275

Received: 29 August 2007Accepted: 29 October 2007

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007): 275~292http://jms.imde.ac.cn

_____________DOI: 10.1007/s11629-007-0275-1

Abstract: Ever since the disastrous floods of 1998,the Chinese government has used the Natural ForestProtection and Sloping Land Conversion Programs topromote afforestation and reforestation as means toreduce runoff, control erosion, and stabilize locallivelihoods. These two ambitious programs have beenreported as large-scale successes, contributing to anoverall increase in China's forest cover and to thestated goals of environmental stabilization. A small-scale field study at the project level of theimplementation of these two programs in BaiwuTownship, Yanyuan County, Sichuan, casts doubtupon the accuracy and reliability of these claims ofsuccess; ground observations revealed utter failure insome sites and only marginal success in others.Reasons for this discrepancy are posited as involvingecological, economic, and bureaucratic factors.Further research is suggested to determine whetherthese discrepancies are merely local aberrations orrepresent larger-scale failures in reforestationprograms.

Keywords: Forests; afforestation; reforestation;grain-to-green; natural forest protection plan; China;Sichuan; Liangshan

Background

History of China’s Forests – early imperialhistory to 1998.

China’s use of and interaction with itsenvironment have contributed to change in thecountry’s natural systems, and have resulted in theestablishment of patterns strongly influenced byhuman practices. Prominent among these practiceshave been forest exploitation and destruction.Reaching back more than three thousands years,deforestation in China has occurred for agriculture,for fuel (for heating, cooking, and industrialprocesses), and for settlement and construction ofhomes. Consequences associated with the ensuingenvironmental destruction were apparent throughoutChina's forest history and were recognized early on.Even as early as the 11th century, the cCentral easternarea experienced a shortage of wood for fuel use(Elvin 2004: 20). That land conversion and landpractices greatly influenced natural phenomenabecame evident at least two thousand years ago,when what was previously known as ‘The River’became the Yellow River because deforestation andvarious land use practices along the rivercontributed to increased sediment volume (Elvin

Reforestation Programs in Southwest China: Reported

Success, Observed Failure, and the Reasons Why

Christine Jane Trac1, Stevan Harrell*, Thomas M. Hinckley2, and Amanda C. Henck3

1. Department of Biology, University of Washington2. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington3. Department of Earth and Space Sciences University of Washington

*Corresponding author, e-mail: stevehar@u.washington.edu, Department of Anthropology, Box 353010, Universityof Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA

Christine Jane Trac et al.

276

2004: 24). The frequency of flooding along theriver increased and became more regular; fromapproximately one disastrous break every sixteenyears between 186 BCE to 153 CE, to about onceevery 3.6 years during the period of the FiveDynasties (906-960 CE), and then to one disasterevery 1.89 years during the Qing period (1645 to1855) (Elvin 2004: 26). In 1117 CE more than amillion people were said to have been killed fromone massive flooding event.

Even in light of this considerable deforestationand land conversion throughout China's history,the most ravaging and formidable events of forestloss took place in the later half of the twentiethcentury during three distinct periods that havecome to be known as the ‘three great cuttings’(三大砍伐 ). In the early 1950s the centralgovernment recognized the threat and pressures onits forests and addressed them with landrehabilitation projects (Hyde 2003: 5). In efforts torevive and restore the forest landscape, Chinaconducted afforestation projects in the 1950s, and inthe 1960s also promoted intercropping andshelterbelts (Hyde 2003: 5). But by 1958 strong

pressure from a rapidly increasing population anddeveloping economy, which ultimately encouragesconsumption and destruction, overwhelmed theseattempts at restoration and re-initiated widespreaddepletion of already limited forest resources.Attempts to reverse environmental degradationand natural resource exploitation were continuallychallenged by the conflicting interests ofcollectivization and industrialization. As a result,the Communist revolution marks the start of strongand continuous pressure placed on China’s forests.By the start of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, allforests and trees were reallocated from householdsto villages for local management (Hyde 2003: 180;Edmunds and Wollenberg 2003: 53). Great swathsof forest were destroyed during this time to feedthe "backyard" furnaces established across thecountry to produce steel; the majority of foreststhat remained after the war with Japan, WWII, andthe establishment of the communist governmentwere all consumed for this effort, marking the firstof the ‘three great cuttings’ (Hyde 2003: 5) (Table1).

Years DeforestationForestation and natural

regenerationNet forest change

1949 0 0 0

1950~1962 -2.38 1.71 -0.67

1963~1972

1973~1976 -3.63 4.52 0.89

1977~1981 -1.84 1.14 -0.7

1984~1988 -1.76 2.74 0.98

1989~1993 -1.13 2.07 0.94

1994~1998 -1.09 2.5 1.41

1999~2003 0.66 2.34 3

Values presented as percentage (%) of the country’s total land area of 960 mha. Adapted from Zhang and Song (2006)

The second Great Cutting came during theCultural Revolution of 1966~1976, when theremaining natural forests were further cleared inthe campaign to expand cropland (Hyde 2003: 5).With the opening of the economy in the early 1980s

came the third period of massive destruction,mostly accounted for by timber farms exceedingtheir quotas and logging out much of the Northeastand Southwest, forest fires (Hyde 2003:180), andaccelerated harvest by farmers after receiving

Table 1 Deforestation and forest generation in China for 1949~2003

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

277

rights to forests. The quick deforestation byvillagers is generally assumed to be a result ofinsecure tenure to the forests, as forests werecollectivized and then returned numerous timesbetween 1950 and 1970 (Edmunds and Wollenberg2003: 53).

Although the early 1980s is are marked by oneof the most massive events of forest loss, China atthat time also began its forestry reform followingon the success of the agricultural reforms. By 1980,the country’s forests were largely made up ofdegraded natural forest or sparse and inaccessiblematerials (Hyde 2003: 118), and took up only anestimated 12 % (Hyde 2003: 114) of China's totalland area, or 115 mha1). Devolution of authority incontrolling forests dispersed to variousmanagement bodies for collectives and state-owned forests throughout the country, using manydifferent management approaches. In 1978 Chinareinitiated efforts to increase forest coverage andstand volume. The country launched shelterbeltprojects to prevent soil erosion, planted engineeredforests (essentially afforestation of previouslybarren lands or lands harvested and replaced withpreferred species), and encouraged the planting of“economic” tree crops. During this period, bothChina’s forest coverage and stand volume werereported to have increased considerably. Between1980 and 1993, both state-owned and collectiveforests continually increased their area of newlyafforested land – with 1.5 million ha annualincrease meaning a total accumulation of 21 millionha by 1993 (Hyde 2003:115). Between 1980 and1993, forest stock was reported to have increasedfrom 79.8 to 90.9 million m3 (Hyde 2003: 114). Butit must also be noted that during this period the netincrease of forests was 18 million ha (Hyde 2003:114), meaning 3 mha of mature stands were cut,and replaced with 3mha of recently planted,immature forests.

