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

Abstract

The Chinese government is currently implementing its Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP), the world's largest Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program. Few studies have comprehensively assessed both its environmental and its social outcomes; in particular, issues of effectiveness, efficiency and social fairness are rarely addressed in the literature. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, this research presents extensive field evidence of the effects of the SLCP. It also reveals the gap between the policy's objectives and the actual results of implementation. Less marginal land included, poor tree species selection and undifferentiated household selection for participation have limited the positive outcomes of the SLCP. We argue that the state-led PES program's bureaucratic modality and top-down implementation neglects local participation and pro-poor considerations. A more decentralized approach with more local participation is an important requirement in policy development and implementation for PES programs.

Impacts of large‐scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we know and do not know

“…The effects of PFPs have been enhanced through a combination with other rural and urban policies (Bullock & King , Wang et al . , He & Lang , He & Sikor ).…”

“…Although Chinese forest policy has been shifting from command‐and‐control to decentralized‐marketization‐based forest governance (Chhatre & Agrawal , Arts & Visseren‐Hamakers , Arts et al . ) to improve local volunteerism and autonomy in policy implementation (He ), the PFPs have been criticized for being top‐down, using inflexible solutions and simplifying social diversity (He & Lang ). Additionally, differences in local‐central government interactions caused households involved in PFPs in the different regions to be subjected to different policies, payment removals and reductions (Komarek et al .…”

“…). Recommendations have been made to ensure meaningful local decision‐making; increase the flexibility of government policies at the regional level, differentiating payments standards and schemes across regions; and, at the national level, allow sufficient time for local interaction and implementation of a pro‐poor approach (He & Lang ).…”

The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration

“…On the one side, IPLC have been key participants in several country‐scale forest restoration efforts in Asia, particularly China and Vietnam (e.g. Clement & Amezaga ; He & Lang ). However, these campaigns have not always successfully involved farmers or impacted afforestation outcomes given the lack of clarity of the policies designed at the central level (e.g.…”

“…Clement & Amezaga ) or the neglect of local interests (e.g. He & Lang ). On the other side, IPLC have also taken leadership roles in restoring forests (Paquette et al ; Douterlungne et al ), lakes and rivers (Coombes ; Fox et al ), grasslands and drylands (Pellant et al ; Stenseke ), mangroves and reefs (Selvam et al ; Trialfhianty & Suadi ), and wetlands (Selvam et al ; Henwood et al ).…”