Pu Wang Department of Natural Resources Cornell University
PES and poverty alleviation PES and wealth disparity China s ecological and socioeconomic contexts Current PES policies and projects in China Conclusions
PES is likely to help alleviate poverty when the low income people: Are in the right place Economically backward regions coincide with those with high potential for providing ES Natural resources-dependent communities Want to participate Low opportunity costs Culturally acceptable Are able to participate Secure tenure Investment costs Technical constraints
When all other conditions are equal: high income population are likely to have high willingness to pay, because: their spending on ES is a relatively small fraction of their income, and they are more likely to care about the environmental qualities ; low income population are likely to have high willingness to accept, because: their opportunity cost for ES provision is relatively low, and they have incentives to seek for alternative livelihoods in order to improve their standard of living.
Source: Tang, Zhiyao, et al. "Biodiversity in China's mountains." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4.7 (2006): 347-352.
Source: Feng, Xianfeng, et al. "Net primary productivity of China's terrestrial ecosystems from a process model driven by remote sensing." Journal of Environmental Management 85.3 (2007): 563-573.
Source: http://www.hydrochina.com.cn
China has significant wealth disparity between the coastal provinces and the western provinces; Coastal provinces have higher population density, higher income level, and demand for ES from other regions. The economically backward regions coincide with those with high potential for providing ES; People in the economically backward regions have secure property rights of large areas of farmland or grassland, thus have high potential for providing ES.
Rapid economic growth, but at the cost of environmental degradation; Flood in the downstream Yangtze River in 1998 and dust storms in Beijing in early 2000 prompted the government to take action in environmental conservation; In many cases environmental conservation programs also aim at poverty alleviation and other social benefits.
Initiated in 1998, the NFCP conserves natural forests through logging bans and afforestation. Targeted ecosystem services include soil erosion reduction, water conservation, and flood control. Forest companies were required to shift from timber harvesting to tree plantations and forest management. The central and local governments compensate the loss of the companies during the shifting process, and also provide subsidies for seeding and artificial planting.
The CCFP started in 1999 and provides direct payments to farmers to convert cropland on steep slopes (>=25 ) to forest or grassland; Is an integrated conservation and poverty alleviation program; 1,500 kg of grain, 300 yuan/ha per year as compensations, and a one-time subsidy of 750 yuan/ha for seeds or seedlings; Duration of the compensation: 5 years if converted into economic forests (fruit trees), or 8 years if converted to ecological forests; (extended in 2007: 5 years + 5 years, or 8 years + 8 years).
Conducted in the three river sources region, the water towel of Asia Relocation programs: Ban grazing on seriously degraded grasslands; Relocate herders to small towns or cities; Provide housing, monetary compensation, training, etc. Reduce density of cattle on moderately degraded grasslands; Compensate according to number of people in households or area of grassland. Secure property rights: grassland was privatized in the 1980s Idea of payments from downstream to upstream.
Spatial distribution of China s socioeconomic and natural factors are favorable conditions for integrated PES and poverty alleviation projects; Existing policy frameworks and PES-like programs could form basis for future PES schemes; Central government is still the most important buyer for ES; Most projects are not voluntary-based, not performance-based.
Thank you!
Questions or comments?