The Interdependence of Forest Transition Pathways at the Household Level in Yunnan, China Darla Munroe Department of Geography Ohio State University
Geographic Institute Humboldt University, Berlin
Collaborators • • • •
Daniel Müller 1,2 Zhanli Sun 1 Jens Frayer 1 Jianchu Xu 3,4
1Leibniz
Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe 2Humboldt University at Berlin 3World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) 4Kunming Institute of Botany (KIB), Chinese Academy of Sciences 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
2
Outline • Forest transition • Forest changes in Yunnan, China • Tree-planting programs – Local “forest transitions” – DA of household tree-planting engagement
• Larger forest transition frameworks • Discussion 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
3
FT as a research framework • Net forest recovery in Europe in 19th century, in North America in 20th • Documented recent reversal in isolated tropical settings • Is forest transition possible/likely on a large scale in the tropics? • Is temperate secondary forest “permanent”?
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
5
Local forest transitions • • • •
China has centuries of forest records 20th century low point: 12.7% ca. 1980 1990s: natural disasters, drought and flooding 2000s: New forest policies, National Forest Policy, Sloping Land Conversion Program
• Lambin and Meyfroidt: China exemplifies state-led reforestation 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
6
Research questions • What are the drivers of afforestation in Yunnan, China? – How forestry policies factor into broader processes of agricultural structural change
• Situating Yunnan context within broader context of Forest Transition Theory – Distinct processes lead to forest recovery in diverse contexts: equifinality – Evolution of forest change processes over time 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
7
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
8
The Sloping Land Conversion Program • SLCP aka “Grain for Green”, 2001 – 2010 • Grain subsidy, cash subsidy, tax relief • Ecological forest, economic forest, grassland • Administered at a village level • Has led to greater income inequality
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
9
Broader political and economic context • Household responsibility system – Cultural Revolution: collectivized agricultural – HRS: land-use rights and income to farm households – Periodic reallocation of land at the village level
• Hukou (urban or rural status) – 1953 – 1976: rural status underclass – 1980s: temporary migration to work in export sector – 1990s – present: slow reform, temporary urban migration permits 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
10
8000
7000
6000
5000
Total afforestation
4000
Tree-planting
3000
2000
1000
0 2000
4/25/12
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Munroe Waterloo 2012
2007
2008
2009
11
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
12
Tree-planting in Yunnan
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
13
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
14
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
15
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
16
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
17
Discriminant analysis • Household survey, 2009-2010, 10 villages • Purpose was to examine “buy-in” to SLCP and other afforestation policies • Distinct groups – No planting (32) – Planting only within SLCP (217) – Planting privately (60) – Planting privately + SLCP (209) 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
18
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
19
Production expenditures, Marginal cropland, Pigs, Less cropland
More intensive ag; fit policy criteria
Private planting only
More ag investment; less land to spare
SLCP planting only Crop income / land SLCP eligible plots
Both SLCP and private planting 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
No tree planting 20
Interpretation • Land endowment in HRS – SLCP only, private only - both deriving more income per land
• Participation in the policy – Agricultural investments decreased participation in SLCP – Marginal cropland area (excluding slope) decreased participation in SLCP – More cropland to spare increased SLCP participation – Not fitting policy criteria might mean not planting, or planting outside the program 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
21
Interpretation, cont. • Agricultural investments – Investments in agriculture meant less likely to partake in the policy, but not necessarily to plant (planting could be complementary to farming) – Less intensive agricultural production associated with both no planting at all, or maximum planting
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
22
Third-discriminant function • Increasing with respect to off-farm employment and wealth, decreasing with available labor • No planting, SLCP only, private, both SLCP and private • Tree-planting: more likely with more off-farm resources, more likely with less labor
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
23
Preliminary conclusions • Policy narrowly defined in terms of slope • Policy adoption quite varied • Shifting farm landscapes – Aging population, migration to cities, off-farm employment – Broader trends encouraging ag abandonment, but also ag intensification – Incentives to plant trees playing into agricultural structural change in complicated ways 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
24
Larger implications of policy • • • • •
“Grain for Green” policies expensive Administered in a top-down manner Biodiversity not especially encouraged Increasing inequality among farm households Rigidity of hukou and HRS
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
25
Larger frameworks
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
26
Broader implication of Yunnan case • System-level forest changes; phase shifts – How such changes are enacted through individual level processes – Meso-micro connections critical to sustainability
• Environment-society feedbacks – “Resource cycles” – Political changes
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
27
Mechanisms of forest change • According to FTT • Mather (1992), Rudel (1998), Walker (1993) – Land-saving technological innovation – Prior ecological degradation – Active conservation processes – Growing political will for conservation
Early case studies of forest transitions • Empirical work quickly focused on GDP/development • ‘[T]he technical ability to manage forests and the institutional ability to enforce adequate management may both be correlates of development’ Mather et al. (1999, 63).
Rudel 1998
Modernization and forest change • ‘Forest transition’ like demographic transition • Inflection point on curve reflects some sort of negative feedback • Substituting space with time (Massey) Foley et al. 2005
“Pathways” of forest transition
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
31
Why pathways? • Emphasize diversity of contexts and actors that manifest in forests • Aimed to link case studies by process • Ideally could be predictive
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
32
Rudel, Coomes, Moran et al. 2005 • Distinct pathways of forest change • Economic development path – Modernization, urbanization, (land-saving) agricultural intensification
• Forest scarcity path – Increase in price of forest products triggers conservation
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
33
Lambin and Meyfroidt (2010)
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
34
Smallholder intensification pathway • • • •
Marginal areas Not strongly tied to markets Households seek to minimize vulnerability Expansion of agroforestry – Reallocation of labor
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
35
Tree-planting in Yunnan • State policies coupled with direct payments to farmers • “Economic planting” has increased over time • Larger context of labor availability – Shifting of remaining labor to tree planting
• Larger context of globalization – Off-farm employment and wealth invested into agriculture 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
36
Phases of forest transition pathways • New forestry policies triggered by environmental disasters • Adaptation of rural households to new conditions – Payments to farmers + broader economic opportunities
• Shifting to tree crops (walnuts, snow peach) over time 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
37
Conclusions
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
38
Implications • Pathways concept emphasizes distinct processes leading to forest recovery • Yunnan case shows evolution of forest processes over time – Frameworks that track shifts in “pathways”
• Policies “touch down” on a landscape – Spatial, social implications
4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
39
Acknowledgements • U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program • OSU Center for Urban and Regional Analysis • National Science Foundation, Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems Program Award # 1010314, “CNH: Collaborative Research: Explaining Socioecological Resilience Following Collapse: Forest Recovery in Appalachian Ohio.” • Photo credits: J. Frayer, D. Mueller 4/25/12
Munroe Waterloo 2012
40