4.1. History of Forest Use in Pingzhang and Xinqi Villages
In China, the history of institutional change, with regards to agricultural production and forest management, can be simply characterized as a process of transformation from collectivization, in the Mao era (1949–1978), to Post-Mao era de-collectivization (after 1978). That said, the local history and processes in response to macro changes are more complex.
Table 3 outlines the history of land use change and local institutional dynamics of the two studied villages, in the broader context of political and socio-economic changes.
The two highland villages have a long history of forest management, along side shifting cultivations of buckwheat and corn. Before the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Yi people in Pingzhang practiced their customary rights and sacred forest management, whilst Han people in Xinqi collectively managed their forest. However, during the period of The Great Leap Forward in 1958 and the Cultural Revolution from 1966–1976, massive deforestation occurred in both villages, as the commune system of collectivization was introduced. Significant amounts of timber were harvested to support industrialization, including huge areas of forest to fuel backyard steel smelters and build communal mess halls, as observed in other parts of China [
37,
38]. The commune agricultural system also resulted a low productivity, and as a consequence, local people had to cut trees for agriculture production in the 1960s. In addition, resettlement programs in Pingzhang, resulted in the immigration of Bai people about 50 years ago. As the immigrant ethnic group started collecting firewood in what the Yi people believed to be sacred forest, Yi ritual practices were disrupted, creating tension between the two ethnic groups. On the other hand, in Xinqi, people started to invest in afforestation by setting up their first collective forest farm for collective forest management. Village elders were able to recall those events in interviews we conducted as part of this study:
“……Great Leap Forward campaigns brought about the loss of more than two thirds of our local forest [in Pingzhang], but later, we have more deforestation, as our land was reallocated to the Bai people, who not only cut the forest for agriculture, but also use the wood from our scared forest….”.
[20 September 2011, in Pingzhang]
“People [in Xinqi] suffered a lot from serious deforestation… several landslides eroded our paddy field during Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution…. So, in 1962, we established our first collective forest farm and planted 167 ha of fir trees that aimed to protect our paddies….”.
[13 April 2011, in Xinqi]
Table 3.
Timeline of local institution and land use narratives in Pingzhang and Xinqi.
Table 3.
Timeline of local institution and land use narratives in Pingzhang and Xinqi.
Period of Time | Socio-Political Context | Pingzhang | Xinqi |
---|
Institutional Structure | Land Use Narratives | Institutional Structure | Land Use Narratives |
---|
Before 1949 | - World War II | - Yi people customary rights on land and forests | - Shifting cultivation for growing buckwheat | - Han-Chinese collectively managed forest | - Deforestation due to war |
- Civil War | - Shifting cultivation for growing buckwheat and corn |
- Practice sacred forest by Yi |
Early 50s to late 70s | - Collectivization | - Establishment of commune system | - Massive deforestation during 1958 for industrialization | - Established first collective forest farm in 1962 for afforestation | - Serious deforestation during the 50s |
- Great Leap Forward | - Bai people resettlement project intervened customary sacred forest | - Invested in afforestation in the 60s for protecting paddy fields with 167 ha plantation of fir |
- Collective forest management under commune system |
- Cultural Revolution. | - Clean forest for Bai people resettlement project in the 60s |
- Clean forest for food security |
- Introduced terracing technique for rice and corn in the 60s |
- eroded sacred forest practice in 70s |
Late 70s to late 80s | - Reform and opening market policy | - Decline of commune system | - Clean forest for agricultural expansion of corn and buckwheat cultivation | - Expended to four collective forest farms | - Deforestation and conflict after forest redistribution in private forest |
- Increased private ownership in agricultural land |
- Invested in afforestation in barren land with 400 ha plantation |
- Increased private ownership of agricultural land |
- De-collectivization | - Overharvest of forest due to unclear ownership |
- Household responsibility System | - Communal use forest management | - Forest redistribution from commune to individual households |
- Incomplete forest allocation |
- Unclear private and collective forest rights |
