain great enthusiasm for farmland construction from the technical level. Considering farmers as the popularization and service object of conservation tillage technology and equipment requires the government to issue special policy documents on improving the science of conservation tillage. The government needs to include scientific advances in the research and development tasks and implement conservation tillage methods according to local conditions. At the same time, preferential measures and subsidy funds should be provided for conservation tillage equipment so that farmers can readily employ such equipment in their farming practices. Different cultivation methods have varying degrees of impact on the soil texture of cultivated land [39], and scientific conservation tillage is more conducive to the sustainable development of cultivated land [40].

4.3. Protect the Interests of All Parties

For the sustainable development of cultivated land in China, policies such as ecological fallow are usually adopted [41]. Therefore, whether the ecological compensation mechanism can make subsidies attractive enough to farmers is the root cause of determining whether fallow can be carried out [42]. Based on pursuing ecological civilization construction and integrating sustainable development of various resources, farmers, as the main policy target group for CLP [43], are closely related to the utilization of farmland and their own cost of living guarantee. The authors of this study believe that, in the absence of achieving the ideal compensation benefits for farmers, excessive cultivation of cultivated land is a better choice for farmers or developers who contract agricultural product projects. Therefore, how to make the ecological compensation mechanism satisfactory to farmers, developers, and even the government requires a joint decision based on the interests and opinions of multiple stakeholders.
In the continuous realization of the ecological civilization concept, policies such as returning farmland to forests focus on long-term development benefits. However, based on the assumption that farmers are rational and practical, it is expected that they mainly pay attention to the immediate economic interests related to their work. Therefore, it is difficult for farmers to be motivated to participate in the implementation of policies related to CLP and ecological protection. The scope of CLP primarily concerns land conservation and ecology; however, it is related to a wide range of groups including farmers. As a target group with economic interests related to CLP, the related economic compensation for farmers should be based on their ideal expectations. Therefore, the government should guarantee the economic interests of farmers through simple and direct subsidies so that the CLPP can be effectively implemented.

5. Conclusions

The CLPP is a systematic project that benefits the present and the future. Under the concept of ecological civilization construction, the sustainable development of cultivated land is equally important as the sustainable development of other ecological resources. In the historical evolution of the Chinese CLPP, the evolution of its demonstrated success is mainly based on the new era transition from 1949 to 2012. Firstly, from 1949 to 2003, the basic stage was to pursue the control of the quantity of farmland, which was the foundation of CLP. In the protection stage from 2004 to 2011, maintaining the quality of cultivated land was the aim of CLP. Furthermore, after 2012, the integration of the QQE approach became the key to protecting cultivated land. From the establishment of the People’s Republic of China to the convening of the 18th National Congress, there was a process of shifting the focus of CLP, which was also in line with the mature development of the economy, environment, and society as a continuous sustainability process. At the same time, comparing the implementation effect of the Chinese CLPP, each province is divided into regions based on grain transportation and sales. The development trend of the local CLPP is mainly as follows: the protection of farmland in major grain-producing areas emphasizes quantity over quality; CLP in the main grain sales areas emphasizes supervision over governance; and CLP in the production and sales balance zones emphasizes benefits over compensation. The implementation of the CLPP focuses on the process of policy implementation. We used the Smith policy implementation model as the main model, and through induction, deduction, and comprehensive analysis, elucidated the multi-source obstacles in the implementation of the CLPP based on its historical evolution. In the context of insufficient total farmland, the classification of farmer utilization is unclear. As a result of low farmland quality, farmers cultivate unscientific crops. Starting from the three aspects of the limited interests of farmers in the context of the implementation of the three-in-one approach, combined with the Smith model, corresponding directions for improving the future CLPP are proposed.
The deficiency of this paper is that the local evolution of CLPP has not sorted out the corresponding policy documents. The reason is that the local evolution of CLP is based on the influence of “adjusting measures to local conditions” in China. At present, in the academic community, there is a lack of research on the policy differences of local farmland protection, so it is difficult to sort out this aspect of the policy data. The article summarizes the CLPP only in the legal provisions of the central government.
