Herder Stocking Rate and Household Income Under the Grassland
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Land Use Policy 82 (2019) 120–129 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Herder stocking rate and household income under the Grassland Ecological Protection Award Policy in northern China T ⁎ Yantin Yina,1, Yulu Houb,1, Colin Langfordc, Haihua Baia, Xianyang Houa, a Institute of Grassland Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia, 010010, China b Agriculture Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China c Graham Centre for Innovation, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, 2800, Australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The Grassland Ecological Protection Award Policy (GEPAP) is the largest payment for ecosystem services (PES) Grassland degradation program targeting grasslands in China. It subsidizes households to reduce livestock numbers or ban the grazing Overstocking of livestock to restrict the large-scale degradation of grasslands. While the GEPAP has drawn attention to these Payment for ecosystem services issues, questions regarding the performance of the GEPAP have still not been clearly answered. This research Conservation program used a balanced dataset of 726 surveyed households from 5 regions of Inner Mongolia to assess the impacts of the Livelihoods policy on stocking rate and household income. Results indicated that contrary to the aim of the GEPAP, the China overall stocking rate marginally significantly increased. Net household income extremely significantly decreased even though total income increased. Income from animals still formed the major proportion of household in- come, and off-farm income only played a complementary role in household income even though there was an increase in the amount and its proportion in total household income. Regression results indicated that the households with a lower subsidy level tended to have higher stocking rates and incomes. Stocking rate was unrelated to the policy or market price for livestock, while the household income was positively affected by livestock price. Results from this research have implications for the design, implementation and enforcement of conservation programs of grasslands in China and other developing countries. 1. Introduction Protection Award Policy. The Grassland Ecological Protection Award Policy (GEPAP) was first Grasslands have experienced large-scale degradation to different implemented in 2011 to protect grasslands, guarantee the supply of extents in China (Akiyama and Kawamura, 2007; Harris, 2010; Hua and livestock products (e.g., local beef and mutton) and improve household Squires, 2015; Li et al., 2012, 2007; Wen et al., 2013), which adversely income for herders (called liang bao yi cu jin in Chinese language). The affects ecological environment services (Tang et al., 2015; Wen et al., targeted areas cover Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and Ningxia au- 2013) and livelihoods in pastoral regions (Cao et al., 2010; Reynolds tonomous regions, and Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan provinces et al., 2005; Waldron et al., 2010). Grassland degradation has therefore (that is, 8 autonomous regions/provinces) and the Xinjiang Production become the focus of Chinese rangeland management. Overstocking is and Construction Corps. The GEPAP primarily introduced a grazing ban considered as the principal cause of grasslands degradation by policy policy and a targeted grass-animal balance policy. GEPAP policies are makers and many researchers (Kemp et al., 2011a, 2011b; Li et al., implemented in grassland regions where there are different degrees of 2012; Sneath, 2000; Squires, 2014; Wang et al., 2008). Reducing grassland degradation. stocking rate is proposed as an effective tool to rehabilitate degraded Where grasslands have been severely degraded GEPAP requires that grasslands. For these purposes, the Chinese government has im- grasslands grazing by livestock is totally forbidden or only a very small plemented several national conservation programs, including the Eco- number of livestock (e.g., 50 adult sheep in the desert region) are logical Migration Program, Returning Grazing Land to Grassland pro- permitted to be grazed in the grassland. After 5 years of subsidy, ject, the Beijing–Tianjin Sandstorm Source Controlling project, the grazing will be continually forbidden or the grassland will be managed Conversion of Grain for Green Program and the Grassland Ecological under the grass-animal balance policy depending on the condition of ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Hou). 