- Forest Tenure reform | - Collective forest for communal use |
- Decline of customary sacred forest |
Late 80s to early 90s | - State afforestation program | - Administrated in line of township government | - Plant tree on marginal land with free seedling from government | - Forest re-collectivization in the village in 1985 | - Collective forest farms expended to 1667 ha |
- logging quota | - Aerial seeding on barren hills | - Expended to 17 collective forest farms | - Collective forest management |
- Limits of species (pine) |
Late 90s to present | - Sloping Land Conversion Program (Grain for Green, SLCP) | - Introduction of Organic law for direct election of village committee in 2002 | - Top-down approach in SLCP | - Establish sharing holding system for forest redistribution in 1997 | - Participated SLCP, in 2002, 2003 and 2005 |
- Exotic species (pear) with survival rate lower than 50% in SLCP |
- Introduction of Organic law for direct election of village committee in 2000 | - Participated walnut plantation in 2009 and camellia plantation in 2010 |
- Eliminate the role of party secretary in village committees in 2007 | - Over 300 households involved with 77.95 ha plantation in SLCP |
- Increased village revenue from timber harvest in collective forest farm |
- ICRAF introduce participatory agroforestry in 2002 |
In the early 1980s, after the collapse of Mao’s commune system, the government carried out de-collectivization reform to combat food shortages. Both villages started to reallocate collective agricultural land to individual households using the Household Responsibility System. This aimed to provide farmers with incentives and, following this shift in agricultural policy, the same measures were adopted by the forest sector for forest redistribution. This policy also allowed farmers to claim user rights to forestland, and convert large areas of land for agricultural production. As observed in other part of China [
39,
40], the impact of de-collectivization of agriculture in these villages were mostly positive as farmers now had incentives to produce crops, leading to a dramatic increase of food production and rural development. On the other hand, the success of forest implementation was limited [
41,
42]. In Pingzhang, due to unclear ownership and tenure duration, forest redistribution led to the unexpected overharvesting of forest. As a result, only a third of forest was redistributed, as most villagers wanted to keep the collective forest for communal use. In Xinqi, farmers immediately cut the trees for cash after the forest redistribution, resulting in the villagers reaching a common agreement to return private forest to collective ownership and management in 1985. Most interviewees from both villages expressed that short tenure periods and unclear property rights encouraged shortsighted management of forest. As a consequence, people who worked their land irresponsibly, exploiting it for short-term gain, gained more than those who worked it responsibly. With the launching of the restricted quota system for logging, government efforts at forest redistribution ceased, leaving the first forest tenure reform of the 1980s incomplete.
During the later 80s and mid-90s, Baoshan Forestry Department began implementing afforestation programs across the municipality, in response to the rapid deforestation of the past two decades. The farmers of Pingzhang received free seedlings and were encouraged to plant trees on low-yield, high-elevation agricultural land. The forestry department also used aerial seeding for low-cost, rapid afforestation of barren hills, planting exclusively pine species. In Xinqi, the villagers continued their own initiatives by expanding the collective forest farms area to 1667 ha. In fact, since the end of the 1990s, 17 collective forest farms have been established. Xinqi also formed a democratically elected committee that governs the collective forest farm, acting independently from official village administration. The afforestation program led by the forest department in Pingzhang and self-organized forest plantation in Xinqi has resulted in different outcomes, as expressed by the village head of each village during our interviews:
“The survival rate of the pine is not so good; people [in Pingzhang] just do not care much about pine; Bai people still rely on livestock in the young plantation area, as they are lacking agriculture land”.
[23 September 2011, in Pingzhang]
“We [in Xinqi] have benefitted a lot from collective forest farm in both terms of forest health and profits. Over the years, our forest grows very well and we have logged many timbers for selling and use the forest profits for infrastructure and social development including a school, a health clinic, elders’ centers, roads and social insurance for all villagers.”.