Under the tide of socialism with Chinese characteristics entering a new era, the policy of protecting cultivated land is based on its historical evolution. In the new stage of CLP, in the division of the “three zones and three lines”, different requirements have been put forward for the construction of general cultivated land, permanent basic farmland, and high-standard farmland. The overall aim is still to supplement generally cultivated land of good quality with the permanent basic farmland, allowing permanent basic farmlands to transition to high-standard farmlands. In terms of cultivation methods and techniques with the scientific improvement in farming equipment, focusing on the immediate interests of farmers would be more conducive to the CLPP. Exploring the feasibility of the CLPP in the policy environment, starting from the Smith policy implementation model, it is particularly important to pay attention to farmers as the target group of policies. In the specific implementation of the CLPP, directly utilizing feedback from farmers as stakeholders will also contribute to the maturity of and improvement in the CLPP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.C. and N.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Y.; writing—reviewing and editing, B.C. and N.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number: 41807366]; the Guizhou Provincial Key Technology R&D Program (Grant No. [2021]456); and the Guizhou Provincial Natural Science Research Program for Higher Education Institutions (Grant No. [2024]83).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. National Data, National Bureau of Statistics of China. Annual Data. 2022. National Data Website. Available online: https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2022/indexch.htm (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  2. Wang, J.; Li, P.; Zhan, Y.Q.; Tan, S.Y. Study on the protection and improvement of cultivated land quality in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 29, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yang, H.; Shen, X.; Lai, L.; Huang, X.; Zhou, Y. Spatio-temporal variations of health costs caused by chemical fertilizer utilization in China from 1990 to 2012. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kong, X.G.; Chen, W.G.; Wen, L.Y. Building the Foundation of grain Security for Great Countries through Three Security Measures of Cultivated Land Resources. Agric. Econ. Manag. 2022, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhao, Y. Measures Counter Food Security Risks. China Daily, 2022. China Daily Website. Available online: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xCaHfHWQcLX87I8H5rH4yg (accessed on 22 September 2023).
  6. Zhang, Z.F. Sustainable Land Use Goals, Challenges, and Response Strategies for SDGs. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 48–55. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, M.Q.; Wu, Y.H.; Liu, T.J. Research and prospects on farmland protection in China based on farmer behavior. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 12, 66–72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu, M.P.; Zhang, A.L. The Historical Logic and Optimization Path of the Changes in Chinese Farmland Use Policy since the Founding of the Communist Party of China in the Century. China Land Sci. 2021, 35, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  9. Niu, S.D.; Fang, B. 70 Years of Chinese Farmland Protection System: Historical Evolution, Realistic Exploration, and Path Optimization. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, W.X.; Cao, Y.G.; Su, R.Q.; Qiu, M.; Song, L. Research on Chinese Farmland Protection Policy: Based on Background, Effects, and Future Trends. China Agric. Resour. Reg. 2020, 41, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lu, Y.X.; Wang, B.Y. Evolution and Logic of Farmland Protection System and Policy. China Land 2022, 2, 4–8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Yu, F.W.; Dai, M.H.; Lin, S. Farmland protection based on the bottom line thinking of grain security: Current situation, difficulties, and countermeasures. Econ. Rev. 2022, 12, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu, K.; Wang, J. Research on the Historical Evolution and Optimization Transformation of Chinese Farmland Protection Strategy. Agric. Econ. 2021, 7, 82–84. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shen, Y.Y. How to Improve Garbage Classification in Chinese Universities: Based on the Smith Model. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries (Part 3), Xi’an, China, 7 August 2023; pp. 84–90. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gesang, B. Protecting our future: What contribution can I make? PLoS Sustain. Transform. 