The Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers (EFRs) for the Poor: Goal Positioning and Realistic Choices—Evidence from the Re-Employment Behavior of EFRs in Sichuan, China

Abstract

Ecological or environmental compensation policies are usually designed with multiple policy objectives such as protecting the ecological environment and promoting farmers’ livelihoods, but in the enforcement process, there are often inconsistencies between realistic choices and policy objectives. Based on pooled cross-section data from the 2017–2019 public announcement of the selection of ecological forest rangers (EFRs, who mainly refers to manage and protect forests, grasslands, deserts and rivers, and report or prevent the situation or behavior of the forest area disasters, animal and plant resources, and infrastructure damage in time) among the poor in Sichuan Province in China, we used the Probit model to analyze the influencing factors of the re-employment behavior of EFRs among the poor, with the aim of assessing the differences between central government goal positioning and local government enforcement options. We find that (1) EFRs from poor households who have not yet escaped poverty and have a high per capita income level are given priority to be re-employed. This finding shows that the policy of ecological forest rangers for the poor (PEFRP, it mainly refers to an environmental protection policy that only hires the poor) pays close attention to poverty reduction goals, but it does not consider the poorest people because the EFRs with a higher income obtain higher re-employment opportunities. (2) Age, health, and education, which represent the human capital level, have no significant impact on renewal. This finding shows that the local government has not jointly achieved the goal of “poverty reduction and environmental protection” in the enforcement of the PEFRP and has deviated from the initial goal positioning of the central government. Therefore, in order to achieve the multiple policy objectives such as poverty reduction and environmental protection together, future policy enforcement needs to be adjusted in terms of local administrative assessment and the selection and recruitment of EFRs.

Does the Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers (EFRs) for the Impoverished Populations Reduce Forest Disasters?—Empirical Evidence from China

“…This result is completely contrary to the conclusion of previous studies that the EFR policy can effectively reduce the incidence of forest disasters [23][24][25]. Furthermore, it also confirms previous researchers' conjecture that the policy may have no effect on forest disaster management and control [12,26]. Through the comparison of argumentation methods, it is found that the previous conclusion, that the policy is effective for forest disaster prevention, is only based on the statistical data of individual provinces in a single year, without controlling the influence of other factors.…”

“…According to ecological management requirements and protection goals, to effectively realize the effective management and protection of forestlands, it is necessary to require candidate selection methods that favor groups with higher human capital among impoverished populations to meet forest patrolling and protection requirements. However, Yan et al (2020) [12] used data characterizing 33,681 EFRs in Sichuan Province to assess whether the EFRs are more likely to be re-employed and found that EFRs with lower income levels, whose poverty was not alleviated, and EFRs with lower human capital levels were more likely to be re-employed due to their access to renewal opportunities. In addition, some researchers pointed out that, in actual work, widespread problems exist associated with the selection and hiring of individuals from impoverished households that are not well qualified for ecological management and protection positions [32].…”

“…This type of policy originated in Costa Rica in 1997; since then, the specific contents of these policies and their systematic designs have expanded widely, and today, these policies cover water, biological diversity, carbon dioxide, soil, forests and other ecosystems. From the perspective of global practical experience, due to the high degree of overlap between forest resources and impoverished populations [8], many countries implemented PES projects in poverty-stricken areas to achieve the dual goals of "poverty reduction and environmental protection" [9][10][11][12]. According to existing research, previous researchers' assessments of the ecological effects of "payment for environmental services" projects focused on forest resources mainly considered the perspectives of biodiversity and forest resource stocks; their main conclusions indicated that subsidy-based environmental service projects associated with ecological compensation, afforestation or forest tending had a significant positive impact on biodiversity and forest resource accumulation [9,11,13,14].…”

“…Some researchers applied data characterizing impoverished ecological forest rangers in Sichuan Province to analyze ecological forest protection enacted by the impoverished population. They followed the re-employment behavior of the poor population and found that, in the re-employment of EFRs, more emphasis was placed on poverty indicators while the human capital indicators associated with management and protection personnel was neglected [12]. The abovementioned differences indicate that the impacts of EFR policies on forest disasters are uncertain.…”

Challenges and Opportunities in Aligning Conservation with Development in China’s National Parks: A Narrative Literature Review

“…Many studies (13 papers) also highlight the park's role in protecting other vulnerable species within its boundaries, such as the red panda and the golden snub-nosed monkey [85][86][87]. Willingness of locals to pay for conservation 5 [87,88,93,94,116] Policy recommendations Restrict grazing, planting, and construction in/around park 19 [86,91,92,95,98,[100][101][102][103][104][106][107][108][109]112,115,117,119,120] Invest in ecotourism and increase tourism regulation 9 [84,85,[88][89][90]92,95,96,113,116] Improve ecological compensation and migration schemes 8 [84,85,[88][89][90]94,96,97,121] Streamline local input in park management 6…”