Political Modernization in China's Forest Governance? Payment Schemes for Forest Ecological Services in Liaoning

Abstract

Payment for environmental services (PES) schemes are increasingly being introduced in developed and developing countries for the ecological conservation of forests also. Such payment schemes resemble a new mode of forest governance labelled political modernization, in which centralized and state-based command-and-control policies make room for market dynamics, non-state actors, and decentralization. In entering the new Millennium, China has massively started using payment schemes to conserve its forests. An analysis of the implementation of the Forest Ecological Benefit Compensation Fund Programme in Liaoning Province is used to investigate whether China's PES schemes resemble notions of political modernization. It is concluded that Liaoning Province introduced market dynamics and farmer participation in the implementation of its PES scheme, but in a way different from that theorized by political modernization scholars. Hence, it should rather be seen as a ‘Chinese style’ political modernization process.

Keywords:

• Payment for environmental services
• deforestation
• China
• participation

Notes

These programmes are the Natural Forest Protection Programme (NFPP), the Conversion of Cropland into Forest and Grassland Programme, the FEBCFP, the Sandification Control Programme in the Vicinity of Beijing and Tianjin, Shelterbelt Construction Programme, and the Wildlife Conservation and Nature Reserve Development Programme.

The reform also allows that a village as a whole keeps the use rights of its forestland as long as more than two-thirds of the village members agree with it at a formal member meeting. According to an interview with a local official of Liaoning Province, most of the villages preferred to redistribute the use rights of their forestland. Only in some villages, where collective forestry farms had a long successful history in forest management and benefit distribution, did farmers agree to maintain collective forest tenure with village committees.

Usually, if forest plots are too small and fragmented, farmers will delegate the task of forest protection to foresters.

In 2001, the central government enlisted Liaoning as a pilot province for the central fiscal payment scheme for forest ecological services with an annual funding of 105 million Yuan for 1.4 million hectares of forest.

In 2001, the province launched a project to ban timber harvesting for commercial purposes in natural forests in nine prime forested counties. This project, which adopted measures the same as those of the national Natural Forest Protection Project (NFPP), covered 787 thousand hectares of natural forest with 41.3 million Yuan for forest management and protection and 56.86 million Yuan transferred from the provincial finances to the county finances for compensation every year.

In 2004, following the formation of the national payment scheme, the province established its own provincial payment scheme and earmarked 18.27 million Yuan for protecting 406 thousand hectares of forest.

Different contract forms are possible: with individual households, with groups of households, with village clusters, with outside contractors, and with collectives. In Liaoning, contracts with individual farmers are by far the most dominant.

The full names of these two counties are Benxi Manchu Autonomous County and Xinbin Manchu Autonomous County.

Interview schedules and questionnaires are available in Liang (2012a).

Public benefit management at township level is implemented by teams of forest rangers in Liaoning Province. In principle, one forest ranger takes charge of managing 3000 mu of forests and one team leader is in charge of monitoring and checking the work of 10 forest rangers.

Some of them are the forest rangers and some are local farmers who succeeded in developing agroforestry, such as cultivating mushroom and Chinese herb medicine in forests.

The tenure reform clarified and substantiated the ownership of PBFs. It is expected to guarantee that individual farmer households as PBF owners can obtain the payment.

PPC is a forum for mediating policy differences between different parts of the government and the regions, and PPPCC is a political advisory body including broader members such as persons without party affiliation and mass organizations. Both are important institutions for public policy-making and consultation.

During interviews, local officials admitted that too much forestland had been demarcated into PBFs. The Liaoning PFD's standards are much more inclusive than the national standards. This resulted in a continuing controversy between the central government and the Liaoning provincial government. In 2009, the Liaoning PFD (2009) still insisted that the central government should accept its demarcation result (34 million mu), although only 27 million mu of PBF was confirmed by the central government and provided with payment. This controversy reflects the self-interest of local governments in requesting central funding.

Some farmers have been informed and consulted through multiple forms.

Some farmers directed their opinions to village committees, forestry bureaus, and stations together.