On the surface, then, China's overall record inforestry looks good despite the ravages of the ThreeGreat Cuttings. Between 1949 and 2003 China’sforest coverage has reportedly increased from 8.6% to 18.21 %. The 9.6 % increase is attributable totwo factors: forestry and accounting. Afforestationand reforestation increased forest cover by 5.3 % of

the total area; while deforestation removed 1.2 %,resulting in a net increase of 4.1 % of the total landarea, or about a 50 % increase over the forestedareas for 1949. The additional 5.5 % of the totalarea reported as new forest is accounted for by theaddition of scrublands as forests, the inclusion ofTaiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau in 1999, the hugeunderestimation of the forest cover before 1949,and, most importantly, the change in the officialdefinition of forest from 30 % to 20 % canopycover, which was made in 1994 (Zhang and Song2006). The values of forest change can be easilymanipulated to display differing magnitudes ofChina’s change in forest cover. It is thus verydifficult to know, on an aggregate scale, what hasreally happened. What is evident is that the figurescan be manipulated to make the situation lookbetter than it is; this gives credence to theconjecture that China’s aggregate forest statisticsdo not reflect the true of state of its forests (Alberset al. 1998).

China’s Current Forest – policies and problems

While making efforts all through the 1980sand 1990s to increase forest area and volume,China did not make a more concerted effort toactually reverse its environmental degradation andalleviate the pressures on the environment until1998, after flooding in the middle Yangtze regionended in more than 3000 casualties. In late 1998,China instituted a logging ban in the Southwest,along the upper reaches of the Yangtze and YellowRivers, and adopted a set of ambitious environmentalpolicies that distinctly marked its transition toacknowledging ecological protection and not justeconomic development. Part of this overall effortconsisted of two ambitious forestry programs: theNatural Forest Protection Program (sometimesreferred to as the National Forest ConservationProgram) and the Sloping Land Conversion Program(“Grain for Green”). These programs emphasizeforest creation by means of afforestation (planting onpreviously barren wastelands), reforestation, andcropland conversion, and employ forest cover as aproxy for progress. The country has identified targetfigures for forest cover of the country’s total land area

1) It is important to note that China’s forest statistics include natural forests and forest plantations, as well as shelterbelts,commercial tree crops, bamboo, and rubber plantations (which are not commonly included in the forest statistics for othercountries)(Hyde 2003:114~115). In 1994, forest cover, previously measured as the proportion of land with at least 30% coverage,shifted down to 20% coverage. In some published values forest cover is calculated based on the country area of 960 million ha forChina, including Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao (Zhang and Song 2006).

Christine Jane Trac et al.

278

at: 2010, 19 %; 2020, 23 %; 2050, 26 % (Zhu et al.2004).

The Natural Forest Protection Program. Inresponse to the 1998 flooding of the Yangtze Riverin Central China and the Songhua and Nen Riversin the Northeast, the central government immediatelyinstituted the Natural Forest Protection Program(NFPP) (天 然 林 保 护 工 程 ). Officiallyintroduced in 2000, as a ten-year plan, theprogram’s explicit goals are to restore the damagedregions of the environment and to protectremaining areas of ecological concern. The outlinedobjectives of the program, implemented in 18provinces and autonomous regions (all of whichcontain upstream regions of major river systems)are to restore the natural forests in ecologicallysensitive areas, plant forests for soil and waterprotection, increase timber production in forestplantations, protect existing natural forests fromexcessive cutting, and maintain the multiple usepolicy in natural forests (Zhang et al. 2006). Thegovernment has allocated a budget of 96.2 billionRMB (USD 11.6 billion) toward this project, withadditional funding by local governments (StateForestry Administration 2004). Within the Yangtzeand Yellow River catchments a logging ban hasbeen placed until 2010 (the projected end date forthis policy) in approximately 30 million ha ofnatural forests, of which 27 million ha arecollectively owned. Permanent protection has beenassigned to an additional 31 million ha of existingforests, shrub forests, and newly planted forests.And the project aims to create approximately 13million ha of restored forest and grassland byclosing access to over 3 million ha of mountainland, seeding 7 million ha, and replanting 2 millionha (Zhu et al. 2004; Xu et al. 2004).

The Sloping Land Conversion Program (Grain-for-Green). It is estimated that 2 billion tons of siltare released into the middle and upper reaches ofthe Yangtze annually – with about 1.3 billion tonscontributed by sloping cropland (Xu et al. 2004).Data also suggest that a dominant portion of thisoutput is released from West China. The SlopingLand Conversion Program (SLCP) or “Grain-for-Green”(退耕还林 （ 还草 ）工程 ),which emerged after the NFPP, addresses thisproblem by converting or returning agricultural

croplands to forests or grasslands. As one of theworld’s largest conservation programs, with a budgetof 337 billion RMB (USD 40.6 billion), entirelyfunded by the central government (Sichuan ProvinceForestry Bureau 2004), the SLCP addresses bothenvironmental and economic concerns. In additionto its ambitious goals of restoring forest coverthrough land conversion, the program also directlyaims to develop rural economies and reducepoverty in the areas where it is implemented. Theprogram is oriented toward restructuring ruraleconomies so that participating farmers cangradually shift into more environmentally andeconomically sustainable activities such as livestockbreeding and off-farm work (Xu et al. 2004).Additionally, the program was designed to addressshort- and long-term concerns of reducing stockpilesof grain and increasing grain output by restoringecosystem functions, including erosion preventionand flood control (Zhu et al. 2004). The SLCP wasinitially launched in 1999 as a pilot in Sichuan,Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces and, with an officialstart in 2001, expanded nationwide. By the end of2004, the program was being implemented in2000 counties across 25 provinces andmunicipalities. The program aims to convert 14.67million ha of cropland by 2010, with 4.4 million hato be on land with a slope of greater than 25degrees (or 46.6 %). The program compensatesparticipating farmers for converting their croplandback to forests or grasslands with a cash subsidy,grain subsidy, and free saplings at the start ofreforesting. There are two forms of forests thatcrops may be converted to: ecological or economicforests. Ecological forests are defined by the StateForestry Administration as timber-producingforests, while economic forests are orchards orplantations with trees of medicinal value (Xu et al.2004). Grain and cash subsidies are provided for 8years if land is converted to ecological forests, 5years for economic forests, and 2 years forgrassland conversion (Xu et al. 2004). The budgetallocates 70.13 % to grain subsidies, 8.89 % to cashsubsidies, and 20.98 % to costs of seedlings (StateForestry Administration 2004).

