Upland forest restoration and livelihoods in Asia
Louis Putzel, APFNet Workshop on Degraded Forest Rehabilitation and
Sustainable Forest Management
Kunming, 10 July 2014

Forest transition in Asia – net increase
in forest area in 4-5 countries
Source: FAO FRA 2010, author’s analysis

Land Conversion in Swidden
Landscapes
Van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., ... & Ziegler, A. D. (2012). Trends,
drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment.
Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 418-429.

Drivers of decrease in swidden area
Van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., ... & Ziegler, A. D. (2012). Trends,
drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment.
Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 418-429.

The Sloping Lands in Transition
(SLANT) research project
• Case studies in preparation in 7 countries
(China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines,
Thailand, Vietnam)
• Focus on effects of upland forest restoration
on smallholder livelihoods, and eventually
adaptive capacity and ecosystem service
delivery

Some comparative insights
• Between countries, role of government differs
in promotion of tree planting on privately
held/smallholder lands
• Countries with more decentralized
government systems (e.g. Philippines,
Indonesia) ≠ countries featuring a high level of
central planning (China, Vietnam)

• In Philippines, government implements forestry programs mostly
on government-owned land. Programs targeting smallholder-
owned lands carried out by NGOs.
• In Indonesia, the government promotes smallholder forestry
through a credit system promoting tree planting for industrial
supply.
• In contrast, China and Vietnam have reforestation programs over
large areas of land, mostly in smallholder managed landscapes.
 These programs have been linked to forest tenure reforms, including,
e.g.: allocation of former state lands to smallholders in Vietnam;
collective forest land reform in China
 In China, major PES scheme; in Vietnam, loans and market
opportunities
Different national approaches to
smallholder forest restoration

Vulnerability of upland populations
• In all countries in Asia, upland populations
tend to be vulnerable (with some exceptions)
Often, ethnically distinct from national decision
makers
Distant from markets
Marginal lands for production
Economically disadvantaged

Examples of National Programs
• Example #1: China’s Conversion of Cropland to
Forest Program (CCFP), also known as “grain
for green” or Sloping Land Conversion
Program
• Example #2: Indonesia’s Community Timber
Plantation programme (HTR)
• Example #3: Vietnam’s 5M ha rehabilitation
program (afforestation)

Photos: China Forest Economics and Development Research Center
Example #1: China
(Slides prepared by Xie Chen, FEDRC)

• Started in 1999, fully rolled out by 2002
- Phase I: 1999-2007
- Phase II: 2008-2016
The Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program
 CCFP initial aims to reduce flooding & soil erosion,
subsequentlly revised to emphasize economic development &
poverty alleviation
 Payments to smallholders to convert sloping cropland to
forests (>25° in Yangtze River & 15° elsewhere).
- Grass: 2 yrs
- Economic forest: 5 yrs
- Protection forest: 8 yrs

Photos: China Forest Economics and Development Research Center

Photos: China Forest Economics and Development Research Center

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.

Bennett MT, Xie C, Hogarth N, Peng D, and Putzel L. In revision. Household Delivery of Forest Ecosystem Services under
China’s Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program – Do Local Institutions Matter? Submitted to Forests.

CCFP policy regarding food security
• Initially CCFP prohibited intercropping; later
changed policy to allow it
• Allows economic tree plantation which
provide fruits and other edible non-timber
forest products
• Basic cropland development and crop
production has been part of the program task
since 2008

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

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.

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

Investment structure of CCFP II of monitoring counties in 2012

36.14%
6.56%
1998 2011
Change of poverty rate of monitoring
households

Results：Farmers volunteering for CCFP
Source: He J., 2014. Governing forest restoration: Local case studies of sloping land conversion program in Southwest China.
Forest Policy and Economics, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.004

Results: Socioeconomic assessment of
sampled households after CCFP
Source: He J., 2014. Governing forest restoration: Local case studies of sloping land conversion program in Southwest China.
Forest Policy and Economics, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.004

Conclusions
• Insufficient power was transferred to village level, even
though the state's CCFP policy aims to promote local
participation and autonomy. This is a lesson for other
developing countries in which implemention of forest
restoration tends to be more top down (He 2014).
• Nonetheless, the overall results of monitoring indicate that
rural welfare is generally not negatively affected by the
CCFP, and rural household participants are probably
benefiting.
• Further research is needed on the effects of urban
migration and off-farm labor to distiguish between the
direct effects of CCFP subsidies (including funds to promote
migration) and other factors.

Example #2: Indonesia
(adapted from Nugroho et al. 2013)

The Community Timber Plantation
Program
• Upland sloping land area is 76,3 million ha or about
41% of Indonesia terrain
In Java island, smallholders forest and agroforest in sloping
lands, in upper watersheds are about 1.7 million ha or
about 46.4% of total smallholders forest in Java
• In 2007, Government of Indonesia established
Community Timber Plantation program (Hutan
Tanaman Rakyat, or HTR)
• Programme targeted 5.4 million ha of forests for
allocation to smallholders for timber plantations by
2010, all of which are supposed to be be fully planted
by 2016

HTR Goals
Using state production forests to provide
additional supplies of plantation timber to forest
industries.
Improving the livelihoods of people living in and
around degraded production forest areas
Increase forest cover

Program design
• To stimulate adoption, the government
provides flexible credit to HTR holders.The
government has allocated ca. US$ 4.5 billion
from its Reforestation Fund to support this
programme.
• By January 2010, USD 210 million had been
made available for micro-credit financing

Accessing HTR Credit
• To obtain HTR Loan, the households form
farmer groups of at least five members, with
each member possessing an area of 8 to 15
ha.
• The entire process of application for and
receipt of an HTR loan involves 20 steps
involving 9 different organizations.

