REFLEXIONES SOBRE LOS OBJETIVOS

The case studies showed that payment schemes achieved different environmental effectiveness in all three cases. The variation in environmental performance closely relates to the impacts on local livelihood and the distribution of cost and benefits among local farmers. Results from all three cases showed that payment schemes impacted the income of local farmers (Table 7.4). Farmers’

livelihood in Guangxi has been the most heavily stricken by the payment schemes among the three cases. 89% of the respondents in Guangxi (the highest proportion in all cases) asserted negative impacts of the schemes on their income. In contrast, most of the farmers in the Fujian case thought that the payment had no apparent negative impacts on their income. The response of farmers in Liaoning was between those of Fujian and Guangxi, where about half of the respondents indicated negative income impacts of the payment schemes.

Forest resources not only generate income from timber harvesting for rural communities but also support other types of non-forestry production. Apart from the impact on income, the implementation of payment schemes also had negative impacts on raising local livestock and fuel consumption (Table 7.5). Local farmers (especially in Guangxi, where daily energy consumption is largely dependent on firewood from forests around the communities) complained that the

establishment of payment schemes reduced their access to local forest resources and reduced their traditional fuel supply. In Fujian, the negative impacts were smaller than those of the other two cases. This was thanks to a recent transformation of rural energy consumption from firewood to coal and a fast growing diffusion of household-based digesters in rural areas. Furthermore, prohibition of livestock browsing in public benefit forests influenced and terminated traditional animal husbandry practices. This negative impact was more apparent in northern regions such as Liaoning, where raising livestock relies more on browsing in the natural environment, including forests.

Since the start of the payment schemes the income of local farmer households has changed along totally different trajectories and its source structure has shifted into different development models (Table 7.6). In Guangxi, the income of local farmer households experienced a large decline (going down by 36.6%) since the payment schemes began. During the same period, the income of Fujian’s local farmer households showed a minor fall (by 7.0%). However, the income of Liaoning’s farmer households surprisingly increased by 47.5% from 2001 to 2009. The three cases demonstrated quite different income changes during almost the same period. The payment schemes are pivotal factors to induce such changes and apparently they played different roles in the three cases. But other factors, such as the institutional setting and the local context, also to some degree differentiated the impacts of the payment schemes.

Together with the income change, the shares of various income sources shifted in different directions. In Guangxi, timber production has been heavily inflicted and its leading position in Table 7.4. Impacts of payment schemes on household income.

Cases Farmers’ assessment on income impact

negative positive no impact don’t know

Fujian 14% 10% 71% 5%

Guangxi 89% 11% 0% 0%

Liaoning 54% 7% 35% 4%

Table 7.5. Percentage of farmers that experienced impacts of payment schemes on livestock raising and fuel wood consumption.

Cases Reduction of fuel wood Prohibition of livestock browsing

Fujian 33% 14%

Guangxi 68% 21%

Liaoning 57% 41%

7. Conclusion 167

income contribution has been replaced by off-farm work. It implies that in the implementation of payment schemes in Guangxi, local farmers have lost most of their access to forest resources around their communities, which fundamentally changed their living practices. However, the Fujian case showed that income structure remained the same. Although timber harvesting was prohibited, it did not change the income source structure of the farmer households dramatically, since timber harvesting was not a major source for their income before the payment schemes.

For Liaoning, the story is quite different. There the contribution of timber harvesting and agro-forestry to household income has increased significantly, though off-farm work has kept its leading position as an income source, be it with a relatively slight decline.

It is certain that the implementation of payment schemes has imposed direct impacts on the income of local farmer households. However, interestingly each case showed a different type of change in the income of farmer households. It is justifiable to look for other factors from the institutional setting and local context which impact on household income and livelihood (Table 7.7). Each of these factors certainly does not function alone, but rather the different factors interact with each other and together influence the local rural economic activities and forest use practices.