Officially reported results. The governmenthas been monitoring the progress of these policiesin 44 counties for the NFPP and 100 counties forthe SLCP, all in the West. According to the “mid-term” assessment the projects have already

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

279

produced obvious ecological, economic, andsocietal benefits. According to official figures, atthe end of 2003, through combined efforts fromNFPP, SLCP and the “Great Greenwall Project”(Beijing-Tianjin sand storm alleviation program)4.75 million ha had been afforested, 262,100 haaerially planted, and 3.02 million ha protected byfengshanyulin (FSYL: 封山育林 "closingthe mountains to protect nurture the forests"),prohibiting grazing, logging, and firewoodcollection. Following afforestation of 242,000 haand protection by FSYL, a 97 % survival rate and a99.4% preservation rate were reported for themonitored counties. Under the SLCP between 1999and 2003, 914,500 ha of cropland had already beenconverted and 925,000 ha of land afforested. Withthis tremendous progress the monitored countiescollectively met their reforestation/afforestationgoals for the SLCP program within half of theallocated time. Of the converted lands, 85.29 %were converted to ecological forests, evensurpassing the requirement that 80 % of allconverted land be converted to ecological forestsrather than economic forests. But while the reportpresents high figures of survival and maintenancerates, it also states that there has been a highdemand for seedling replanting due to planting onarid and water deficient land, a possible indicationof inconsistency. In 2003, the average density forthe monitored counties was reported as 148seedlings per mu (2220 seedlings per ha or aboutone seedling for every 4.5 square meters). And asthe emphasis of the SLCP is to convert marginalfarmland, particularly steeply sloping lands, 54.8 %of the lands planted had slopes greater than 25degrees, and 16 % between 15 and 25 degrees. In asurvey after implementation of SLCP had started,86 % of villagers and 96 % of farmers believed thatecological conditions had improved (State ForestryAdministration 2004).

Direct and indirect ramifications of thepressures that China has placed on its environmenthave thus forced the country to recognize itshistory of destructive practices, and the regime hasresponded with ambitious and wide-rangingprograms in the area of forestry. But closerexamination of results of these programs byindependent observers have indicated that thepicture is not as bright as the official reports wouldindicate. While China's policies are well intended,

policy design and program implementation retardtheir actual usefulness. Both the NFPP and theSLCP have been criticized for their poor andsporadic implementation (Xu et al. 2006). TheNFPP has been criticized for its broad brush, top-down approach, which does not take intoconsideration the heterogeneity of nature, society,economy and culture (Xu and Melick 2007).Because these two policies emerged in response tothe floods, their objectives include preventing soilerosion, and they assume a simple inverserelationship between tree-planting and erosion(Weyerhaeuser et al. 2005). The assumption hasbeen that these policies will contribute to upstreamforest cover and reduction of runoff (Xu et al.2006), and the successful reports cited above,based on monitored implementation in variouscounties and specifically on results gathered fromall counties in Sichuan, would indicate that theprograms are well on their way to achieving desiredresults (State Forestry Administration 2004;Sichuan province SLCP report 2005). Independentfield research, however, has shown that that officialclaims and documented results are not consistentwith the corresponding ground-based observations.Weyerhaeuser et al. (2005), for example, questionthe economic and ecological sustainability of theforests produced by these programs, and ourresearch reported below adds another local casestudy that should contribute to our calling thesenational results into question. It is thusquestionable, first, whether China is making theenvironmental gains that it claims, and, second, ifthe benefits of these programs are outweighingtheir costs. In addition, if the results concerningdomestic progress are uncertain, the country’simpact abroad is unequivocal — China’s demandfor timber continues to increase, and this togetherwith the drop in supply due to the NFPP and SCLPhas doubled China's timber imports since 2000(Xu et al. 2006: 602, 605), directly inducing thedestruction of forests abroad including, illegalharvesting of timber in several countries, as well asincreasing the risk of introducing invasive and pestspecies (Zhu et al. 2004; Xu et al. 2006).

Sichuan province – Policy implementationand Regional application

With 19 % of China's reported forest cover

Christine Jane Trac et al.

280

(Zhu et al. 2004), Sichuan and Yunnan areunquestionably significant areas for the implemen-tation of both NFPP and SLCP, and in additiontheir high levels of biodiversity make them priorityregions for environmental restoration (Yang et al.2004). The Sichuan Basin was almost entirelycovered in trees in the first millennium B.C.E., withestimates of 57 % of the land being forested (Elvin2004: 59; Wang 1999). But pressures during thepast 50 years have resulted in dramatic rates offorest cutting for fiber and fuel as well as landconversion from forest or shrub to agriculture insouthwestern China, especially in Sichuan province(Liu et al. 2002). Since the 1950s, the chiefeconomic sector for West Sichuan’s developmenthas been the logging industry (Winkler 2003) andby the time NFPP was implemented in Sichuan, itstimber resources were nearly exhausted (Zhu et al.2004). For a region largely unaffected by a longhistory of forest exploitation until the last 50 years,the great loss of forests in Sichuan called forenvironmental protection and the adoption of boththe logging ban and reforestation policies. Theperceived need for protection was probablyincreased by the celebrated biodiversity of Sichuan,the development of system of national and provincialreserves and their associated tourists, and thepresence of charismatic species such as the GiantPanda.

Official figures suggest that Sichuan has alsomade the same successful progress observed in themonitored counties at the national level. Sichuan

was one of the three provinces that participated atthe inception of the pilot phase of the SLCP in1999, with quotas for cropland conversion andwasteland afforestation that were reported met bythe end of 2005. By the projected mid-term pointin the implementation of these projects, theprovince had already converted 878,933 ha ofcropland and afforested 820,667 ha of wasteland.Through five consecutive years of monitoring at theprovincial level, 97 % of the reforested lands arereported to have been planted to standard (definedas 85 % or better survival of seedlings), and morethan > 98 % of those have been maintained. InSichuan the SLCP has reportedly achieved all of itsprogram objectives, with great increases in forestcover, decreases in surface runoff and soil erosion,increases in economic development of ruralregions, and overall improvement in agriculturalproductivity. Official reports indicated 20~45 %reductions in surface flow and soil erosion, alongwith an increase in provincial forest cover from24.23 % to 28.98 %. On average, for every 3 mu ofconverted cropland 1 individual has found off-farmwork (off-farm work not defined). And whilecropland is continually converted to forests andgrasslands, grain output has nevertheless increasedannually; in Liangshan Autonomous Prefecture,where our study sites in Yanyuan County arelocated, 1.61 million mu of cropland was convertedbetween 1999 and 2005 but grain output has stillincreased every year (Table 2) (Sichuan ProvinceForestry Bureau 2005).

Sichuan Province Liangshan Prefecture Yanyuan County

Total Afforested, Converted or Protected 2550 300 18.8

Cropland Converted to Forest 1318.4 156 9

Wasteland Forested 1151 128 8.3

Mountains closed to protect the forests (FSYL) 80 15.5 1.5

Units: 1000 mu (67 ha)Source: Sichuan province Forestry Bureau 2005

Our objective was to evaluate the success ofthese two programs, NFPP and SLCP, byexamining individual projects in a region of SWChina known to have undergone dramatic negative

impacts from previous policies, located in themixed mountain — subsistence agricultural zone,and part of the watershed of the Yangtze River. Weused a combination of interviews and site visits to

Table 2 Official figures for SCLP implementation in Sichuan, Liangshan, and Yanyuan, 1999~2005

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

281

accomplish our objective. Our results, presentedbelow, indicate that these officially reported resultsare overoptimistic, and hide ecological, economic,and cultural problems with the programs.

