Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Conversion of cropland to forests: How environmental benefit lead to food security-evidence of China

880 views

Published on

This presentation, given at the Forests Asia conference in Jakarta in May 2014 informs direct impact of CCFP to grain productivity and livelihood improvement.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Conversion of cropland to forests: How environmental benefit lead to food security-evidence of China

  1. 1. Conversion of Cropland to Forests: how environmental benefit lead to food security--evidence of China XIE Chen FEDRC, SFA, China Forest Asia Summit, Jakarta, 5-6 May
  2. 2. Outline • Conversion of Cropland to Forests Program • CCFP policy related to food security • CCFP monitoring system by FEDRC • Direct impact of CCFP on grain production • Indirect impact of CCFP on grain production • Discussion and future direction
  3. 3. CCFP policy • Over 32 million rural households involved. • Up to 2013 more than US$42 billion invested. • 27.55 million ha of land converted/afforested. • 9.06 million ha of cropland enrolled. • 15.80 million ha of barren/waste land enrolled. • 2.68 million ha sealed off to allow natural regeneration (a.k.a. “closed mountain” afforestation) • Currently one of the most wide-spread programs in rural China.
  4. 4. CCFP policy regarding grain security • From forbidden intercropping to allow it; • Allow economic tree plantation which mainly provide fruits, and other edible non- timber forest products; • basic cropland construction and crop production has been part of program task since 2008
  5. 5. Investment structure of CCFP II of monitoring counties in 2012
  6. 6. CCFP monitoring system • Since 2003, annual based and 300 personal network around China; • 100 counties from 21 provinces considering CCFP tasks, geo-location and socio-economic conditions • 120 villages from 100 counties • 1165 farmers households from 120 villages
  7. 7. Indicators • County: socio-economic condition, CCFP investment, program implementation, forest resources and main outputs; • Village: land use change, main price of A&F products, geo-features; • Households: population & labor migration, land use, input and output of family productions, CCFP subsidy, households consumption
  8. 8. Direct impact of CCFP on Grain production • Increase supply of fruits, edible non-timber forests via economic tree on CCFP land; • Reduced cropland and reduced grain volume at household level;
  9. 9. Change of grain area and grain output volume of CCFP 100 monitoring counties Grain area increase 9.48% Grain volume increase 24.12%
  10. 10. Change of CCFP monitoring HH’s cropland and grain production area
  11. 11. Change of cropland and forestland of sample farmer households 18.52 10.89 8.40 9.26 8.34 8.85 9.53 9.25 9.85 9.59 10.05 3.48 10.93 13.86 16.51 16.80 18.04 18.69 19.69 23.11 24.25 26.58 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 mu/household cropland forestland
  12. 12. Change of CCFP HH’ grain output volume Total grain -9.28% corn 12.01% Wheat -30.52% rice -10.87% Root crop -24.15%
  13. 13. 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total fruits volume CCFP fruits volume 30% Contribution of CCFP to monitoring HH’ fruit output
  14. 14. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 2009 2010 2011 2012 total tea-seed oil ccfp tea-seed oil Tea seed oil production of CCFP monitoring HH
  15. 15. Gross fodder production of CCFP monitoring HH
  16. 16. Indirect impact • Intensification of crop production; • per unit area yield of grain has increasing; • Increase of grain output larger than grain production area; • Decline of natural disaster on crop
  17. 17. Change of effective irrigation area and fertilizer input of 100 CCFP monitoring counties
  18. 18. Change of grain yield per mu of CCFP counties and HH HH increase 74.01% Counties increase 13.36%
  19. 19. Change of crop damage area by natural disaster of 100 CCFP monitoring counties
  20. 20. Dependent Variable: GRAIN_OUTPUT Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 04/27/14 Time: 16:18 Sample (adjusted): 1999 2012 Cross-sections included: 98 Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 817 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. C 88488.06 10713.90 8.259183 0.0000 PAREAGRAIN 35.18393 8.094751 4.346512 0.0000 GRAINSUB 13.54254 0.846971 15.98937 0.0000 IRRIAREA 2.238077 0.256190 8.735989 0.0000 FERTILIZER 2650.104 1195.543 2.216653 0.0270 DISASTER -0.008897 0.029147 -0.305263 0.7603 PER_CROPLAND -1326.416 2299.700 -0.576778 0.5643 CCFPAREA 1.762699 0.883512 1.995105 0.0464 PINCOME 6.260976 2.809942 2.228151 0.0262 R-squared 0.972839 Mean dependent var 192180.4 Adjusted R-squared 0.968247 S.D. dependent var 242609.3 S.E. of regression 43231.49 Akaike info criterion 24.32042 Sum squared resid 1.30E+12 Schwarz criterion 25.00581 Log likelihood -9815.890 F-statistic 211.8670 Durbin-Watson stat 1.022551 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
  21. 21. Discussion and future direction
  22. 22. G0G1 T1 T0 F1 F2 F3 PPF0 PPF1 Cropland Forestland Theory of environmental supply of CCFP and it relation with agricultural production
  23. 23. 1. CCFP is China’s massive efforts to reverse it’s thousand of years’ over exploring forestland and deforestation, rebalancing agriculture and forestry; 2. In its policy design, livelihood has always been fundamental concern, grain production has become part of CCFP policy in phase II; 3. CCFP increase rural poor’s food security by providing stable subsidy which guarantee their basic needs;
  24. 24. 36.14% 6.56% 1998 2011 Change of poverty rate of monitoring households
  25. 25. 16% Low income participants ‘The subsidy might be little to farmers who have heavy burden to support college students or care patient, but for that poor grandmother, it is almost all income for her year round’. a survey student of Beijing Forestry University
  26. 26. 4. CCFP encourage economic trees and intercropping which significantly increase’s farmers fruits and related foods directly; Ecological trees Economic trees Both 9.52% 22.66% 63.49%
  27. 27. • 5. CCFP demonstrate that a developing country could balance it’s agricultural and forestry land use when it fully recognize importance of environmental conservation to rural development and using government finance to compensate its past environmental loss from its economic development gains;
  28. 28. 6. Considerable research is needed to exploring the environmental benefit of re/afforesation, forest conservation to grain production and food security; 7. Relationship between forest environment and grain production at small holder and plot level should have considerable potential to explore from primary results of FEDRC- CIFRO ongoing project.

×