First, payment schemes brought various forest management measures into public benefit forests. The main factors influencing local livelihood include logging restrictions, payments, demarcation of public benefit forests, and alternative forest use. Payment schemes imposed logging limitations on public benefit forests, which universally changed local forest use practices. In all three cases, the restriction on timber harvesting had negative impacts on the income of local farmer households. Especially in Guangxi, where timber harvesting had been the major income source, local farmer households suffered severe income decline from logging restrictions on the public benefit forest. Furthermore, payment schemes have been designed to reduce the negative impact of logging restrictions and to facilitate the implementation of public benefit forests.

Table 7.6. Local farmer household income change during the payment schemes.

Cases Period Income

increase (%)

Income structure¹

Timber harvesting Off-farm work Agro-forestry before² after³ before after before after

Fujian 2001-2007 -7.0% 1.2% 0.0% 52.0% 51.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Guangxi 2001-2007 -36.6% 60.0% 17.5% 13.3% 41.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Liaoning 2001-2009 47.5% 0.3% 11.9% 34.9% 31.0% 9.0% 12.8%

1 Only forestry related income sources and off-farm work are presented.

2 In the year 2001 for all cases.

3 For Fujian and Guangxi, 2007 income data were recorded; for Liaoning, 2009 data were collected in order to analyze the impacts of collective forest tenure reform.

Although payments distributed by the schemes have to some degree ameliorated income loss of local farmer households, most of the respondents thought it was too low to fully compensate their loss from the schemes. Therefore, the payments functioned as a subsidy for strengthening public benefit forest management rather than a compensation for income loss. However, the nature of payments, whether it is a subsidy for forest management or a compensation for income loss, also varies from case to case, depending on how the payments have been distributed among government, villages and local farmers. In Liaoning, all the payments have been used to organize and hire foresters to protect public benefit forests, who were also selected from local farmers.

Under such circumstances, the payment is used more like a subsidy with regulatory methods on forest protection. In contrast, the payments of the compensation scheme from downstream to upstream regions in Fujian have been directly channeled to local farmers to encourage them to change forest use practices and reduce timber harvesting. In this situation, this kind of payment works like a compensation to reduce conflicts and create incentives for the transformation of forest utilization. Other factors in the implementation process of payment schemes also influence the local livelihood. In principle, the demarcation of public benefit forests should take place in consultation with local communities and farmers. However, in practice, the demarcation has been carried out by forestry authorities unilaterally and the villages and local farmers have been only informed of the result after all demarcation was done. Low levels of participation of local communities in the process of demarcation caused that concerns of local people on local forest-based livelihoods have been neglected in the name of uniform planning. As a result, in some villages (typical in Guangxi) all forests – both natural and plantation – were designated as public benefit forests. This brought a radical change to local livelihood, especially in the regions where timber harvesting was the main income source. In addition, the concept of sustainable use of public benefit forests is in principle allowed by the forestry departments. However, in practice there is room to interpret whether different activities in public benefit forests correspond with the principle of sustainable use. Governments always try to avoid the burden of monitoring sustainable use of public benefit forests and the risk of farmers’ overcutting. As a result, they prefer to simply reject any kinds of utilization of public benefit forests. Controversies often exist between governments Table 7.7. Factors impacting local household income and livelihood.

Category Factors Cases Impacts

Institutional collective forest tenure reform Liaoning, Fujian positive

forestry industry policy Liaoning positive

Payment schemes logging limitation Fujian, Guangxi, Liaoning negative

payments Fujian, Guangxi, Liaoning positive

arbitrary demarcation of pbf Guangxi negative

sustainable forest management Fujian, Liaoning positive Contextual dependence on forest resource Guangxi, Liaoning negative alternative livelihood opportunity Guangxi, Liaoning positive

7. Conclusion 169

and local communities on selective logging and livestock browsing in public benefit forests. The principle of sustainable forest management alone is not enough to reduce negative impacts of the payment schemes on local livelihood. Related policies and institutions have to be established to materialize this principle. This leads to the discussion on another category of factors impacting local livelihood – institutional factors.

Through the investigation of the cases and the comparison between them, institutional factors stand out as a significant force to differentiate the effect of payment schemes on local livelihood.

Especially collective forest tenure reform and forestry industry policy played important roles in reshaping the structure of the rural economy, securing payment distribution, and facilitating sustainable use of forest resources.

Collective forest tenure reform reassured the rights of forest owners to obtain payment for giving up their forests for public benefit purpose. Formal responsibility contracts for public benefit management have been signed between the governments and local farmer households. Local farmers had access to participate in designing and deciding the arrangements for sharing the payment between villages and farmer households. As a result, a larger share of the payment was distributed to local farmers than before. It is one of main reasons for the relatively low negative income impacts in Fujian. Furthermore, the tenure reform created favorable conditions for forestry development in forested areas, which boosted forest-related income in the rural economy. To some degree it ameliorated negative impacts of logging limitation on local farmers’ income. Another important institutional factor is forestry industry policy, which the provincial forestry departments designed to direct forest resources use and forestry production. If this policy contains measures to harmonize utilization of forest resources and ecological conservation, forestry industry policy can reduce negative impacts of the payment schemes. This has been exemplified in Liaoning’s case, where local farmers were encouraged and financially supported to develop agro-forestry in public benefit forest. It has to be noted that stable and definite forest ownership is a precondition for a well-functioning forestry industry policy. The access to public benefit forest resources guarantees a positive incentive to protect forests for agro-forestry utilization.

Finally, contextual factors are also important for determining the scale and degree of the economic impacts of the payment schemes. Although most of the local farmers impacted by the schemes lived in forested areas, their dependence on forest resources varies from region to region.

In Fujian, most of the forests demarcated as public benefit forests are natural forests, which have a relatively low economic value and have not been developed by local villages. The communities were less dependent on the public benefit forest for living. In contrast, local farmers in Guangxi were relatively highly dependent on forest resources. They had a long history of extracting timber from forests, and transform natural forests into plantations or bamboo forests with high economic value. Forestry was their main income source and the local economy largely relied on forests.

Apart from the dependence on forests, alternative livelihood opportunities such as developing agro-forestry and ecotourism, and off-farm work are also crucial to adjust rural income structure and to compensate the loss due to logging limitations. Alternative economic opportunities are not only endowed by geographical and natural resources conditions but also relate to institutional support or restrictions.

7.2.4 Participation

Wunder (2005) defined PES as a voluntary transaction where ecological services are bought by buyers from providers. However, China’s PES differs from this standard definition in its nature of compulsory implementation. Although the central government stipulated that the payment schemes should be implemented with full agreement of local communities and farmers, the provincial governments have to some extent unilaterally changed collective and private forests into public benefit forests. There was indeed a consultation process while the governments were designating public benefit forests, but the governments had the final say in deciding the outcome of the demarcation. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze the participation mechanism in China’s PES to find out how and to what extent it differs from PES in other countries. Studying participation is also important to explore how legitimacy is established during the implementation of the payment schemes. This study focused on the dynamics and forms of participation, which are introduced, applied, maintained and transformed by the payment schemes in its various stages of formulation, implementation and examination.

This study evaluated how and the degree to which local farmers have been involved in the implementation of the payment schemes. The implementation of payment schemes generally includes four stages: policy formulation, demarcation of public benefit forest, signing forest management contracts, and examination (Table 7.8). The investigation showed that there was no opportunity for farmers to participate in the formulation of payment schemes at either the national or the regional level. The payment schemes have been formulated to a large degree within the administrative system, where forestry authorities negotiated with other governmental agencies and municipal governments to facilitate the establishment of payment schemes. In the policy

Table 7.8. Participation of payment schemes in the three cases.

Stages in policy process Fujian Guangxi Liaoning

Formulation no no no

Demarcation 94% 11% 61%

Forest management contract type 1 government & villages 81% 33% –² type 2 villages & foresters 96% –¹ 69%

type 3 villages & farmers 90% 39% 33%³

Examination 94% 6% 33%

1 In the Guangxi case, the responsibility for the public benefit forest was with individual farmer households.

No professional foresters were hired.

2 In the Liaoning case, the county government directly signed public benefit forest management contracts with farmer households after the collective forest tenure reform. There was no contract between the government and villages.

3 This relates to the number of farmer households which have signed contracts with the county forestry bureaus until 2010. The contract signing was still going on during the tenure reform.

7. Conclusion 171

formulation of payment schemes, the representatives of Provincial People’s Congress and Political Consultation Conference also played a crucial role in putting payment schemes on the political agenda of the provincial governments. However, there was no direct channel for local farmers to participate in policy making for payment schemes.

In the demarcation of public benefit forests, local farmers have been consulted about the demarcation result, especially in Fujian, which created trust among local farmers affected by the result and thereby increased the legitimacy of the policy. This process is decisive for the potential impacts of the payment schemes on local livelihood. The demarcation process determines which plots should be selected as public benefit forests and how many forest plots should be included into the schemes. Local participation can increase the appropriateness of demarcation, which means keeping ecologically important forest plots for public benefit purpose and giving economically valuable forest plots to local communities and farmers. The investigation showed a high consultation rate for the Fujian case, where better environmental performance was also achieved. In contrast, a relatively low rate of consultations in the Guangxi case correlated with its low environmental effectiveness. It should be noted, though, that the low environmental effectiveness also related to many other factors such as negative forestry industry policy, conflicts with local traditional livelihoods and recent natural disasters. The demarcation of public benefit forest is a process of redistributing wealth (both economic and environmental) generated from forest ecosystems. The factual acceptance of the demarcation result rests not only with trust and legitimacy by local farmers, but also with the fear of, and submission to, indirectly threats of sanctions from the government. In addition, compliance also could be engendered by the farmers’

perception of their own powerlessness and the lack of alternatives open to them. However, in Guangxi, negative forestry industry policy and severe conflicts with local traditional livelihoods induced doubts of local farmers on the demarcation results and created or maintained alternatives diverting from public benefit forest management. Therefore, the lack of consultation and other negative factors worked together to reduce the legitimacy of the demarcation result and contributed to lower environmental effectiveness.

Public benefit forest management is the most important component of the payment schemes.

In practice, forest management arrangements differ from region to region. In the Fujian case, the government, villages, local farmers and foresters shared the responsibility of forest management together. Three types of contracts have been signed between the government and villages, villages with foresters, and villages with farmers. This arrangement has the advantage in specifying and clarifying different responsibilities for various stakeholders. The responsibility of monitoring and examination rests on the government and villages; the responsibility of professional forest management is undertaken by foresters; local farmers bear the responsibility of stopping timber harvesting and protecting their own forests. In the Guangxi case, local farmers bear all the responsibility of managing and protecting public benefit forests, while villages and governments undertake monitoring and examination. It is doubtful that local farmers can carry out effective management when the payment is so low and much effort is required for taking care of forests (stopping illegal logging, and controlling fire and pest). The evaluation on environmental performance showed the management arrangement in the Guangxi case did not achieve satisfying environmental effectiveness. The Liaoning case relied more on the forestry administrative apparatus for implementing forest management and protection. The forestry bureaus took the responsibility

of selecting, hiring, and evaluating foresters. Compared with the other cases, villages cooperated with forestry authorities, with a less important role in organizing foresters and monitoring forest protection practices. In order to implement these management arrangements, the forestry authorities relied on cooperation and participation of local farmers. The majority of local farmers has been consulted for the selection and evaluation of foresters.

In the examination for public benefit management, the Fujian case had a very high rate of consultation of local farmers. In the Liaoning case, one third of local farmers have been asked for information and advice on forest management. In Liaoning and Fujian, the provincial and county forestry authorities developed specified procedures to consult local communities and farmers.

Formal rules and procedures facilitated participation of local people in the examination of the schemes and thereby improved the environmental performance. In contrast, few local farmers had participated in the examination of the schemes in the Guangxi case, where local participation

Formal rules and procedures facilitated participation of local people in the examination of the schemes and thereby improved the environmental performance. In contrast, few local farmers had participated in the examination of the schemes in the Guangxi case, where local participation