1 Study Site

In order to examine the success of the NFPPand SLCP locally, a case study was conducted inBaiwu Township, Yanyuan County, Liangshan YiAutonomous Prefecture in southwestern Sichuanprovince (Figure 1).

Baiwu township lies at elevations ranging from2,400 to 3,900 m, with the valley areas mostlyfarmed intensively, and the mountain areas givenover to a combination of rotational-fallow farming,grazing, and low-intensity forestry. Over 90 % ofBaiwu's 13,000 people belong to the Nuosu, orLiangshan Yi, one of the many minority groupsliving in the Sichuan-Yunnan borderland. Nuosuoccupy a harsh landscape at elevations above 1500m (Harrell et al. 2000). The Nuosu have practiceda mixed subsistence economy including

agriculture, grazing, hunting, and forestry, andhave an established ethic for long-termsustainability of resources. Forests are central tothis way of life, as a source of fuel for heating andcooking, material for building homes, and non-timber products such as mushrooms, bamboo, andmedicines; as well as an acknowledged habitat forbirds and mammals and a protector of water, soil,and other important resources. Prior to theCommunist revolution people owned rights toforests above their homesteads (owners havingdirect control over logging and collecting of woodin these forests). During the collective period theforests were also collectivized, and now someforests are under state, and some under collectivecontrol, even after agricultural land managementhas reverted to individual households. Thenationwide, policy- driven Three Great Cuttingsduring the later half of the twentieth centurygreatly reduced forest cover in this region of ruralSichuan2). The NFPP was first carried out in thisarea in 1998, and SLCP programs were firstimplemented in 2003.

Figure 1 Map of Baiwu Township, Yanyuan County, Sichuan Province

2) Despite the reverence for forests in Nuosu life and lore, recently scholars and members of other ethnic groups in the Western partsof Nuosu territory have blamed the deforestation after the 1950s on the Nuosu swidden agriculture or agro-forestry (Harrell n.d.).In the last half of the twentieth century, China’s population has increased by 2.5 times but in rural areas the increase has beenfivefold (Zhang et al. 2000). It is thus highly possible that the high density may have exceeded sustainable levels even for a peoplewith strong sustainability ethic to maintain its system for more than a few decades for any given space (Harrell n.d.).

Christine Jane Trac et al.

282

Figure 2 Map of reforestation sites in Baiwu Township

2 Methods

This study was conducted between August2005 and August 2006, during which period Tracmade five trips to Baiwu Township, investigatingreforestation sites in three areas: Gangou, Mianba,and Wucun (Figure 2). Research was conducted byinterview, survey, observation, and forest datacollection. A total of 21 interviews were completed,including those with a provincial programdesigner, county representatives for each of the twopolicies, a recently retired township ranger, andvillagers and village leaders for each of the threestudy sites within Baiwu Township. The interviewscovered local perspectives on the importance of theprograms, the benefits and effects of these policies,local participation, and government involvementand management. The management interviewsprovided insight into program organization andimplementation. Official reports recorded village,township, county, prefecture/city for Sichuanprovince and overall national progress. Fieldworkat the eighteen sites in the township planted as partof the NFPP or SLCP included observations and

surveys, which were used to evaluate the forestedsite conditions and surrounding forests or land,and to document land use practices.

3 Results

In Baiwu Township, NFPP is being implementedin Mianba and Gangou, and SLCP in Wucun. Thetypes of planting at the three sites include affores-tation (荒 山 造 林 ), reforestation, andconversion of cropland to forests (退 耕 还 林 ).Figure 2 and Table 3 show the three areas and theprograms being carried out in each.

3.1 NFPP in Baiwu Township: study ofGangou and Mianba

Gangou and Mianba both participate in theNFPP. Seven interviews were carried out withvillagers and cadres in Gangou, and 5 in Mianba. InGangou five NFPP sites were located, and it wasalso revealed that reforestation efforts have beenmade in this area prior to the new efforts with theNFPP. In fact, Gangou's history of planting datesback to the 1950s, involving aerial planting alongthe valley and community participation starting inthe 1980s. Earlier forest restoration efforts plantedPinus yunnanensis, a key early-successionalspecies frequently present in unmanaged forests(Figure 3). NFPP plantings, by contrast, have usedonly Prinsepia utilis and Robinia pseudoacacia L.

Logging ban NFPP SLCP

Mianba √ √

Wucun √ √

Gangou √ √

Afforestation ReforestationCropland

Conversion

Mianba √ √

Wucun √ √

Gangou √ √

Table 3 Programs carried out in three study sites, BaiwuTownship

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

283

Figure 3

P. utilis is a shrub native to Sichuan whose seed oilhas considerable potential economic value. R.pseudoacacia is an exotic tree species that hasbecome naturalized in SW China. The interviews inGangou revealed that villagers considered theearlier pine projects successes, whereas recentplanting of P. utilis and R. pseudoacacia have notbeen successful and are considered unsuitable forthe region.

In Mianba, which has only recently been

introduced to reforestation/afforestation practices,twelve different afforestation sites were located.Prior to these recent reforestation/afforestationefforts there has been no history of organized treeplanting in Mianba. Among the 17 NFPPreforestation/afforestation sites located throughoutGangou and Mianba (Table 4), the conditionsobserved at the sites were consistent with villagerperceptions on the success of the planted forests.

Table 4 Planting sites and species planted through the NPFP in Gangou and Mianba

Successful: trees were clearly alive; unsuccessful: majority of trees were dead or there were only very few left (Figure 4); struggling: some

Location Site NFPP Planting Species planted Observed conditions1 Pinus yunnanensis Franchet Successful growth2 √ Unsuccessful growth 3 √ Unsuccessful growth 4 √ Prinsepia utilis Royle Unsuccessful growth 5 √ Robinia pseudoacacia Linn. Struggling growth6 Pinus yunnanensis Successful growth7 Pinus yunnanensis Successful growth8 √ Prinsepia utilis Unsuccessful growth 9 √ Prinsepia utilis Unsuccessful growth

10 √ Prinsepia utilis Unsuccessful growth 11 √ Prinsepia utilis, Robinia pseudoacacia Unsuccessful growth 12 √ Prinsepia utilis, Robinia pseudoacacia Unsuccessful growth 13 √ Prinsepia utilis, Robinia pseudoacacia Unsuccessful growth 14 √ Prinsepia utilis Unsuccessful growth 15 √ Prinsepia utilis, Robinia pseudoacacia Unsuccessful growth 16 √ Prinsepia utilis, Robinia pseudoacacia Struggling growth17 √ Prinsepia utilis, Robinia pseudoacacia Unsuccessful growth 18 √ Prinsepia utilis Unsuccessful growth 19 √ Unsuccessful growth 20 √ Robinia pseudoacacia Struggling growth

Gangou

Mianba

Christine Jane Trac et al.

284

growth but nothing that looked to have much potential and appeared unhealthy (Figure 5)

Unsuccessful growth of P. utilis a n d R.pseudoacacia was observed at all sites in bothvillages, to the extent that if was often difficult totell if anything had been planted there at all. Thesetwo species were primarily used to afforest barrenslopes and wastelands, areas that appear not tohave had any previous natural forests. Thelocations of all sites were remote and not accessibleby car, and considered distant even by the localvillagers. Despite the fact that P. utilis whenpurchased for planting is 45 cm tall, the measuredheight of the seedlings, if still alive, wasapproximately 10~20 cm.

Although the actual practices were different atthese two locations, interviews at both locationsconsistently provided evidence of ineffectivegovernment implementation and subsequentmanagement. In Gangou the villagers recognizethat the restrictions of "Closing the mountain tonurture the forest," or fengshan yul in(FSYL封山育林 ) prohibit grazing, cutting,and sometimes even entrance to areas ofreforestation/afforestation. As a consequence,these restrictions place further pressure on thecommunity, particularly on the women, who areresponsible for collecting firewood for householduse (e.g., cooking and heating). As a result of thelogging ban and FSYL, women must now travelgreater distances and scavenge more area to simplycollect fallen forest debris that is insufficient andinefficient as a fuel source. In contrast, the villagers

in Mianba clearly stated that no restrictions exist,that in reforestation/ afforestation sites villagersgraze animals (Figure 6), collect wood and evencollect other species in these sites (e.g.mushrooms/fungi to sell in the town). Accordingly,Gangou villagers identify the hindrance andrestriction of available grazing land as an aspect ofthe policy that affects their lives, whereas inMianba there are no restrictions and therefore no

Figure 5 struggling growth of planted Robiniapseudoacacia in Mianba (photo by Christine Trac)

Figure 4 unsuccessful planting of Prinsepia utilis on ahilltop in Gangou (Photo by Christine Trac).

Figure 6 Goats grazing on planted Prinsepia utilis inMianba (Photo by Christine Trac).

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

285

effects (at least directly). Although practicesinvolved with the tree planting do not incorporatechemical use in either of the villages, observationsof animal deaths in Mianba led villagers to believethat the seedlings prior to planting were treatedwith chemicals, which later resulted in the death ofa few animals grazing on the seedlings.

The frequent use of reforestation/afforestationsites as grazing land clearly contributes to the lackof seedling success following planting in Mianba.But in Gangou, restrictions on grazing over theselands and a past history of successful growth of P.yunnanensis indicate inappropriate species selectionfor the conditions. In addition, P. yunnanensis isconsidered valuable for building purposes, but therecently introduced species are not immediatelyidentified by villagers as having traditional use value.The villagers recognized that if they could beplanted successfully, Robinia and Prinsepia mighthave potential economic value, but neither of thetwo planted species was identified by villagers ashaving naturally grown in these areas.

In both Gangou and Mianba, governmentinvolvement includes project initiation and projectmonitoring. In Gangou, villagers hold theenvironment guard, the mountain guard, and thevillage leader responsible for protection of theplanted trees. In Mianba, the environment guardwas the only person considered responsible, andsome villagers believed there to be an absolute lackof management involved with the program.Villagers have observed infrequent managementvisits, between 1-3 times per year, that involve the“drive, park and look” method of monitoring, aprocess that takes between 30 minutes and 2hours. Other methods observed by villagers weremeetings between government officials and villageleaders to discuss progress and officials' usingbinoculars to investigate the progress of planting.This cursory monitoring, much less detailed andcareful than our own interviews or observations,forms the "empirical" basis for the reports of highrates of success in Baiwu mentioned above.

Villagers in both Gangou and Mianbarecognize the potential value of reforestation, andexplicitly expressed in their interviews the need toimprove environmental stability with respect to soilerosion and having available timber/woodresources for the use of future generations,objectives very congruent with Nuosu traditional

ethno-ecological values. But despite the benefitsthat forests can provide, participation in theparticular programs was largely based on theincentive of pay or for the benefits of future use. Inneither of the two villages was participation opento all individuals interested in participating butinstead individuals were invited and selected byvillager leaders for participation, a practice thatseeks to avoid dividing a fixed cash allocation intotoo many small shares. Participants in bothcommunities received full compensation for theirplanting labor, but they expect and have receivedno pay in successive years for management orprotection of the planted sites. Ten of twelveplanters interviewed stated involvement in landforestation that solely entailed planting, and theother two also mentioned further practices forprotection and management.

3.2 Implementation of SLCP in BaiwuTownship: study of Wucun

The SLCP was only implemented in BaiwuTownship in 2003, with planting carried out infour locations: Sancun (Village 3), Wucun (Village5), Shiyicun (Village 11), and Shiercun (Village 12)— our results are from Wucun. The planted forestsconverted croplands and wastelands into eitherecological or economic forests (Table 5), dependingon the species selected for planting on these lands.Several different species were planted in theconversion of croplands to forests and theafforestation of barren wastelands. Croplands wereprimarily converted to shrub species, whereasbarren wastelands were mostly planted with trees(Figure 7). Data from the Township Office werecollected for all these sites, and field observationswere also carried out in Wucun. Table 5 shows theofficial figures compared with our field obser-vations where available.

It is possible that Wucun also participates inthe NFPP but it is clearly evident that efforts withthe SLCP have taken precedence. While traversingthe landscape in Wucun and interviewing villagers,SLCP-directed planting efforts to convert croplandwere identified. Three sites of planted forests werelocated in Wucun, all of which were formercroplands planted with Prinsepia utilis. (See Table5) The approximate total size of the three sites is320 mu, with 300 of those mu in one site. Thevillage leader, village secretary, and 3 participating

Christine Jane Trac et al.

286

SLCP farmers were interviewed about these ‘grain-to-green’ efforts.

Figure 7. Distribution of vegetation types. Planting of trees and shrubs in cropland conversion (CC) andwasteland afforested (AW) in Baiwu township. (Area in mu; %).

Table 5 Implementation of SLCP in Yanyuan County and Baiwu Township, with official figures and observations ofspecific sites in Wucun village, Baiwu

Sources: Baiwu Township Records, Field Observations

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

287

In Wucun the villagers interviewed recognizedboth the environmental and the economic aims ofthe SLCP program, and the capacity of convertingcropland to provide protection against soil erosionand economic products that might be futuresources of income. When Prinsepia utilis wasplanted in Wucun, the farmers were interested inparticipating in the program for the potentialeconomic benefits of an oil commodity produced bythe planted species. In addition, Baiwu farmerswho converted cropland were compensated in cashfor the income foregone by not growing crops, at arate of 260 rmb per mu for afforestation that meetsthe standard of 85 % survival of seedlings; paymentis not provided for afforestation of previouslybarren lands, since farmers have not sacrificed anypotential income. An interview conducted with onefamily, at the exact land they had converted,revealed that these participants had not been fullycompensated for their planting (at the time theywere interviewed, they should have received theirsecond year of subsidies). But another pair offarmers, who had also planted P. utilis in closeproximity to this land, stated that they had receivedsubsidies for their participation. The program hasthus had different implications for different people:those who had been compensated received thedesired economic benefits, but those who had notreceived full compensation incurred adverseeffects, causing the family to exclaim that there isnot enough land for crops and consequently notenough food. In the massive conversion ofcropland only a few 1 m u sized pieces werepreserved for continued subsistence use —apparently not enough.

The large 300 mu site of agricultural croplandwas converted to an “ecological forest” of P. utilis.It was evident that plant survival and growth werepoor (Table 5, Figures 3~6), and clearly did notmeet the 85 % survival standard for fullcompensation. To the western end of the site plantsappeared healthy, but were replanted after failedgrowth; toward the eastern side the abundance andhealth of the plants decreased. But of greater

concern, this site, with an average slope of 17degrees, while an acceptable site by programguidelines, is not an ideal target for conversion,since the project specifically aims to concentrate onmarginal cropland with slopes greater than 25degrees. But according to government documentsthe land is in fact classified as highly sloping land –according to Yanyuan County Forestry Bureaudocuments 100 % of SLCP planting in BaiwuTownship took place on land with slopes greaterthan 25 degrees. Reports of perfect results and highsurvival rates of planting, as well as countingmoderately sloping land as highly sloping land,make the inconsistencies between governmentrecords and ground conditions blatantly obvious.

3.3 Bureaucracy, management, andimplementation

From the above field observations, it appearsthat neither the NFPP nor the SLCP in BaiwuTownship has been successful. But this lack ofsuccess is not evident in statistics even at thetownship level, let alone the county and higherlevels. The forms used by the County ForestryBureau in its records for the 2003 planting inWucun provide a column for farmers to verify thenumber of mu planted and the compensationreceived, but a lack of signatures indicates eitherthat farmers refused to endorse the results or, morelikely, that this step of on-the-ground verificationwas skipped altogether when the reports werecompiled. Figures in county documents reportsuccessful planting and SLCP implementationthroughout the county and township, results whichare inconsistent with both site observations andfarmer reports of compensation in Wucun (SeeTable 5, above). Similarly, success at the countylevel is reflected in prefectural and provincialstatistics (See Table 2 above).

We are thus faced with a situation in which apolicy, decided upon at the national level, wasimplemented unsuccessfully at the local level, butreported back to the top as being a success. How

Christine Jane Trac et al.

288

did this come about? We suggest that it is the result oftwo well-known characteristics of the Chinesebureaucracy: lack of coordination and communicationbetween and within levels, and the practice ofevaluating and rewarding cadres according to certainmeasures or goals. To discover how this processworked, we need to examine the processes of policyimplementation and statistical reporting at levelsreaching from the township clear up to the centralgovernment, and the way that this bureaucraticstructure works against the on the ground successof the program.

As policies implemented in response to recentlyperceived environmental problems, the NFPP andSLCP are similar in goals, but are distinct policiesimplemented independently, albeit through some ofthe same agencies. Implementation of both policiesby forestry bureaus from the national to the countylevel share the same basic organization, withcomparable responsibilities delegated to each of thelevels. The State Forestry Administration in Beijingdesigns and promulgates the policy, and transmits itdirectly to county governments, which are responsiblefor preparing proposals for implementation in theirareas. These county proposals then work their way upthrough the system, from the prefectural level (ifapplicable), to the provincial level, and then to thenational level. These are theoretically subject tocomplete review and comparative field inspections byeach of the receiving levels to confirm the practicalityof county proposals. If it approves the county's plan,the State Forestry Administration then disbursesthe funds (often insufficient) to the county forimplementation. The county government thusmarks a critical hinge point between completingpaperwork and planting trees. To implement thecentrally-approved plan, the counties then need towork with communities to meet program targets,which have been agreed upon all the way up thebureaucratic ladder, but without consultation withcommunity members or local cadres.

We were able to interview officials in the SLCPoffice at the Yanyuan County forestry bureau.Although we were not able to interview NFPPofficials, we believe that the problems faced byoffices implementing the two programs are nearlyidentical. Both programs were designed to providea broad outline to give provinces and countiesenough room to work out locally practical plans forimplementation. But the Yanyuan forestry officials

find the SLCP guidelines to be strict and difficult toadapt to local conditions and still meet programgoals. Counties are forced to work within theframework of the policies provided by the nationalgovernment, with the authority to make onlycertain additions, and restricted from adjusting ormodifying existing guidelines. This may contributeto the lack of success on the ground as revealed inthe field surveys described above.

Insufficient funding has also proved to be asource of difficulty for Yanyuan workers to manageSLCP sites. In Yanyuan, the SLCP office receivescentral funds only for seedling costs and subsidiesto farmers, but none for management of theprogram. Even the cash subsidies provided tofarmers are directed through the County FinanceBureau without consultation with the ForestryBureau. This makes it difficult for the ForestryBureau to even confirm that compensation hasbeen provided to the right farmers. The SLCP officethus has no actual financial responsibility, but isstill inherently associated with the economic issuesof this policy, because it is responsible for the siteevaluations that ultimately determine farmers’compensations.

According to SLCP workers in Yanyuan theprogram has made adequate progress. Whileacknowledging the challenges and difficultiesassociated with policy constraints as well as thelimitations caused by a lack of funding, theseofficials still blame farmers for program problemsand weaknesses. According to the Yanyuan SLCPofficial directly responsible for programimplementation in Baiwu Township, farmers donot take the policy seriously enough for theprogram to be successful. The official reportedissues with uncooperative farmers who refuse tomaintain the land conversion for forests andproceed to replant crops to convert the land back toagricultural use. (But somehow despite thesestruggles the county has still managed to maintainrecords that document ideal implementation andprogram success.)

In addition, there is little coordination at theYanyuan County Forestry Bureau between theNFPP and SLCP offices, which also differ in bothfinancial resources and forestry responsibilities.For SLCP management, the Yanyuan office is heldresponsible for organizing participants to completeprogram tasks. Individuals from the county

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

289

forestry bureau and the township forestry stationare accountable for checking on replanting, farmermaintenance, and evaluating sites — basically, asstated by the provincial SLCP program designer‘the county forestry bureau is responsible forensuring the success of the policy.’ But there is nolonger a Baiwu forestry station; according tovillagers throughout the area, the station was sold,leaving workers without a work station, so theyconsequently returned to their homes in YanyuanCity. Without either an office or personnel in BaiwuTownship, and without access to enough cars of itsown to carry out even the ‘drive, park, and look’method, it becomes almost impossible for the SLCPoffice to monitor and manage remote sites such asthose in Wucun.

