preface
Every autumn and winter, patches of fire and smoke appear in the northern countryside, and farmers burn the remaining straw after harvesting their crops. Although this practice is convenient and fast, it brings serious pollution to air quality and affects people's health and life.
In order to combat this persistent disease, the national and local governments have implemented a straw burning ban policy since more than a decade ago, requiring farmers not to burn straw arbitrarily, but to return it to land or make comprehensive use. To this end, the government has introduced various subsidies, rewards and punishments, supervision, assessment and other measures, mobilized a large number of human and material resources, and launched a "blue sky defense war".
But did grassroots cadres and farmers really benefit from this campaign? How much did it cost them to accomplish this task? What is their attitude towards this policy?
First, the impact of the straw burning ban on agricultural production and the environment
The original intention of the straw burning ban policy was to reduce air pollution and protect the ecological environment. It stands to reason that this should be a good thing that benefits the country and the people, and benefits the peasants and the people. But in fact, in the process of implementation, the desired effect was not achieved. On the contrary, it has also brought a number of negative effects to agricultural production.
First, the ban on straw burning increases the cost of planting for farmers. According to the survey, in order to complete the requirements of returning land or comprehensive utilization, farmers need to increase the process of stubble elimination, baling, deep turning and so on, and increase the average mechanical operation cost of about 50~100 yuan per mu of land. Moreover, in some areas, due to tight farming time, poor soil conditions, insufficient agricultural machinery services, etc., the effect of returning to land or comprehensive utilization is not ideal, and farmers can only pile straw on the ground and wait for the government to deal with it. This not only takes up valuable arable land resources, but also increases the risk of fire.
Secondly, the ban on straw burning affects the growth quality of crops. Although straw returning to the field can theoretically increase soil fertility, it is a long process that requires sufficient degradation and fertilization of straw in the soil. In practice, due to incomplete crushing of straw, incomplete deep turning, low microbial activity and other reasons, the degradation rate of straw in the soil is very slow, and even fermentation and acidity, resulting in soil acidification, bacterial breeding, weed reproduction and other problems.
These problems will affect the emergence rate, growth progress, disease resistance and other aspects of crops, resulting in reduced or deteriorated crop yields. Some farmers have reported that after a few years of banning burning, there are already more straw in the soil than in the soil, and the fields are getting worse and worse.
Finally, banning straw burning does not fundamentally solve the problem of air pollution. On the one hand, due to the uneven and lax implementation of policies, there is still the phenomenon of clandestine burning in some areas.
In order to avoid monitoring and punishment, some farmers choose to burn at night or in rainy and snowy weather; In order to reduce the number of fire points, some farmers choose centralized burning or deep burial incineration; In order to avoid responsibility, some farmers choose to burn in other villages or other people's fields. These practices contribute to the potential for air pollution.
On the other hand, due to irrational and unscientific policy implementation, some regions have transformed incineration pollution into other forms of pollution. In order to achieve the goal of zero fire point, some areas have adopted a compulsory ban on burning and comprehensive utilization, resulting in a large amount of waste of manpower, material resources and financial investment; In order to achieve the goal of returning straw to the field, some areas have adopted a large number of chemical agents and agricultural machinery operations, which has led to the aggravation of soil pollution and agricultural non-point source pollution.
Second, the difficulties and pressures encountered by grassroots cadres and farmers in the process of implementing the straw burning ban
In order to achieve the goal of banning straw burning, it is ultimately necessary to rely on the cooperation and implementation of grassroots cadres and farmers. However, in the process, they have endured great difficulties and pressures. These difficulties and pressures mainly come from the following three aspects:
One is task pressure. Banning straw burning has become a "hard" task in grassroots work
Banning straw burning has become a "hard" task for grassroots work, which means that grassroots cadres must ensure that no straw burning occurs in their area within a specified period of time, otherwise they will face severe punishment and accountability. This is a huge psychological and material burden for grassroots cadres, and is also a test of their ability and level of work.
In order to accomplish this task, grassroots cadres had to take various measures, such as:
Strengthen publicity and education, raise farmers' awareness of environmental protection and law, make them aware of the harm and consequences of burning straw, and consciously abide by the ban on burning.
