According to an investigative report credited to CCTV Finance and published by The Paper on October 11, most of the greenhouses in the Qian'an–Shouguang off-season vegetable demonstration zone in Ganzi Village, Zanzi Township, Qian'an County, Songyuan, Jilin, were idle, with damaged greenhouse film and weeds growing everywhere. On October 12, the Songyuan Municipal Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs announced that it had set up a joint investigation team and would conduct inspections and corrective measures across the city.

Why has a vegetable demonstration zone become an idle site in need of investigation? The issue is not just how much money was spent, but also this: once construction is complete and a project moves into operation, who is responsible for maintaining the facilities, organizing production, and regularly checking whether the project is serving its purpose?

【Two figures, two different questions】

The report cited a 2017 plan on the county government website, which put the project’s total investment at 1.55 billion yuan. Separately, according to an incomplete tally by CCTV reporters, the project received more than 37 million yuan in subsidies from various levels of government between 2019 and 2021.

These two figures cannot be combined and described as “money already spent.” The 1.55 billion yuan is a planned investment figure, not an audited finding of actual expenditure. The more than 37 million yuan is an incomplete tally of subsidies for specific years, not a full accounting of all funds to date.

To determine whether the funds were used appropriately, each payment must be linked to its specific purpose and conditions. For money intended to support facility construction, the first step is to verify that the work was actually carried out and that it met the requirements. If subsidies were tied to planting, operations, or other performance measures, the relevant conditions must also be checked.

The materials currently available do not list the categories of each subsidy, the conditions for receiving it, or how they correspond to the period during which the greenhouses were idle. Therefore, their condition today alone cannot establish that subsidies received in the past were improperly obtained. The report also said that the derelict greenhouses are still eligible for subsidies. But further investigation is needed to determine how each payment corresponds to the period of inactivity and whether the conditions were met.

What really needs to be investigated is a timeline: when the money was disbursed, what it was intended to support, when the greenhouses began operating, and when they became idle. Only by aligning this information can investigators determine whether the problem lay in construction, financial review, or subsequent operations and oversight.

【Greenhouse construction is only the beginning】

Construction acceptance and ongoing operations test different capabilities. The former usually focuses on whether the contracted work has been delivered; the latter must deal with repairs, planting schedules, sales, and costs. This is about the coordination that project management should provide. The available materials are not sufficient to determine how this project was specifically inspected or what was covered by the inspection.

Even after a project is built, someone still needs to answer some practical questions: Who repairs damaged facilities? Where does the repair money come from? Who organizes planting? Who sells the produce? How should operations be adjusted when difficulties arise? If these arrangements are unclear, completed facilities may be difficult to keep in use.

Two responses in the report point to areas of responsibility that need to be clarified. A village committee staff member said the greenhouses had been contracted to a company and that the village could not manage them. The industrial park manager, meanwhile, rejected a reporter’s proposal to take over the contract, saying the greenhouse film and insulation covers could no longer be used.

“Contracted to a company” is a statement made during the interview; it does not in itself prove that the village has no management responsibilities. What the company is responsible for, what duties remain with the asset owner, and how maintenance and oversight are divided must be determined from the contract and how it was actually carried out. Similarly, the fact that the facilities cannot be used does not establish what caused the damage or who is responsible for repairs and their costs.

A contracting arrangement can allocate operational tasks, but it does not automatically resolve every issue. If the contract does not specify maintenance standards, what to do when facilities become idle, or conditions for termination—or if such terms exist but compliance is not checked—gaps in responsibility may emerge between the parties. This is a possibility that needs to be examined, not a confirmed cause in this case.

【After the investigation, the question remains: what should be done with the greenhouses?】

For the public, this matter concerns how effectively public funds are used and whether rural assets can continue to serve a purpose. The facilities still being there does not mean the project is still producing anything; a record of subsidies being paid does not mean that continued operations are assured.

At a minimum, the follow-up investigation needs to clarify information in three areas: what was actually built and how the funds were used; whether contracting and maintenance responsibilities were fulfilled; and what will be done with the idle facilities. If expected returns or the interests of local residents are involved, investigators should also check what was agreed at the outset and whether those commitments were later honored.

The solution cannot stop at replacing the greenhouse film. Making the facilities usable again addresses only part of the conditions needed for production. Whether there is a suitable operator, whether they can cover ongoing costs, and whether sales arrangements are in place will all affect whether operations can continue after repairs. Nor should further investment be added while operating conditions remain unclear simply to prove that the project is useful.

As of this review on October 12, the investigation had not announced its findings, and the specific questions about funding and the allocation of responsibility remained unresolved. What merits attention next is whether the investigation can connect the threads of funding, assets, and operations: explaining what went wrong, clarifying who will make repairs and how the facilities will be put back into use, and specifying who will monitor them on an ongoing basis afterward.

For research and educational purposes only; this does not constitute investment advice.