The NFPP management in Yanyuan is a littlebetter off, and has been able to mobilize more localparticipation. The NFPP office in Yanyuan isresponsible for overall forest protection andoverseeing reforestation, but has some funds tohire local individuals to be specifically responsiblefor these tasks. But in Baiwu, decreased pay forthese positions has resulted in villagers retiringfrom these positions, a considerable reduction inyearly pay from 1200 rmb to 500 rmb renderingareas unmanaged.

4Discussion andConclusion

The NFPP efforts of reforestation in Gangou andafforestation in Mianba were clearly unsuccessful;their dominant result was struggling growth due tounsuitable species selection, herds of grazinglivestock, and weak or absent program management.The sites we visited were already complete failures orshowed little potential for future growth. And thevillagers in both locations widely agreed that theNFPP reforestation efforts failed in theircommunities. As for the SLCP, investigations inWucun revealed a project that has had to rely heavilyon replanting and clearly did not meet the standardsestablished by the policy. A combination of ecological,economic, and bureaucratic issues involved with theimplementation of these two policies has doomed

both projects to local failure.

4.1 Ecological factors

In a general sense, the ecological reasoningbehind the two programs may have been simplistic orpremature. Logging bans have been demonstrated tobe an inadequate approach for forest conservationregion-wide, and while China’s efforts to increaseforest cover are commendable, literature suggeststhat it is too early to determine whether flood-controlhas been improved. Xu et al., in a mostly positivecomprehensive assessment of the impacts of theNFPP and the SCLP, still warn that "Theenvironmental impact of the SCLP remains poorlyunderstood in that it is impossible to quantify howmuch erosion originates from deforestation ascompared to other driving forces (Xu et al. 2006:605)." But still government reports have producedfigures stating 20~30 % improvement in soil erosionin Sichuan province (Sichuan Province ForestryBureau 2005). Furthermore the quality of the newlyplanted forests is questionable. In Baiwu Township,for example, official figures support completesuccess with forests planting under the SLCP, butour ground investigation has shown strugglinggrowth.

More speficially, both the NFPP and the SLCPhave emphasized P. utilis. This shrub species wasselected for use in all sites of afforestation,

reforestation, and cropland conversion. In theNFPP sites, this species was planted incombination with a naturalized tree species, R.pseudoacacia; and in the SLCP sites P. utilis wascombined with occasional planting of huajiao, orZanthoxylum piperitum, another shrub specieswith economic value. As in the area studied byWeyerhaeuser et al., (2005) there is widespreadplanting of only a few species, promoting decreasein biodiversity. But even as one- or two- speciesplantations, these efforts have failed, because of theunsuitability of the selected species for the region.In Gangou, previous reforestation with Pinusyunnanensis has been successful, demonstratingthat planted forests can succeed in this region 3);the problems lie with the particular species

3) It should also be pointed out however, that many of the hillsides that were clear-cut in the first of the Three Great Cuttings inthe late 1950s have regrown P. yunnanensis spontaneously, shedding doubt on the necessity to replant this species.

Christine Jane Trac et al.

290

selected. Our results resemble those found by Tang(2004) in the valleys of the upper Min River, wherethere was large investment in tree planting thatresulted in few successes, but planting continueddespite the acknowledgement that the area may notbe suitable for tree planting or growth. In Gangou,many of the sites selected for replanting werebarren slopes and wastelands, areas previously notforested, – perhaps there is a reason why nothinghas grown on this land before. These plantingefforts failed to make the appropriate ecologicalconsiderations for local implementation.

4.2 Economic factors

The second set of reasons are economic andcultural. In the implementation of policy in ruralregions, existing cultures and lifestyles of thecommunities inhabiting these areas are relevantand important factors. Many areas of implemen-tation are in remote regions where conservationefforts frequently impinge on the land andlivelihood of poor communities (Xu and Melick2007). Both NFPP and SLCP place significantpressures on subsistence communities, with thelogging ban reducing fuel and constructionresources, conversion of crops to forests reducingcrop yield, and afforestation efforts reducinggrazing land (Weyerhaeuser et al. 2005). A forestguard in Sertar County expressed this concernwhen he said “we like planting seedlings, but weare worried that they will grow into big trees andreduce our grazing area” (Winkler 2003). Bothpolicies have broad effects on local communities,making it essential to have the local support andcooperative participation in local projects forsuccessful and sustainable forest management. Butnationwide logging bans, afforestation, andreforestation projects inherently disregard existingtraditions and strong values of forest stewardshipamong some minorities (Xu and Melick 2007).

While the villagers acknowledge theimportance of reforestation, there is a lack ofincentive for villagers to participate or protectgrowth in the new plantations. For reforestation tobe successful, it is crucial to guarantee localsadequate economic benefit (Winkler 2002).Villagers are willing to participate in initialplanting, in which they are paid for their labor, butthey receive no payment afterwards to protect the

planted forests. The land represents both potentialforest and available grazing land, but with theplanting of species which have neither traditionaluse value nor present economic value, grazingtakes precedence. Planting of P. utilis has beenutilized to emphasize the economic potential of thisplant, but for villagers to profit and benefit fromthis there must be a market for the oil, and theremust be an intermediary to deal with the seeds;otherwise the plant is rendered completely useless.In Wucun, croplands converted to economic forestsare of great concern, as the villagers havevoluntarily chosen to convert their land. It iscritical for the villagers to be fairly and adequatelycompensated for the planting; otherwise thevillagers return to planting crops. The subsidiesprovided to the villagers must compensate for thelosses of converting the land, and there must bemore time to promote growth to yield enoughharvest (Weyerhaeuser et al. 2005) for thesustainability of this project.

4.3 Bureaucratic issues

The ecological and economic issues that haveproven to be of concern for successful implementationof both the NFPP and SLCP are directly associatedwith the problems with the bureaucratic managementof program implementation. As the basic unit forimplementation, the county is forced to work with arigid program design and placed under pressure tomeet quotas set by the upper levels in the forestrybureaucracy. To realize the program goals, countiesmust directly implement and manage projectsthroughout the villages, taking responsibility for siteselection, species selection, planting evaluations, etc.Responsibilities are placed entirely on counties and theavailability of township forestry workers (who may ormay not exist, given budget constraints) forimplementation and management. While dealing withthe same objectives, the NFPP and SLCP operateindependently, with greater support given to theNFPP office. County SLCP offices require moresupport but lack the funding that would makemanagement more feasible. These offices alsofunction independently from the financial bureauthat compensates farmers for their planting. Whilethe offices are not responsible for payments, theyare still responsible for dealing with upset farmerswho do not receive their full compensation. These

Journal of Mountain Science Vol 4 No 4 (2007)

291

deficiencies in funding, staffing, and interagencycoordination are all obstacles to successfulprogram implementation.

4.4 Reported Success

Despite ineffective management andobservations of unsuccessful growth, reportsabound of completely successful implementation ofthe two reforestation programs. These reports arepresented from the township, to the county, to theprefecture, to the province, and to the nationallevel as being successful. All of the reported figuressuggest smooth implementation of SLCP and NFPPthroughout the entire country, with no indicationof possible program difficulties. The incon-sistencies between reported progress and groundobservations range from figures of plantingsurvival, to the slope of the land used forconversion, to farmer compensations. The reportedresults tell a story of flourishing planted forestsacross the country that has already providedconsiderable soil erosion prevention, developmentof rural communities with great societal benefits,and a transition to sustainable forestry and landuse practices. But in reality, in Baiwu Township,the forest planting has had greater costs thanbenefits. Planting efforts, which have disregardedbiodiversity considerations and suitability of plantspecies, have been unsuccessful, and farmers havenot been fully compensated.

We might expect such a discrepancy betweenreported results and facts on the ground, given thestructure of the cadre evaluation system, whichmeasures local officials' success in reachingparticular policy goals. One of these goals is in factthe forested area of the official's jurisdiction(Whiting 2001: 103)., Given the remoteness of theforestation sites, which discourages monitoringand auditing, as well as the lack of funding and

staffing for the projects, it makes sense for localofficials simply to report success and get credit forit — they do not have the means to monitor thereforestation sites, and it is quite unlikely thatofficials from higher levels will come all the way outto Wucun to audit the performance of the countycadres. So the system conspires not only towardfailure of these projects, but toward reporting theirsuccess 4).

We have, of course, only investigated a fewhundred mu of the hundreds of thousands reportedto have been reforested in Sichuan, let alone all ofChina. But we also know that the impressivecountry-wide figures, such as those for forest coverpresented in Table 1, above, are compiled fromlevel to level up the bureaucratic hierarchy, and wesuspect that the Baiwu results may be representativeof a larger problem. Misrepresentation at the villageand township level can easily result in incrementalmagnification of figures up to the national level,something that has been a problem in China eversince the Great Leap Forward (Yang 1996: 36~37).Other local case studies, such as that reported byWeyerhaeuser et al. (2005), lead to further suspicionto the optimistic overall reports of China's forests. Werecommend both further local case studies on theimplementation of forestry policies and how the onground sites compare to those officially reported, andlarger-scale remote-sensing projects to supplementthis ground-truthing. While acknowledging thatChina is making large-scale, sincere, and concertedefforts to increase the extent and health of itsforests, we conclude that these efforts will need totake better account of local ecology, give greaterconsideration to the needs of local farmers andherders, and reform certain aspects of its fiscal andforestry bureaucracies before they can becompletely successful.

References

Albers, Heidi, Scott Rozelle, and Li Guo. 1998. China’s forestunder economic reform: Timber supplies, environmentalprotection, and rural resource access. ContemporaryEconomic Policy 16: 22 ~ 34.

Edmunds, David, and Eva Wollenberg. 2003. Local ForestManagement: The Impacts of Devolution Policies. London:Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Elvin, Mark. 2004. The Retreat of the Elephants. New Haven

Christine Jane Trac et al.

292

and London: Yale University Press.Harrell, Stevan n.d. An Ecohistory of the Baiwu Valley.

Unpublished paper.Harrell, Stevan, Bamo Qubumo, and Ma Erzi. 2000. Mountain

Patterns: The Survival of Nuosu Culture in China. Seattleand London: University of Washington Press.

Hyde, William F., Brian Belcher, and Jintao Xu, ed. China’sForest: Global Lessons from Market Reforms. Washington,DC: Resources for the Future, 2003.

Liu, Jianguo, Marc Linderman, Zhiyun Ouyang, Li An, JianYang, and Hemin Zhang. 2001. Ecological degradation inprotected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve for giantpandas. Science 292: 98 ~ 101.

Liu, S.L., B.J. Fu, Y.H. Lü and L.D. Chen. 2002. Effects ofreforestation and deforestation on soil properties in humidmountainous areas: a case study in Wolong Nature Reserve,Sichuan province, China. Soil Use and Management 18: 376~ 380.

Sichuan Province Forestry Bureau. 2005, Untitled report on theSloping Land Conversion Program in Sichuan. Chengdu.

State Forestry Administration 2004. A Report for Monitoringand Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts of China’sKey Forestry Programs . Beijing: Ministry of Forests.

Tang, Ya, Jiasui Xie, and Hui Sun. 2004. Revisiting sustainabledevelopment of dry valleys in Hengduan Mountains Region.Journal of Mountain Science 1: 38 ~ 45.

Wang, Hongchang. 1999. Deforestation and desiccation inChina: a preliminary study. Beijing: Center for Environmentand Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.Accessed 10/2/06 at http://www. library. utoronto. ca/ pcs/state/chinaeco/forest.htm

Weyerhaeuser, Horst, Andreas Wilkes, and Fredrich Kahrl.2005. Local impacts and responses to regional forestconservation and rehabilitation programs in China’snorthwest Yunnan province. Agricultural Systems 85: 234 ~253.

Whiting, Susan H. 2001. Power and Wealth in Rural China:The Political Economy of Institutional Change. .Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Winkler, Daniel. 2003. Forest Use and the Implications of the1998 Logging Ban in the Tibetan Prefectures of Sichuan: CaseStudy on Forestry, Reforestation and NRFP in Litang County,Ganzi TAP, China. In: The Ecological Basis and SustainableManagement of Forest Resources (eds. Z. Jiang, M. Centritto,S. Liu & S. Zhang). Informatore Botanico Italiano 134(Supplemento 2).

Winkler, Daniel. 2002. Participation in forestry in Tibetansouthwest China: a strategy to resolve resource use conflicts.Mountain Research and Development 22: 397 ~ 399.

Xu, Jianchu and David Melick. 2007. Rethinking theeffectiveness of public protected areas in southwestern China.Conservation Biology 21: 318 ~ 328.

Xu, Jintao, Runsheng Yin, Zhou Li, and Can Liu. 2006. China'sEcological Rehabilitation: Unprecedented Efforts, DramaticImpacts, and Requisite Policies. Ecological Economics 57(4): 595 ~ 607.

Xu, Zhigang, M. T. Bennett, Ran Tao, and Jintao Xu. 2004.China's Sloping Land Conversion Program Four Years on:Current Situation and Pending Issues. International ForestryReview 6: 317 ~ 326.

Yang, Dali L. 1996. Calamity and Reform in China. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Yang, Zisheng, Luohui Liang, Yansui Liu, and Yimei He. 2004.Land use change during 1960-2000 period and its eco-environmental effects in the middle and upper reaches of theYangtze River: a case study of Yiliang County, Yunnan, China.Journal of Mountain Science 1: 250 ~ 263.

Zhang, Peichang, Guofan Shao, Guang Zhao, Dennis C LeMaster, et al. China’s forest policy for the 21st century. 2000.Science 288: 2135 ~ 2137.

Zhang, Yuxing and Conghe Song. 2006. Impacts ofafforestation, deforestation, and reforestation on forest coverin China from 1949 to 2003. Journal of Forestry Oct./Nov.:383 ~ 387.

Zhu, Chunquan., Rodney Taylor, and Feng Guoqiang. 2004China’s wood market, trade and the environment.Monmouth Junction: Science Press USA, 2004.