2022, 1, e0000014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Qu, F.T.; Ma, X.L.; Guo, G.C. From Political Order, Economic Development to National Governance: Institutional Logic and Basic Experience of Centennial Land Policy. Manag. World 2021, 37, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shen, R.F.; Wang, C.; Sun, B. Soil science and technology in the implementation of the strategy of “storing storage in ground and grain in technology”. Proc. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2018, 33, 135–144. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wei, H.K. Polarization Tendency and Scale Pattern Reconstruction in Chinese Urbanization Process. China Ind. Econ. 2014, 3, 18–30. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, G.S.; Zhang, R.N.; Cheng, F.; Yun, W.J. A study on cultivated land protection policies that prioritize both quantity and quality management. China Land Sci. 2009, 23, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  20. Qi, X.X.; Zhang, Z.H.; Huang, X.J. Contradictions and innovative responses to cultivated land protection in the new era. China Land Sci. 2018, 32, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liang, X.L.; Wang, L.; Li, C. A study on the rapid optimization layout of permanent basic farmland based on the integration of quantity, quality, and ecology. J. Agric. Resour. Environ. 2021, 38, 946–956. [Google Scholar]
  22. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF. The State of Grain Security and Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing Grain and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  23. Han, Y. Evolution, Vision Goals, and Implementation Paths of Chinese Cultivated Land Protection and Utilization Policy. Manag. World 2022, 38, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jin, X. Research on the Implementation Issues and Countermeasures of Cultivated Land Protection Policies in Heilongjiang Province. Master of Thesis, Harbin University of Commerce, Harbin, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Di, Y.S.; Sun, J.L. Problems and Countermeasures for the Protection of Black Soil Farmland in Heilongjiang Province. Mod. Agric. 2020, 10, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ren, H.Y.; Zhao, Y.L.; Ge, Y.J. Spatial correlation between farmland fragmentation and geomorphic types in karst mountainous areas: A case study of Xiuwen County, Guizhou. J. Guizhou Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2020, 38, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yuan, X.; Du, W.; Wei, X.; Ying, Y.; Shao, Y.; Hou, R. Quantitative analysis of research on China’s land transfer system. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Y.; Zhu, F.L.; Zhong, Y. The Evolution, Logic, and Prospects of the “Grain Storage in the Land” Strategy. Agric. Econ. Manag. 2023, 1, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zheng, Q.Y.; Shang, X.D.; Wang, Y. Why is cultivated land protection difficult: Goals, practices, and countermeasures-observations from the main grain producing areas in the western region. Economist 2023, 4, 98–107. [Google Scholar]
  30. Xu, Z.J.; Zhao, C.W.; Luo, M.F. Research on the Impact of Farmer Input Behavior on Farmland Quality: A Case Study of Qianjin and Fana Village in Guanling, Guizhou Province. J. Guizhou Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2013, 31, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen, W.G.; Kong, X.B. Exploration of Chinese Agricultural Land Protection Science and Technology Innovation Strategy. Soil Bull. 2023, 54, 947–954. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shi, F.; Yang, Q.Y.; Wang, C.; Jiang, J.L.; Hu, R. Farmland fallow management model in ecologically degraded areas from the perspective of actor networks: A case study of Songtao County, Guizhou Province. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 2892–2912. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ou, M.H.; Wang, K.P.; Guo, J. Research progress on ecological compensation mechanisms for cultivated land protection. Agric. Mod. Res. 2019, 40, 357–365. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jiang, D. Towards cultivated land multifunction assessment in China: Applying the “Influencing factors-functions-products-demands” integrated framework. Land Use Policy 2020, 1, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Boufous, S.; Hudson, D.; Carpio, C. Farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices: A meta-analysis. PLoS Sustain. Transform. 2023, 2, e0000037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, W.G.; Zhang, Q.P.; Kong, X.B.; Duan, X.F.; Zuo, X.M.; Tan, M.; Zhao, J.; Dong, T. Optimization Rules and Empirical Study of Provincial Permanent Basic Farmland Layout Based on “Three Lines” Coordination. J. Agric. Eng. 2021, 37, 248–257. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mao, X.H.; Li, Y.Y.; Fu, L.L. The dilemma and strategy of the “trinity” protection of cultivated land quantity, quality and ecology—Take Zhejiang Province as an example. Agric. Econ. 2024, 4, 105–107. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cui, Z.D.; Yu, Z.G.; Zhang, P.G. Does the adoption of conservation tillage technology help improve the efficiency of grain production technology-Taking Corn as an Example. J. Agric. For. Econ. Manag. 2021, 20, 458–467. [Google Scholar]