Increase supervision and inspection, and use technical means such as satellite remote sensing, drone aerial photography, and video surveillance to promptly discover and dispose of fire points. At the same time, villagers, volunteers, students, etc. were mobilized to participate in the inspection, forming a situation of national supervision.
Strengthen law enforcement, and impose fines, detention, administrative detention, and other punishments on farmers who violate the ban on burning in accordance with law. At the same time, the relevant responsible persons will be held accountable, demoted, and removed.
Increase subsidy support, and provide subsidies or incentives for farmers to return straw to the field or comprehensive utilization. At the same time, it provides agricultural machinery services, technical guidance, market docking and other help.
Although grassroots cadres have done so much work, it is still difficult to completely put an end to the phenomenon of straw burning. On the one hand, farmers are not satisfied with the effect and benefits of straw return or comprehensive utilization, believing that it increases planting costs and risks. On the other hand, grassroots cadres have limited human and material resources, making it difficult to cover all the fields and stop some peasants' illegal burning behavior.
Therefore, in the process of implementing the straw burning ban policy, there are contradictions and conflicts between grassroots cadres and farmers. Grassroots cadres enforce the ban on burning in order to fulfill their tasks, and farmers resist or evade the ban on burning in order to reduce their burdens.
Such a situation is not conducive to the establishment of harmonious social relations or to the achievement of sustainable agricultural development.
Above, we have analyzed the background, purpose and implementation process of the straw burning ban, as well as the difficulties and contradictions it brings to grassroots cadres and farmers. In this part, we will explore the views and feelings of grassroots cadres and farmers on the straw burning ban policy from both cognitive and attitude aspects.
First of all, from the cognitive point of view, grassroots cadres and farmers have different understandings and evaluations of the straw burning ban. Grassroots cadres can usually understand the significance and necessity of the straw burning ban, and realize that straw burning will cause air pollution, traffic accidents, fires and other hazards, affecting the ecological environment and social safety. They also know that returning straw to the field or its combined use can improve soil fertility, increase farmers' incomes and promote a circular economy. Therefore, when implementing policies, they will do their best to do a good job in publicity and education, supervision and inspection, law enforcement penalties, subsidy support, etc., in order to achieve the expected effects of the policy.
Farmers have different degrees of doubts and opposition to the straw burning ban. On the one hand, they believe that burning straw is a traditional agricultural production method, which is conducive to eliminating pests and diseases, reducing grass damage, and saving labor. They feel that government intervention in their living habits and production methods does not respect their autonomy and choice. On the other hand, they believe that the effect and benefit of straw return or comprehensive utilization are not as good as incineration, and increase the cost and risk of planting. They feel that the government is depriving them of economic benefits and is not concerned about their survival and development needs.
Second, from the perspective of attitude, grassroots cadres and farmers have different emotional and behavioral reactions to the straw burning ban. Grassroots cadres usually display an attitude of hard work and distress. On the one hand, they enforce the ban on burning in order to complete their tasks, bearing great psychological pressure and material burden. They face strict evaluation, accountability and punishment from their superiors, as well as supervision and complaints from their subordinates. On the other hand, they compromise and accommodate the ban on burning in order to maintain the relationship, and bear great moral dilemmas and liability risks. They have to face the peasants' incomprehension, non-cooperation and resistance, as well as the mutual blame and dumping of their colleagues.
The peasants showed an attitude of defiance and avoidance. On the one hand, they steal or pile up straw to lighten the burden. They face supervision, law enforcement, and punishment from grassroots cadres, as well as reports, exposés, and conflicts from villagers. On the other hand, they do not farm or circulate land in order to avoid trouble. They face the difficulties, costs and risks of straw disposal, as well as declines, fluctuations and uncertainties in planting incomes.
To sum up, there are great differences and conflicts between grassroots cadres and farmers' cognition and attitude towards the straw burning ban policy. These differences and conflicts not only affect the effective implementation of policies, but also affect the harmony and stability of grassroots governance. Therefore, we suggest that in the process of formulating and implementing the straw burning ban, we should fully consider the actual situation and reasonable demands of grassroots cadres and farmers, and adopt more flexible, humane and scientific measures, so as to achieve the goal of protecting the environment and benefiting people's livelihood.