China’s Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program for Household Delivery of Ecosystem Services: How Important is a Local Implementation Regime to Survival Rate Outcomes?

Abstract

China's Conversion of Cropland to Forests Program (CCFP) is the world's largest afforestation-based Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program, having retired and afforested over 24 million ha involving 32 million rural households. Prior research has primarily focused on the CCFP's rural welfare impacts, with few studies on program-induced environmental improvements, particularly at the household level. In this study, data from a 2010 survey covering 2808 rural households from across China was analyzed using an interval regression model to explain household-reported survival rates of trees planted on program-enrolled cropland. In addition to household-level factors, we explore the influence of local conditions and institutional configurations by exploiting the wide diversity of contexts covered by the data set. We find that households with more available labor and more forestry experience manage trees better, but that higher opportunity costs for both land and labor have the opposite effect. We also find that the local implementation regime-e.g., the degree of prior consultation with participants and regular monitoring -has a strong positive effect on reported survivorship. We suggest that the level of subsidy support to participating households will be key to survivorship of trees in planted CCFP forests for some time to come.

Limits of State-Led Programs of Payment for Ecosystem Services: Field Evidence from the Sloping Land Conversion Program in Southwest China

“…The environmental outcomes of national afforestation programs vary based on local factors and a diversity of contexts, including the local implementation regime, the availability of labor, forestors' experience, etc. (Bennett et al 2014). Costa Rica's national PES, Pago por Servicios Ambientales (PAS), has been criticized for its lack of targeting, distribution of undifferentiated payments that do not consider opportunity costs, and lack of additionality, i.e., failing to target high-value water service areas and paying for services that would anyway be provided (Pagiola 2008;Daniels et al 2010).…”

“…Others examine its environmental outcomes with a focus on forest recovery ) and tree survival (Bennett et al 2014), highlighting the influence of local variations and contexts. Some studies concentrate on the program's socioeconomic impacts, particularly the participating farmers' economic outlook and options after the program ends (Chen et al 2009;Ma et al 2009) and the implications for rural incomes and inequality (Liu et al 2010;Li et al 2011).…”

Current Challenges and Perspectives for Governing Forest Restoration

“…However the ability of local stakeholders in adapting to changes in the way these programs have evolved over time (after the intervention of several international actors) has generated a sense of collective ownership towards the goal of securing water provision. The paper by Bennett et al [30] refer to what is known as the world's largest afforestation-based payments for ecosystem services program (27 million ha), China's Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program (CCFP). The authors examined the factors associated with the survival rate of planted seedlings, which is used by CCFP both as a measure of the impact of program incentives and to deliver subsidies to participating rural households.…”

Socioeconomic and environmental effects of China’s Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program after 15 years: a systematic review protocol

“…At the beginning of the program, compensations included a one-time payment for the purchase of saplings or seeds, an annual living allowance paid per unit area of cropland enrolled, and an annual grain/cash subsidy (with different amounts for households in the Yangtze River watershed and the Yellow River watershed regions b ) [9,13]. The payment period of this three-tiered compensation system also depends on the type of land-use to be established, with two years of payments provided for converting cropland into grasslands c , five years for converting cropland into forests of 'economic trees' (trees with direct economic returns) and eight years for converting cropland into forests of 'ecological trees' (trees with higher use restrictions).…”

“…The payment period of this three-tiered compensation system also depends on the type of land-use to be established, with two years of payments provided for converting cropland into grasslands c , five years for converting cropland into forests of 'economic trees' (trees with direct economic returns) and eight years for converting cropland into forests of 'ecological trees' (trees with higher use restrictions). Program participants are paid conditionally upon maintaining a treesurvival rate higher than a minimum set at between 70% and 85%, depending on local criteria, which is verified by annual site inspections [13].…”