  39. Guo, S.Y.; Shang, Y.; Tang, Q.L.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, G.Y. Effect of different rotation methods and biochar on soil enzyme activity, soil nutrients and wheat and maize yield. Crop Mag. 2022, 3, 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  40. Peng, W.L.; Lv, X.; Xin, Z.F.; Niu, S.D. International experience in sustainable intensive development and its implications for the protection of arable land in China. China Land Sci. 2020, 34, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lv, T.G.; Xie, H.L.; Li, H.Y.; Lu, H.; Wu, C.F. Research on the Deviation Risk, Formation Path, and Prevention System of the Implementation of Fallow Farming Policy. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhong, Y.; Zhang, X.N. Problems and Countermeasures in the Policy of Fallow Farming. Agric. Econ. Issues 2018, 9, 76–84. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, W.B.; Li, S.S.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.M.; Ding, Y. The alternative elasticity of rice planting machinery and rural labor force and its impact on food output. Econ. Geogr. 2022, 42, 172–178. [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 14 01194 g001
Figure 1. Clustering of keywords of CLP.
Figure 1. Clustering of keywords of CLP.
Agriculture 14 01194 g001
Agriculture 14 01194 g002
Figure 2. Cultivated land area change in China from 1949 to 1999.
Figure 2. Cultivated land area change in China from 1949 to 1999.
Agriculture 14 01194 g002
Agriculture 14 01194 g003
Figure 3. The trend of CLPP on grain transportation and marketing zoning.
Figure 3. The trend of CLPP on grain transportation and marketing zoning.
Agriculture 14 01194 g003
Agriculture 14 01194 g004
Figure 4. The Smith Policy Implementation Model of CLPP.
Figure 4. The Smith Policy Implementation Model of CLPP.
Agriculture 14 01194 g004
Table 1. Partial enumeration of comprehensive legal policies for CLP during 1994–2001s.
Table 1. Partial enumeration of comprehensive legal policies for CLP during 1994–2001s.
YearPolicy NameThe Significance of Policy Release
1994“Regulations on the Protection of basic-farmland”The emphasis on protecting basic-farmland is the starting point of the policy for protecting cultivated land.
1997“Notice on Further Strengthening Land Management and Effectively Protecting cultivated land”The concept of “maintaining the dynamic balance of total cultivated land and equilibrium between cultivated land occupation and compensation” was first proposed.
1998“The Land Administration Law”The “Farmland Protection” chapter has 12 articles specifically dedicated to it.
1999“The National Land Use Plan for 1999”Ensure a significant increase in the area of agricultural land, and make reasonable adjustments to the structure and layout of agricultural land.
2000“Notice on Increasing the Efforts of Supplementary cultivated land to Ensure Achieving Balance between cultivated land Occupation and Compensation”In the supplementary farmland plan for construction projects, it is necessary to indicate the name and scope of the supplementary farmland project, as well as the location of the land parcel for supplementary farmland.
2001“Notice on Further Strengthening and Improving the Work of Balancing cultivated land Occupation and Compensation”Control the occupation and replenishment of cultivated land by the principle of “replacing one with one” and implement a dual-track approach.
Table 2. Partial enumeration of comprehensive legal policies for CLP during 2004–2010s.
Table 2. Partial enumeration of comprehensive legal policies for CLP during 2004–2010s.
YearPolicy NameThe Significance of Policy Release
2004“Decision on Deepening Reform and Strict Land Management”Implement the strictest CLP system in practice.
2005“Notice on the Implementation of Quantity and Quality Conversion Based on Grade for Supplementary cultivated land”Carry out the basic work of converting supplementary cultivated land quantity and quality based on grading, to ensure the improvement of farmland quality.
2006“Opinions on Promoting the Construction of Socialist New Rural Areas”Accelerate agricultural infrastructure construction, enhance the level of facility and equipment in modern agriculture, and effectively improve the quality of farmland.
2008“Interim Regulations on Farmland Occupation Tax”Reasonably utilize land resources, strengthen land management, and protect farmland.
2008“Opinions of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council on Strengthening Agricultural Infrastructure Construction, Further Promoting Agricultural Development and Increasing Farmers’ Income”Highlight the construction of agricultural infrastructure, and strengthen CLP and soil improvement.
2009“Opinions of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council on Promoting Stable Agricultural Development and Continued Increase of Farmers’ Income in 2009”Accelerate the construction of High-standard-farmland, implement the strictest CLP system and the strictest land conservation system
2010“Opinions of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council on Strengthening the Coordination of Urban and Rural Development, Further Consolidating the Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development”Make great efforts to construct High-standard-farmland, accelerate the construction of high-yield and stable basic-farmland; expedite the demarcation of basic-farmland and implement permanent protection
Table 3. Partial enumeration of comprehensive legal policies for CLP during 2012–2021s.
Table 3. Partial enumeration of comprehensive legal policies for CLP during 2012–2021s.
YearPolicy NameKeywordSelected Key Content
2012Report of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of ChinaEcological civilization constructionCrop rotation and fallow; Ecological compensation mechanism.
2012“Notice on Enhancing the Level of Farmland Protection and Strengthening Comprehensive Construction and Management of Farmland Quality”Farmland QualitySpeed up the demarcation of permanent-basic-farmland; Vigorously promote rural land improvement. We will strictly implement the balance between the appropriation and compensation of cultivated land.
2014“Notice on Further Improving the Demarcation of permanent-basic-farmland”permanent-basic-farmlandThe permanent-basic-farmland, protection responsibility, and basic-farmland database should be implemented to the specific plots, implemented, and established, respectively.
2016“Plan for the Conservation and Restoration of cultivated land, Grassland, Rivers, and Lakes (2016–2030)”High-standard-farmlandBy 2020, China will ensure the completion of 800 million mu of High-standard-farmland and strive to build 1 billion mu of High-standard-farmland.
2017“National Land Planning Outline (2016–2030)”Sustainable development of a beautiful homelandWe will comprehensively promote the development, protection, and improvement of national land.
2018“Notice on the Comprehensive Implementation of Special Protection for permanent-basic-farmland”permanent-basic-farmlandWe will strengthen use control and strictly control the occupation of permanent-basic-farmland by non-agricultural construction.
2020 “Notice on Resolutely Stopping the Non-Agricultural Use of Farmland”Prevent non-agriculturalization of farmlandIt is strictly prohibited to occupy permanent-basic-farmland to expand the nature protection area. It is strictly prohibited to illegally occupy farmland for non-agricultural construction. We will comprehensively carry out inspections for the protection of cultivated land.
2020“Opinions on Preventing the Non-grain Use of Farmland During the Stabilization Period of Production”Preventing “non-grain” production on cultivated landIt is strictly prohibited to illegally occupy permanent-basic-farmland to plant trees and dig ponds. We will strengthen the monitoring of cultivated land for growing grain.
2021“Implementation Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Land Administration Law”Ensure the productivity of cultivated landStrictly control the conversion of cultivated land into non-cultivated land and implement a compensation system for occupied land. Guide crop rotation fallow, improve soil and improve fertility.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, B.; Yao, N. Evolution Characteristics of Cultivated Land Protection Policy in China Based on Smith Policy Implementation. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071194

AMA Style

Chen B, Yao N. Evolution Characteristics of Cultivated Land Protection Policy in China Based on Smith Policy Implementation. Agriculture. 2024; 14(7):1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Bo, and Na Yao. 2024. "Evolution Characteristics of Cultivated Land Protection Policy in China Based on Smith Policy Implementation" Agriculture 14, no. 7: 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071194

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop