Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1 USD was equivalent to 6.5 CNY when the research was carried out in 2011.

  2. This study focuses on social fairness in the distributive dimension. Other aspects such as participation and recognition are beyond the scope of this research. More explicit discussion of equity in ecosystem management can be found in Sikor et al. (2014).

  3. In the program implementation, the government does not allow scatter distribution of patches but requires the land enrollment to be geographically concentrated.

  4. National policy categorizes tree species as of ecological or economic value. The former refers to timber species grown for their ecological functions and services and which are eligible for subsidies for 16 years after planting; the latter includes species planted for their commercially-valuable non-timber products (e.g., fruits, edible oils, nuts, and fodder), which receive a subsidy for only 10 years after planting.

References

  • Bennett, M. T. (2008). China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program: Institutional Innovation or Business as Usual? Ecological Economics 65(4): 699–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M. T., Xie, C., Hogarth, N. J., Peng, D., and Putzel, L. (2014). 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? Forests 5(9): 2345–2376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G., Ouyang, Z., and Liu, J. (2009). Factors Affecting Land Reconversion Plans Following a Payment for Ecosystem Service Program. Biological Conservation 142(8): 1740–1747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., Brown, K., and Adger, W. N. (2007). The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services. Development and Change 38(4): 587–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., Soberanis, C. G., and Brown, K. (2009). Institutional Dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An Analysis of Mexico’s Carbon Forestry Programme. Ecological economics 68(3): 743–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, A. E., Bagstad, K., Esposito, V., Moulaert, A., and Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Understanding the Impacts of Costa Rica’s PES: Are We Asking the Right Questions? Ecological economics 69(11): 2116–2126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, S., Pagiola, S., and Wunder, S. (2008). Designing Payments for Environmental Services in Theory and Practice: An Overview of the Issues. Ecological economics 65(4): 663–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I., and Wunder, S. (2005). How Can Market Mechanisms for Forest Environmental Services Help the Poor? Preliminary Lessons from Latin America. World development 33(9): 1511–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross-Camp, N. D., Martin, A., McGuire, S., Kebede, B., and Munyarukaza, J. (2012). Payments for Ecosystem Services in an African Protected Area: Exploring Issues of Legitimacy, Fairness, Equity and Effectiveness. Oryx 46(01): 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, J., and Sikor, T. (2015). Notions of Justice in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy 43: 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, J. (2014). Governing Forest Restoration: Local Case Studies of Sloping Land Conversion Program in Southwest China. Forest Policy and Economics 46: 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, J., Lang, R., and Xu, J. (2014). Local Dynamics Driving Forest Transition: Insights from Upland Villages in Southwest China. Forests 5(2): 214–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J. A., Patenaude, G., Meir, P., Nightingale, A. J., Rounsevell, M. D., Williams, M., and Woodhouse, I. H. (2013). Strengthening Conceptual Foundations: Analysing Frameworks for Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation Research. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1098–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolinjivadi, V. K., and Sunderland, T. (2012). A Review of Two Payment Schemes for Watershed Services from China and Vietnam: The Interface of Government Control and PES Theory. Ecology and Society 17(4): 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig, A. P., Perrings, C., Chapin III, F. S., Polasky, S., Smith, V. K., Tilman, D., and Turner II, B. L. (2011). Paying for Ecosystem Services—Promise and Peril. Science 334: 603–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Feldman, M. W., Li, S., and Gaily, G. C. (2011). Rural Household Income and Inequality Under The Sloping Land Conversion Program in Western China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(19): 7721–7726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Lu, J., and Yin, R. (2010). An Estimation of Effects of China’s Priority Forestry Programs on Farmers’ Income. Environmental Management 54(3): 526–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., Tam, C., and Chen, X. (2008). Ecological and Socioeconomic Effects of China’s Policies for Ecosystem Services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28): 9477–9482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locatelli, B., Rojas, V., and Salinas, Z. (2008). Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services on Local Development in Northern Costa Rica: A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 10(5): 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, H., Lu, Y., Xing, Y., He, G., and Sun, Y. (2009). Rural Households’ Attitude and Economic Strategies Toward the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program (CCFG): A Case Study in Qira, China. Environmental Management 43(6): 1039–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., and McGuire, S. (2014). Measuring Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity in an Experimental Payments for Ecosystem Services Trial. Global Environmental Change 28: 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., and May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling Theory and Practice: An Alternative Conceptual Framework for Understanding Payments for Environmental Services. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1202–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, K., and Li, L. (1999). Selective Policy Implementation in Rural China. Comparative Politics 31(2): 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., and Platais, G. (2005). Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to date from Latin America. World development 33(2): 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola, S. (2008). Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica. Ecological economics 65(4): 712–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., and Muradian, R. (2014). Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services. BioScience 64(11): 1027–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, S., Wunder, S., and Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show Me the Money: Do Pay-Ments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4: 254–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • To, P. X., Dressler, W. H., Mahanty, S., Pham, T. T., and Zingerli, C. (2012). The Prospects for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Vietnam: A Look at Three Payment Schemes. Human Ecology 40(2): 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schomers, S., and Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Review and Comparison of Developing and Industrialized Countries. Ecosystem Services 6: 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikor, T., Martin, A., Fisher, J., and He, J. (2014). Towards an Empirical Analysis of Justice in Ecosystem Governance. Conservation Letters doi:10.1111/conl.12142.