1 Two authors are the first-coauthors of this manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.037 Received 5 April 2018; Received in revised form 20 November 2018; Accepted 20 November 2018 Available online 10 December 2018 0264-8377/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Y. Yin et al. Land Use Policy 82 (2019) 120–129 the grassland. some grasslands and declining in some other regions. Some researchers Where grasslands are determined to fit for grazing and the agree- have suggested the methods on how to reduce livestock, and at the ment stipulates that the household may only breed a specified number same time improve household income and some have suggested that of livestock in comparison with the owned grassland based on the more investment should be given to vocational and adult education for carrying capacity of grassland (the standard stocking rate given by the herders with the Internet becoming a new primary source for learning policy) and if households comply with the policy, they can receive the information (Ma, 2017). Other studies have also shown that the live- subsidy. This policy is aimed at guiding and encouraging herder stock husbandry production system (e.g., the warm sheds, new varieties households to seasonally and rotationally graze their grasslands using a of livestock and livestock fattening practices) should be improved (Mai balance between grass supply and animal needs with the long term aim et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). Other researchers have suggested that of establishing a long-term rational use of grassland. the GEPAP should be improved, by using differential standards for According to the GEPAP, households can receive 90 yuan/ha/year different households (Hu, 2016b; Kong et al., 2016; Pan, 2015; Wei and (US$ 14/ha/year) if they comply with the grazing ban policy, and 22.5 Qi, 2017a), and identifying all the stakeholders and determining the yuan/ha/year (US$ 3.5/ha/year) if they comply with the grass-animal roles they will play during in the implementing GEPAP (Pan, 2015). balance policy. Each household can get an additional 500-yuan-per- However, the common limitations of previous studies are the small year (US$ 78/year) comprehensive subsidy for means of production. sample size, and/or the narrow geographic coverage, and/or few time The first round of GEPAP expired in 2015 and the second phase was points. For instance, the study by Wang et al. (2016) was based on a implemented in 2016 and will run until 2020. In the second round, the dataset of only 38 households from one county (Xilinhot) in Inner geographic scope has been increased to an additional 6 provinces/re- Mongolia and prior to the expiration of the first round program while gions, including Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang pro- Chen and Xiao (2013) surveyed 395 households but only in 2012. Other vinces (5 provinces) and Heilongjiang Land Reclamation Bureau. studies were conducted using the secondary evidence (Chai, 2016; Yin, Subsides were also increased to 112.5 yuan/ha/year (US$ 17.6/ha/ 2017) or only government statistical data (Yang et al., 2016) to analyze year) and 37.5 yuan/ha/year (US$ 5.9/ha/year) for the grazing ban the impacts of the GEPAP. Consequently the problems in relation to the and the grass-animal balance policies, respectively. performance of the GEPAP were not clearly understood before the be- Based on the standards given by central government, the specific ginning of Phase two. Questions such as the following were not an- subsidies per ha per year to households will be adjusted in different swered: were the stocking rates reduced, did household income in- regions (but the final subsidies for households must be higher than or crease, did the households diversify their income sources, did the equal to the government standards). These adjustments will be depen- herders comply with the GEPAP policy, what were the perceptions of dent on the productivity of different types of grasslands. For example, herders’ on reducing livestock numbers and increasing incomes. The in Inner Mongolia the grassland productivity decreases from east to answers to these questions are needed because they are related to the west, hence subsidies are the highest in the east meadow steppe region, effectiveness of the GEPAP but also the development of further efforts approximately 206 yuan/ha/year (US$ 32/ha/year) and 69 yuan/ha/ for grassland protection in China. Also to our knowledge, there have year (US$ 10.8/ha/year) in response to the grazing ban and the grass- been no papers about the impact of GEPAP published in any interna- animal balance polices in the second-round GEPAP, respectively. tional journal, even though GEPAP has been the focus of international Subsidies in the west sandy steppe region are equal to the government attention. standards. Because of its broad geographic coverage (13 provinces/ This paper shows how through the performance of a comprehensive autonomous regions, and the Xinjiang Production and Construction analysis were the impacts of the GEPAP on stocking rates and house- Corps, and Heilongjiang Land Reclamation Bureau) and subsidy con- hold incomes in Inner Mongolia. A unique balanced panel dataset from tents (subsidies for grazing ban, grass-livestock balance, livestock hus- two rounds of household surveys was used for the analysis. The dataset bandry production and improved varieties of livestock and forage), and contains more than 700 herder households from 15 counties in Inner the huge public investment (over 13 billion yuan (US$ 2 billion) per Mongolia-the largest and most representative grassland region in China.