[15 April 2011, in Xinqi]
Moreover, in Xinqi efforts towards afforestation and forest protection greatly improved forest quality and economic value. By setting up the share system, the administrative village began to redistribute the forest again in 1997. The allocated forest was delineated and given to the collective forest farms, which took away responsibility for its management and harvest. As a result, the distribution of benefits from the harvest was discussed and agreed among the villagers, either for public goods or for individuals. However, the forest management in Pingzhang remains unclear with regards to property rights between private and collective forest, tension between the two ethnic groups and farmers’ disincentive to invest in forest management and development.
Since 2002, the largest afforestation activities took place under SLCP in both villages. In Pingzhang, the program involved more than 300 households in the planting of 39.83 ha and 38.12 ha of forest in 2003 and 2006, respectively. However, the SLCP was implemented as a top-down approach, with the land zoning and tree species selection exclusively decided in the township, without consulting local farmers. Many farmers complained that as an exotic species, the pear tree was unsuited to local conditions. The survival rate of pear was less than 50% according to a survey conducted by the township forest stations. Thereafter, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) introduced a program for poverty reduction and forest conservation in Pingzhang to provide support to complement the state’s SLCP, including training in walnut plantation and management, agroforestry development for the SLCP and other capacity-building activities. In Xinqi, on the other hand, the village’s successful forest management and conservation activities have attracted government investment in the forest, including SLCP implementation in 2002, 2003 and 2005, a provincial program of walnut plantations in 2009, and a county program of camellia plantation in 2010. The village committee and local government implemented these programs after an extensive consultative process.
To summarize, Pingzhang and Xinqi have undergone dramatic changes due to the impact of various forest policies and economic development. Xinqi has exhibited stronger local institutional strength and self-organization in afforestation, forest conservation and forest distribution. Pingzhang’s forest institutional governance, however, has been weak, and heavily influenced by upper level government. The differences between the local institutions in these two villages, and their forest governance, have led to local variations in environmental outcomes, as examined in the following section.
4.2. Land Use and Cover Changes in the Case-Study Villages since the 1980s
Table 4 and
Figure 2 shows land use changes and forest transition since the 1980s in both villages. In Pingzhang, forest coverage increased from 18.23% in 1989 to 22.26% in 2002 and 49.48% in 2011. However, a significant decline in agricultural land area began in 1989–2002, even before the introduction of the SLCP, reducing agricultural land to 221.4 ha. Most farmland was abandoned or converted to grow tea, accounting for an 8.63% increase during the period from 1989–2002. As a result, although agricultural land area decreased, the increase in forestland only accounted for 4.37%, with a small increase in closed canopy forest of 1.37%, and in open canopy forest of 3.07%. Since the SLCP, the conversion of a significant amount of agricultural land has continued, reducing agricultural land account to 252.05 ha. Abandoned agricultural land with shrubs and grass was delineated as part of the SLCP. The ICRAF afforestation program, beginning in 2003, mainly focused on providing high-quality seedlings for tree plantation on Pingzhang’s barren land. Since 2002, the forested area has increased by 26.75%, with closed and open canopy forest making up 35.71% and 13.77% of the total area, respectively. However, the contribution from SLCP to this forest cover change accounts for 21.88 ha or 5.5% of total increased forest area.
Table 4.
Land use and cover change in Pingzhang and Xinqi in 1989, 2002 and 2011.
Table 4.
Land use and cover change in Pingzhang and Xinqi in 1989, 2002 and 2011.