    Google Scholar 

  • SFA (State Forestry Administration). (2002). Improving implementation of the Sloping Land Conservation Program. Policy Document by State Council.

  • Suhardiman, D, D. Wichelns, G. Lestrelin, C.T. Hoanh (2013) Payments for ecosyst. services in Vietnam: market-based incentives or state control of resources? Ecosystem. Services 6: 2–11.

  • Uchida, E., Xu, J., Xu, Z., and Rozelle, S. (2007). Are the Poor Benefiting from China’s Land Conservation Program? Environment and Development Economics 12(4): 593–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Noordwijk, M., and Leimona, B. (2010). Principles for Fairness and Efficiency in Enhancing Environmental Services in Asia: Payments, Compensation, or Co-Investment? Ecology and Society 15(4): 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noordwijk, M., Leimona, B., Jindal, R., Villamor, G. B., Vardhan, M., Namirembe, S., and Tomich, T. P. (2012). Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 389–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A. (2010). An Institutional Analysis of Payments for Environmental Services. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1245–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyerhaeuser, H., Wilkes, A., and Khral, F. (2005). Local Impacts and Responses to Regional Forest Conservation and Rehabilitation Programs in China’s Northwest Yunnan Province. Agricultural Systems 85(3): 234–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. No. CIFOR Occasional Paper no. 42.

  • Wunder, S., Engel, S., and Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking Stock: A Comparative Analysis of Payments for Environmental Services Programs in Developed and Developing Countries. Ecological economics 65(4): 834–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z., Bennett, M. T., Tao, R., and Xu, J. (2004). China’s Sloping Land Conversion Programme Four Years On: Current Situation, Pending Issues. International Forestry Review 6(3–4): 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., Yin, R., Li, Z., and Liu, C. (2006). China’s Ecological Rehabilitation: Unprecedented Efforts, Dramatic Impacts, and Requisite Policies. Ecological Economics 57(4): 595–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R., Liu, C., Zhao, M., Yao, S., and Liu, H. (2014). The Implementation and Impacts of China’s Largest Payment for Ecosystem Services Program as Revealed by Longitudinal Household Data. Land Use Policy 40: 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R., and Zhao, M. (2012). Ecological Restoration Programs and Payments for Ecosystem Services as Integrated Biophysical and Socioeconomic Processes—China’s Experience as an Example. Ecological Economics 73: 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The fieldwork for this research was financed by the Ford Foundation Beijing (G 6600561) and the I-REDD+ project (funded by the European Union, project no. 265286). This research is also part of ESRC-funded research project (no. ES/K005812/1). We acknowledge the local officials and villagers for giving their time to share their insightful thoughts with us, and Zhengli Li, Mingming Wang and Bin Yang’s help with the questionnaire survey. Thanks also go to Sally Sutton for her copyediting assistance and Dr. Juan Carlos Laso Bayas for advice on statistical analysis. The paper has benefited significantly from the valuable comments of editors and two reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Economics and Management, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, 650201, China

    Jun He

  2. World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF East and Central Asia Regional Program, Heilongtan, Kunming, 650204, China

    Jun He & Rong Lang

  3. Institute of Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, 70599, Germany

    Rong Lang

Authors
  1. Jun He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rong Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun He.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, J., Lang, R. Limits of State-Led Programs of Payment for Ecosystem Services: Field Evidence from the Sloping Land Conversion Program in Southwest China. Hum Ecol 43, 749–758 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9782-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9782-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation