China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects

Abstract

Background: Farming on sloping lands has historically led to forest loss and degradation in China, which coupled with unsustainable timber extraction activities, was deemed responsible for catastrophic flooding events in the late 1990s. These events led to the introduction of forest policies targeting ecological conservation and rural development in China, a process epitomized by the launch of the conversion of cropland to forest program (CCFP) in 1999. This systematic review responds to the question: What are the environmental and socioeconomic effects of China' s Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program after the first 15 years of implementation? Methods: Based on the published protocol, we searched for English language studies published between 1999 and 2014, and screened them for relevance and eligibility in two stages (titles and abstracts followed by full texts), after which they were further assessed for potential sources of bias before data extraction and analyses. Following initial screening of 879 titles and abstracts, 169 studies underwent full text screening, followed by 61 studies being subjected to quality assessment. Eighteen papers did not meet minimum quality criteria, while the remaining 43 papers were eligible and underwent data extraction and subsequent analyses. Among the final set of 43 studies were four national-level studies, seven regional-level studies, and 32 county-level (or below) studies. The majority of studies were published after 2009 and evaluated impacts within the first 5 years of CCFP implementation, such that the longterm impacts of the program remain open for further investigation. Results: A skewed temporal and geographic distribution of the examined studies limits the generalizability of the results, though the evidence base confirms a substantial increase in forest cover and associated carbon stocks linked to reallocation of sloping agricultural land to forest. To some degree, soil erosion has been controlled and flood risk reduced at local scales. Meanwhile household incomes have increased and rural employment has readjusted towards off-farm sectors. However, some studies also indicate instances of diminished food security and increasing social inequality. Finally, several studies indicate suboptimal regional or localized trade-offs among specific ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration vs. water discharge rates, flood control vs. riparian soil replacement, and forest productivity vs. biodiversity. Conclusions: Additional research on long-term environmental impacts and program effects in under-studied regions, particularly southern and western provinces, is necessary. In terms of recommendations for future research on the CCFP, there is a significant need to examine confounding factors, ideally through the selection of matching control groups to CCFP participants, and to ensure that sampling methodologies are more representative of selected study sites and the overall targeted area. There remain many opportunities to assess specific socioecological effects, up...

What works in tropical forest conservation, and what does not: Effectiveness of four strategies in terms of environmental, social, and economic outcomes

“…Additionally, several studies found that opportunity costs were often not met or not perceived to have been met (only one positive outcome for opportunity costs) (Corbera, Kosoy, & Martinez Tuna, ; Kosoy et al, ; Newton, Nichols, Endo, & Peres, ). At the same time, we found little evidence that PES made families and communities worse off than those not participating in the program (Asquith, Vargas Rios, & Smith, ; Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al, ).…”

“…Water quality was the second most frequently studied environmental outcome, and in all cases but one, studies found an improvement in water quality, quantity, and erosion prevention (Grieg‐Gran, Porras, & Wunder, ; Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al, ). The one exception found no change, and this was in an area where water quality had already been perceived to be good before PES implementation (Kosoy, Martinez‐Tuna, Muradian, & Martinez‐Alier, ).…”

“…Most outcomes we found were various measures of equity, equality, and marginalization, investigating whether introducing PES exacerbated or alleviated the existing inequalities within the community (26 out of 62 outcomes, Figure S2). Most often, including in the one quasiexperimental study, there was no significant change in equity, equality or marginalization associated with PES (Asquith et al, 2008;Brimont, Ezzine-de-Blas, Karsenty, & Toulon, 2015;Corbera, Brown, & Adger, 2007;Hegde & Bull, 2011), with two systematic reviews also concluding there was no significant change (Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al, 2016;Samii et al, 2014).…”

The Impact of International Cooperative Initiatives on Biodiversity (ICIBs)

“…Reviews, especially of the first pilot phase of the programme, also note low seedling survival rates and monoculture-reforestation (Trac et al 2013) (low impact). However, more recent reviews (covering phase 2 of the programme) mention higher survival rates (Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al 2016), although the success rate vary per region and depend on how the practices are implemented with local communities (Bennett el at 2014) (2nd loop, improved impact). This learning process is now ready for third loop in CCFP phase 3 (high impact).…”

Feedback of telecoupling: the case of a payments for ecosystem services program

“…For example, many of the program's target areas are located upstream of the Yangtze River, the third longest river in the world (Sun et al 2016). Previous studies have shown that afforestation promoted by the GTGP has increased the capacity of soil and water retention of the land (Ouyang et al 2016, Rodríguez et al 2016) and thus mitigated flooding risk downstream. To enhance gains from the GTGP, the Chinese government has been planning a new round of GTGP to enroll more cropland in the near future (State Forestry Administration 2014).…”