Land use and cover change | 1989 | 2002 | 2011 | 1989–2002 | 2002–2011 |
---|
Area (ha) | (%) | Area (ha) | (%) | Area (ha) | (%) | Area (ha) | (%) | Area (ha) | (%) |
---|
Pingzhang | | | | | | | | | | |
Closed canopy | 133.11 | 9.00 | 153.36 | 10.37 | 528.25 | 35.71 | 20.25 | 1.37 | 373.71 | 25.26 |
Open canopy | 136.44 | 9.23 | 181.89 | 12.30 | 203.66 | 13.77 | 45.45 | 3.07 | 22.09 | 1.49 |
Agricultural land | 1053.81 | 71.27 | 832.41 | 56.30 | 580.55 | 39.25 | −221.40 | −14.97 | −252.05 | −17.04 |
Settlement | 5.85 | 0.40 | 8.37 | 0.57 | 23.84 | 1.61 | 2.52 | 0.17 | 15.47 | 1.05 |
Shrub | 93.6 | 6.33 | 221.22 | 14.96 | 102.93 | 6.96 | 127.62 | 8.63 | −118.53 | -8.01 |
Grass | 55.17 | 3.73 | 78.39 | 5.30 | 33.16 | 2.24 | 23.22 | 1.57 | −44.67 | -3.02 |
Waterbody | 0.54 | 0.04 | 2.88 | 0.19 | 6.86 | 0.46 | 2.34 | 0.16 | 3.98 | 0.27 |
Xinqi | | | | | | | | | | |
Closed canopy | 925.11 | 17.39 | 1315.53 | 24.73 | 2147.37 | 40.37 | 390.42 | 7.34 | 830.9 | 15.62 |
Open canopy | 1556.28 | 29.26 | 1986.75 | 37.35 | 1202.05 | 22.60 | 430.47 | 8.09 | 782.1 | 14.70 |
Agricultural land | 2365.47 | 44.47 | 1438.83 | 27.05 | 1251.66 | 23.53 | 926.64 | 17.42 | −188.34 | −3.54 |
Settlement | 15.03 | 0.28 | 39.96 | 0.75 | 69.88 | 1.31 | 24.93 | 0.47 | 29.92 | 0.56 |
Shrub | 347.04 | 6.52 | 403.20 | 7.58 | 280.19 | 5.27 | 56.16 | 1.06 | −122.95 | −2.31 |
Grass | 110.07 | 2.07 | 134.73 | 2.53 | 328.46 | 6.18 | 24.66 | 0.46 | 193.58 | 3.64 |
Mining area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39.48 | 0.74 | 0 | 0.00 | 38.99 | 0.73 |
Figure 2.
Land use and change in Pingzhang and Xinqi in 1989, 2002 and 2011.
Figure 2.
Land use and change in Pingzhang and Xinqi in 1989, 2002 and 2011.
In Xinqi, there was an increase in forest coverage from 46.65%–62.08% of the total area in 1989–2002. It stabilized at 62.97% in 2011, with closed canopy forest making up 40.37% of the total area. Xinqi had the largest-scale agricultural conversion before the SLCP in 1989–2002, losing 926.64 ha of its agricultural land, accounting for 17.42% of total land area. Most of the agricultural land was converted to forest. There was a 15.43% increase in forest cover with 7.34% and 8.09% of closed and open canopy forest, respectively, from 1989–2002. After the SLCP, the reduction in farmland area only accounted for 188.34 ha, 3.54% of total land area. Forest structure has changed with an increase in closed canopy forest of 15.62% of total area. That said, total forest coverage was stable from 2002–2010.
Figure 2 shows the contributions from SLCP to keeping the forest coverage in Xinqi was at a significant level. The forest structure has changed since 2002. Open canopy forest has decreased by 14.7%, because the newly planted open forest in the late 80s by collective forest farms has closed now.
In sum, farmers started to abandon their agricultural land after 1989 when agriculture production was improved by widespread use of high-yield varieties and chemical fertilizers. The two villages adopted different approaches to their use of agriculture land. In Pingzhang, most people abandoned the land, although a few started tea plantations, while in Xinqi, inhabitants engaged in self-organized afforestation that contributed to a considerable increase in forest cover. This was when Xinqi initiated its own forest redistribution arrangement, encouraging farmers to plant trees. Afterwards, the SLCP gave both villages the opportunity to diversify their agricultural systems with further tree plantation, but the contribution from SLCP to additional forest increase was limited. The overall results show that Xinqi has a greater forested area covering 62.39% of the total area, of which 40.37% is closed canopy, and large scale afforestation took place by collective forest farming during 1989–2002. On the other hand, Pingzhang has only 49.48% forest coverage, of which 35.71% is closed canopy. Between 2002 and 2011, Pingzhang increased its forest cover, while in Xinqi it is stagnating.