Assessing outcomes of HTR credit
scheme
• Household interviews in 2 regions to understand
borrower characteristics
In South Kalimantan, 179 respondents randomly selected
(112 respondents who had experience in borrowing and 67
respondents without)
 In Riau, 101 respondents randomly selected, (48
respondents with borrowing experience and 53 without)
• Interviews with authorities to understand loan scheme
design and implementation
• Gap analysis to assess matching of borrower
characteristics with loan parameters

Results
• The HTR credit scheme does not match borrower
characteristics well, which explains low adoption by
smallholders (<1% of available funds disbursed in 2012)
Fixed amount loan that is too large for individual farmers
to repay. Farmers are likely to be left out and the credit
enjoyed more by cooperatives, etc.
Rate of return lower than alternatives (e.g. rubber, oil
palm)
Distance to loan sources
Lack of market knowledge of planters, no leverage to set
prices
Lack of technical program support

Conclusions
• Indonesian smallholders have the opportunity
to obtain cheap credit with no traditional
collateral but against future timber harvests
• Farmers have been slow to adopt due to
inadequate program design and poor
livelihoods prospects compared to alternative
land uses

Case #3 – Vietnam
(adapted from draft report by Le Trung)

Background
• Vietnam’s mountainous region covers most of the Northern
territory, two thirds of the central territory and a small part
of the Southern territory with the total area of 23.61
million ha, or 71% of the national area
• One-fourth of mountainous population are the poor and
pro-poor. According to criteria of Vietnam’s government,
person with average income per month least than 18 US$ is
classified the poor; and person with average income per
month less than 25 US$ is classified as pro-poor
• 80% of households in the mountainous region are
maintaining their livelihood primarily with agriculture, 10%
with aquaculture, 5% with forestry production

5 million Ha Reforestation Program –
proejct 661, implemented in 1998 to:
• increase forest cover to 43 percent of the national territory; protect
the environment; decrease the severity of natural disasters;
increase water availability; preserve genetic resources; and protect
biodiversity
• Provide material for construction, paper, wood-based panels, non-
wood products, and fuel wood, both for local consumption and
export; develop the forest products processing industry; and make
forestry an important economic sector, contributing to
improvement in the socio-economic situation in mountain areas
• Use open land and bare hills efficiently; create employment
opportunities; contribute to hunger elimination and poverty
reduction; support sedentary cultivation; increase the incomes of
rural mountain people; create stable social conditions; and
strengthen national defense and security, especially in border areas.

Program Design - Benefits
• People protecting critical special-use forests or protection forests
can receive up to 50,000 VND/ha/year
• People regenerating forests in combination with additional
plantation can receive up to 1 million VND per ha over a period of 6
years.
• Local people planting protection forests under critical or very
critical category could receive an amount that could not be over 2.5
million VND per ha over a period of four years.
• Local people planting rare species, with plantation period over 30
years, can get 2 million VND per ha.
• People planting protection forests have rights to own all thinning
products, NTFPs and agricultural products cultivated under the
forest canopy

Livelihood benefits of 5MHRP
• Benefits are variable: some HHs income
improved, most didn’t get sufficient benefits
particularly those far from infrastructures
• Benefits from non-timber products and from
thinnings and prunings
• Wages from working in the
rehabilitation/afforestation program

Program outcomes
• Between 1998 and 2010, smallholders reportedly
planted 2.45 million ha of forest,
– 0.9 million ha of protection forest,
– 1.55 million ha of production forest
– 1.28 million ha of regenerated forest
– 0.94 million ha of fruit trees.
• However, quality of plantation is poor. Around
60% of planted areas have had survival rate
under exceptional criterion (85%).
• Forests under category of protection forest are
poorly protected

Livelihood outcomes
• 5MHRP policy have brought small benefits to
local households, partly due to impractical
regulations
Payments for participation in planting protection
forest or protecting protection forests are very
modest with minimal improvement to livelihood
improvement
local households have difficulty obtaining
investment support for plantations of production
forest because of complex requirements

General Conclusions
• In China and Vietnam, the governments have
structured incentive systems featuring cash payments
to smallholder tree planters and forest managers.
• China’s system is effective in distributing funds, due
direct cash transfers, e.g. through smart cards
• Indonesia’s system has a higher degree of autonomy in
its credit program. Adoption levels have been low due
to sub-optimal design of the credit program
• In all three countries, choice of species and quality of
stands are of concern

Rubber Expansion in Xishuangbanna
1988-2010
From Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt

Subjective statements
• Encouraging economically marginal people to change
their livelihood practices to plant trees in difficult
upland environments is a large responsibility for the
State.
• Given the dynamic nature of human populations (with
rural-to-urban migration, alternative incomes, etc.) and
ecosystems, the issue of traditional/local landscape
management should be revisited regularly.
• Arguably, China’s massive PES scheme is the more
successful program both socially and in terms of forest
cover (if not quality). Yet, it is also quite top-down, and
results are mixed from region to region.

Discussion questions
• What is the potential for forest restoration to
benefit local people and reduce poverty in
your country?
• What are the characteristics of a well-
designed program?
• In restoring forest ecosystem services to
benefit downstream or distant users, is it
acceptable for upstream residents to bear
some costs?

Thank you
Initial work on SLANT and China’s CCFP project has been funded
by DfID as part of the broader KNOWFOR project, and by the
CGIAR Consortium Research Program on Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry
Acknowledgements are due for the contributions of CIFOR
colleagues, Xie Chen (FEDRC), Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt and He Jun
(ICRAF), Le Trung (FSIV), Bramasto Nugroho (IPB) and his team,
Michael Bennett, Rowena Weng, Manju Menon, Kanchi Kohli
and others