Organic Food and Farming in China

Top-down and Bottom-up Ecological Initiatives

Steffanie Scott, Zhenzhong Si, Theresa Schumilas, Aijuan Chen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9780367586287
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351331357
• Topic: Technologie et ingénierie
• Subtopic: Écologie

Despite reports of food safety and quality scandals, China has a rapidly expanding organic agriculture and food sector, and there is a revolution in ecological food and ethical eating in China's cities. This book shows how a set of social, economic, cultural, and environmental conditions have converged to shape the development of a "formal" organic sector, created by "top-down" state-developed standards and regulations, and an "informal" organic sector, created by 'bottom-up' grassroots struggles for safe, healthy, and sustainable food. This is generating a new civil movement focused on ecological agriculture and quality food.

Organic movements and markets have typically emerged in industrialized food systems that are characterized by private land ownership, declining small farm sectors, consolidated farm to retail chains, predominance of supermarket retail, standards and laws to safeguard food safety, and an active civil society sector. The authors contrast this with the Chinese context, with its unique version of "capitalism with social characteristics," collective farmland ownership, and predominance of smallholder agriculture and emerging diverse marketing channels. China's experience also reflects a commitment to domestic food security, evolving food safety legislation, and a civil society with limited autonomy from a semi-authoritarian state that keeps shifting the terrain of what is permitted. The book will be of great interest to advanced students and researchers of agricultural and food systems and policy, as well as rural sociology and Chinese studies.

1 Introduction

Steffanie Scott, Zhenzhong Si, Theresa Schumilas, and Aijuan Chen

The story of this research project

Let us begin this story with our visit in May 2012 to the BioFach China trade fair in Shanghai, the biggest annual organic food trade fair in China. It was held only two months after the enactment of the new and more stringent national organic certification standards. The first floor of the large two-floor venue was filled with booths of organic food companies, local government representatives, farmers’ cooperatives, and visitors who were seeking business opportunities. Curiously, on the second floor, there were two separate venues for conferences and seminars. In the large auditorium, the China Organic Congress was being held. CEOs of many well-known organic food companies, along with government officials, gave presentations about the changing organic sector. Meanwhile, just a few steps away from this auditorium, in a much smaller space, a “community-supported agriculture” (CSA) forum was going on. CSA farmers, buying club organizers, and representatives of farmers’ markets gave presentations about their initiatives and visions. Unlike the auditorium group, who were discussing the new organic certification standards and marketing, people here were debating about enhancing producer–consumer connections, community building among consumers, and alternative ecological agricultural approaches. We were struck by these two parallel but disconnected “worlds,” with very different levels of economic and political power. It was clear to us that, while both of these groups were engaging intensively in ecological agriculture, their understandings, approaches, and goals of ecological agriculture differed significantly. As we continued our exploratory journey in the organic sector, the juxtaposition of these two “worlds” came up again and again. It became a puzzle for us to explain. We asked ourselves how this came about, what were the major features that distinguished these interest groups, and what different socio-economic and regulatory conditions they faced. In this book, we examine the characteristics, conditions, and cases of the two worlds—top-down and bottom-up initiatives in the organic sector.

Backing up further, the original idea for this study was born during a scoping research trip to China by Steffanie Scott in 2009. During this time, she visited several organic farms near Shanghai and Nanjing, met with representatives of the Organic Food Development Centre, and learned about the fast-growing domestic market for organic foods in China. Steffanie applied to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and was granted funding for the study in 2010. At the time, Steffanie already had one PhD student, Aijuan Chen, who was able to start fieldwork in 2010 to learn more about the role of small farmers in China’s ecological agriculture sector. She and Steffanie conducted fieldwork together in spring 2011. A second PhD student, Zhenzhong Si, began his doctoral studies in 2010 and conducted fieldwork (in part with Steffanie) in 2012, and again in 2013. Theresa Schumilas joined the team of doctoral students in early 2011 and carried out fieldwork in 2012 and 2013. Then, in 2014, Steffanie was visiting scholar at the Chinese University of Hong Kong for one semester, and from there gleaned a perspective on organic and ecological farming and organic food consumers in that part of “China.”

Our unique team of two Chinese and two Canadians, with diverse backgrounds in rural development issues, the organic sector, and land management, made for deep learning from each other and deep reflection on our fieldwork findings. Along our journeys, we had all sorts of conversations about China, Canada, organic food and farming, agroecology, peasants, farmers, entrepreneurs, back-to-the-land movements, activism, and how these concepts morphed and translated across space and time. In the concluding chapter we provide some more reflections and impressions of fieldwork based on our diverse perspectives.

Our research focus shifted somewhat over time as our understanding deepened. The research began with an exploration of the ecological agriculture sector in China. Over time, we realized that a vibrant informal organic and ecological agriculture sector was emerging outside the formal, certified organic food sector. Some of the early interviewees were involved in CSA farming and ecological farmers’ markets. They introduced our research team to more initiators of alternative food networks (AFNs) across the country. We (particularly Zhenzhong Si and Theresa Schumilas) became interested in the characteristics of these AFNs and how they compared with the values of their counterparts in the West.¹ This led us to examine more nuanced tensions within these AFNs and how these tensions shaped their principles and ways of operating. We gradually realized that, in many cases, these various initiatives had strong rural development goals in terms of fostering the well-being of small peasants in rural areas. A new horizon was unveiled when Zhenzhong discovered their connections with the New Rural Reconstruction Movement (NRRM). As his research focus shifted toward this grassroots rural development initiative, he found that it was far more than a campaign of ecological agriculture, although ecological agriculture was a key component of their initiatives. In late 2012, Zhenzhong and Theresa attended the 4th National CSA Symposium, organized by the NRRM team in Beijing, and the International Conference on Rural Reconstruction and Food Sovereignty, held in Chongqing. These two events showcased this multifaceted and vibrant “bottom-up” social movement.

In 2016, Steffanie (with Zhenzhong Si and other collaborators) received another grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, this time focusing more in depth on the dynamics, knowledge networks, and new entrants to the ecological agriculture sector in one region—around Nanjing. This research is still ongoing but we have drawn on a few insights from it, including fieldwork in 2016, to update the findings reported in this book.

Research objectives

When we embarked on this research in earnest in 2010, there was very little published work on China’s organic or ecological agriculture sector. Through our exploratory study, we sought to learn about various pieces of this puzzle:

• the evolution (or development path) of China’s ecological agriculture sector over time, the types of ownership structures of organic farms, and relationships between government agencies, agribusiness enterprises, private farms of various sizes, and farmers’ cooperatives in the sector;

• the type and extent of involvement of small-scale farmers in this sector, in terms of access to land and capital, labour relations, and knowledge networks;

• the engagement and challenges of farmers’ cooperatives in this sector;

• the factors shaping the development of AFNs in China, amid unprecedented cultural change, and in a context of a state-driven yet market-oriented economy with limited civil society involvement;

• the adoption within China of alternative values and practices from AFNs internationally; major types AFNs in China, and dimensions of alternativeness, within the socio-political and economic context in China; and

• the co-evolution of, and synergies between, AFNs and rural development initiatives—specifically, the New Rural Reconstruction Movement.

A note on terminology

We would like to share a few reflections on connotations and translations of relevant terminology in Chinese. “Ecological agriculture” (shengtai nongye), “sustainable agriculture” (kechixu nongye), and “circular agriculture” (xunhuan nongye) are the most popular terms used in China in relation to the “greening” of agriculture. Organic agriculture (youji nongye) is also an established concept, though it often has the connotation of third-party certification rather than the wider subset of practices that the term “ecological agriculture” can entail (Schumilas 2014). Given that our research started by examining the organic agriculture sector and other ecological agricultural practices, we have chosen to use the term ecological agriculture as our key focus. Ecological agriculture encompasses organic agriculture (certified and otherwise), as well as other efforts toward the “greening” of agriculture, such as certified “green food” in China, and an array of other practices among larger and smaller-scale farms, such as natural and integrated farming, permaculture, circular agriculture (nutrient cycling within a farm), and more. Alternatively, agroecology (nongye shengtai) is a term that has gained popularity in some circles internationally among the food sovereignty movement (Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2013) and researchers alike (Gliessman 1990; Altieri 1995). However, this term does not appear to be widely recognized (outside the academic field) within China. Having said that, a group of agroecological scientists (Luo and Gliessman 2016) published an edited volume in English, Agroecology in China, in 2016. We expect that this term will gain popularity in the years to come.

Agroecology is usually translated into Chinese as “ecological agriculture” or “eco-agriculture” (Luo 2016; Li 2001, 2003). The first conference on agroecology put on by the China Academy of Sciences was held in 1981 in Nanjing (Luo 2016: 2). In contrast with understandings of agroecology in Latin America and some other places around the world, notions of ecological agriculture and research on ecological agriculture in China tend to be much narrower and shallower (or diluted) in at least two respects. First, they focus mainly on ecological and not human or socio-ecological dimensions. This is exemplified, for example, in the 1987 book (in Chinese) Agroecology Engineering in China (Ma 1987). Second, even within the ecological dimension, many researchers, government officials, and farmers consider a small use of agrochemicals acceptable within their understanding of ecological agriculture. Moreover, the scaling out of organic agriculture is not seen as feasible for China, in the view of most key stakeholders—even those involved in this sector. In the realm of ecological agriculture research, analyses tend to ignore human (i.e. farmer) dimensions or roles, in contrast to a farming systems research approach (Collinson 2000). In addition, they focus on quantitative not qualitative aspects, and tend to overlook small-scale producers and AFNs. Instead, their research always takes an engineering and scientific perspective. Moreover, scientific researchers see themselves as experts, rather than being interested in farmers’ local knowledge and farmer participatory research.

In the international agroecology movement, and among many researchers, agroecology is viewed as an approach to promote solidarity among small farmers and to embrace a socio-ecological systems perspective. However, in China, the discussion is more about moderately scaling up family farm operations for greater productivity and economic gains. This focus accords with Chinese government technocratic viewpoints on ecological agriculture that emphasize productivity and technology. There is considerable optimism around “agricultural industrialization” and vertical integration of ecological agriculture among the research community and the government. The current government approaches are also project-based (in silos and specific sites) rather than a systematic, integrated approach. Eco-agritourism is emphasized as the major approach for ecological agriculture development. Despite this clear bias toward government-supported, modernization-oriented development of the ecological agriculture sector, our analysis draws attention to both top-down (or mainstream) ecological agriculture and bottom-up initiatives.

The meanings of “industrial agriculture” are also somewhat different in China from understandings that are common elsewhere. There are two interpretations of industrialization—as an industry versus as an economic sector. The first dimension, known as gongyehua in Chinese, refers to the adoption of chemicals, machinery, high-yielding varieties of seeds, and other standardized industrial inputs in farming, and scaling up smallholder agriculture. The other dimension of this, known as chanyehua in Chinese, refers to the commercialization and integration of the agriculture sector into the market economy, which aims to increase farmers’ income and diversify services on farm, such as by processing food and agritourism. Because of these two different interpretations of the term industrialization in Chinese, English literature that argues against agricultural industrialization may have been misinterpreted as promoting a shift back to subsistence agriculture. Researchers need to be cautious and have a clear definition of industrialization when discussing the implications of industrial agriculture.

There has been a hot debate on the “appropriate” scale of agriculture (shidu guimo jingying) in China, a term that often appeared in governmental documents in recent years. Prof Luo Shiming, one of the key advocates and analysts of ecological agriculture developments in China, recommends that ecological agriculture farms be mid-rather than small-scale in order to be economically viable. Luo also argues that we need to think about different types of machinery needed by small ecological agriculture farms. In the meantime, he argues that there needs to be a better regulatory system, compensation for ecosystem services (e.g. saving water, composting on-site) and enforcement (penalties) for farmers overusing agrochemicals or burning rice stalks.

In using the terms top-down and bottom-up in the book’s subtitle, we recognize the problems of suggesting a dichotomy in categorizing ecological agricultural initiatives. We are also sensitive to potentially misleading readers into thinking that all top-down initiatives that we discuss are state-led. In practice, most of the ecological agriculture initiatives that we examined are shaped by both state and civil society actors. We chose the term “top-down” because the state plays a stronger role in the creation and development of these initiatives. Moreover, these initiatives tend to be consistent with the state’s vision of modern ecological agriculture, in terms of larger-scale, higher-capital investment, specialized production, and deeper integration into mainstream food supply chains. In the end, we opted to use these distinctions as a heuristic to highlight the differing approaches, visions, and values behind the creation of these initiatives.

Research methods

Data collection

For our research, we used multiple qualitative methods to collect and analyze information. Our key method was interviews. Other methods included field visits to farms and alternative food venues, observation of “microblog” and blog posts, and attending CSA symposiums. We also gleaned information from secondary sources including newsletters and informal publications, websites, media coverage, and organic food expos.

Semi-structured interviews were an effective research method for this exploratory type of study as they enabled us to capture opinions of different groups of people and they allowed for open-ended responses and follow-up questions. Moreover, the organic farm sector in China, and particularly AFNs, are nascent initiatives that have not been well documented in existing academic literature. By interviewing people in diverse positions, it is easy to identify not only points of consensus but also disputes and contestations. This is critical for identifying the challenges that confront AFNs and the or...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Transformations in China’s food system
• 3 Top-down initiatives: state support for ecological and organic agriculture in China
• 4 The farmers’ cooperative model in China’s ecological agriculture sector
• 5 Bottom-up initiatives: the emergence of “alternative” food networks
• 6 Economic, ecological, and interpersonal dimensions of alternative food networks
• 7 Farmers’ markets as contested spaces: case study of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market
• 8 Promising community organizing in China’s AFNs
• 9 Rural development initiatives amid the food safety crisis: Strategies, challenges, and opportunities in the “New Rural Reconstruction Movement” in China
• 10 Conclusion
• Epilogue: anecdotes of fieldwork – self-reflections from our diverse positionalities
• Glossary of key terms in Chinese
• Index