4.3. Livelihood and Population Dynamics after the 1980s
Livelihoods have undergone dramatic changes in Pingzhang and Xinqi since the 1980s. After considerable problems of low productivity and food insecurity under the commune system, the de-collectivization reform in the late 1970s provided a strong incentive for agricultural production, which increased rapidly in the 1980s [
40,
43]. Records from both villages show a dramatic increase in agricultural output and income since the 1980s (see
Figure 3). More recently, there has been a clear move in local livelihoods from subsistence to market-oriented production.
Figure 3.
Income and demographic changes in Pingzhang and Xinqi.
Figure 3.
Income and demographic changes in Pingzhang and Xinqi.
Note: The national poverty line was 350 CNY in 1989, 625 CNY in 2001 and 1274 CNY in 2010; 1 USD = 6.5 CNY in 2011.
Along with this tendency, the farming system in both villages changed to more intensive agriculture and forest management, with farmers making a wide range of efforts to invest more for better returns in agriculture and forestry. Several cash and tree crops have been introduced including tobacco, coffee, walnut and camellia, and walnut and other trees have replaced low-yielding buckwheat cultivation. While the SLCP has reduced the area previously used for corn cultivation, production has increased using new corn varieties and chemical fertilizers. In both villages, a large area of rain-fed paddy field has been converted to tree plantation or agroforestry as it lacked irrigation infrastructure and produced low yields. As reported by the heads of both villages, lately the farmers’ “rice bowl” relies more on the external market than on subsistence farming. For instance, the village head in Pingzhang stated that 60% of the rice consumed by 80% of Pingzhang’s households is now bought rather than grown, and the same is true of 80% of rice consumed in 90% of the households in Xinqi.
The change in livelihood dynamics and farming systems corresponds with China’s overall economic growth, which has benefited local income generation.
Figure 3 shows the 1000% income growth in Pingzhang and Xinqi from 1989–2010, which has brought both villages well above the national poverty line. The overall economic growth and reduced burden on farmers provides more opportunity for off-farm activities, which make up a significant part of local income generation. According to the village survey, 55.8% of the sampled households in Pingzhang and 51.7% in Xinqi include people working in off-farm jobs, either outside the agricultural season or all year round. On average, 1.21 people in Pingzhang and 1.58 people in Xinqi in the sampled households are engaged in off-farm work for an average of 7.19 and 9.15 months a year, respectively. Economic growth and increasing off-farm opportunities are driving farmers to change their on-farm livelihood strategies. They are opting to change their focus on short-term agriculture for a combination of practices, and are willing to combine forestry investment as a long-term livelihood strategy with short-term intensive agriculture, and keep livestock as a medium-term livelihood strategy.
This economic growth diversifies local energy use, making it possible to use biogas, electricity and new stoves in the uplands and reduces local dependence on fuel wood, which is now mostly used in winter for heating. As the village questionnaire survey shows, in comparison to the 5.32 m3 used in Pingzhang and 6.73 m3 in Xinqi five years ago, annual fuel wood consumption per capita has dropped to 0.574 m3 and 0.592 m3, respectively, making a considerable contribution to forest conservation. Cutting forest for fuel wood rarely occurs now, as wood from pruning and de-branching is sufficient to satisfy demand.
The population of Pingzhang has become stable in the last two decades in contrast to growth in Xinqi, where it has increased from 3289 in 1989 to 4276 in 2010 (see
Figure 3). Although there is a one-child policy, enforcement of the policy is weak in upland areas, and ethnic groups and upland rural families are eligible to have more than one child. The stabilized population growth in Pingzhang is due to the migration of young adults to off-farm jobs. In contrast, there has been a remarkable amount of immigration in Xinqi due to increased investment opportunities in mining and timber processing, as shown in the village records. Although populations have grown, forest cover has continually increased in both villages.