PEN – China By Nick Hogarth PEN workshop, Bogor, March 26th, 2009

SLIDE I: CONTEXT Climate: subtropical monsoonal Forest Zone: sub-tropical broadleaf The study area: Combined area for all Natural Villages in my sample = 67km2 # of villages sampled: 12 natural villages 6 administrative villages; 3 townships Altitude: range 345 – 863m Population in surveyed villages: 2860; 62% Zhuang, 26% Han, 12% Yao Sample size: 240 households, ~4.7 people per household Key dimensions Slide 1 notes 1. Location: Located in a mountainous and remote region; Tianlin County shares its borders with Yunnan and Guizhou provinces in the northwest of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in southern China (24ºN, 106ºE). It is part of the Greater Mekong Sub-region, being located about 150km north of the border with Vietnam. Tianlin is the largest county in Guangxi Province. Climate: subtropical monsoonal climate; with hot, wet summers and cool, dry winters. The annual average temperature is 17-20°C, and there are about 330 non-frost-days in the region. July is the hottest month with average daily temperatures between 23°C to 29°C. The coldest month is January; with average temperatures between 6°C to 16°C. The average annual rainfall is between 1’300-1’500mm Forest Zone: sub-tropical broadleaf forest 2. How large is the study area: Tianlin County is 5’170 km2 (the biggest in Guangxi); total combined area for all the Administrative Villages in my sample is ~182km2; total combined area for all the Natural Villages in my sample is approximately 67km2 3. # of Villages sampled: 12 natural villages in 6 administrative villages in 3 townships # of people living in the surveyed villages: 2860; mean ~240 people per natural village 4. Sample size: Started with 240 households, ~4.7 people per household (i.e. 1128 people) 5. Key dimensions: 2 out of 12 of the natural villages are migrant villages

SLIDE II: HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOURCES Average annual income per person (n = 1128) * Total (cash & subs) 4’018RMB i.e. $US545 as of Dec 2007 * Cash income 2’748RMB (68%) i.e. $US373 as of Dec 2007 i.e. $US1.02 per day * Subs income 1267RMB (32%) i.e. $US172 as of Dec 2007 NB: income share by source was calculated using the average of shares from individual households (per person), whereas the share of cash vs subsistence was calculated using absolute values for the aggregated data. Negative forest derived income is because the bamboo shoots were in the process of being processed, and hadnt been sold yet; so the value of the raw material in C2 was higher than the value of the processed ‘finished product’ in C1 2007, Tianlin County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, P.R. China

How does PEN income (cash) compare?

SLIDE III: INCOME SOURCES & SEASONALITY All 6 villages aggregated; average annual income per person in a household (cash and subsistence combined) Evidence of environmental income serving as “seasonal gap filler” when ag income is low: No; very weak evidence. BUT: in Q2 and Q3 when ag income is at its lowest for the year; ‘All Other’ income (wage, business, remittance etc…) makes up a relatively larger income share. i.e. Business and wage income is the seasonal gap filler? 2007, Tianlin County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, P.R. China

Income share by quarter ~mid Dec – mid Jan Winter; dry ~mid March – mid April Spring; wet ~mid June – mid July Summer; very wet ~mid Sept – mid Oct Autumn; dry Point out the non-standard y scales esp of Q2 and Q4

IV: KEY FOREST & ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS Pricing Direct Forest income [table B in the Quarterly surveys] NTFPs Forest product % contribution Cash : subsistence Predominant forest type Tung Oil seeds 59 71 : 29 plantation Firewood 19 0 : 100 natural NB: Forestry definitions It is unclear if Tung oil, Bamboo and Tea oil are forestry products or agricultural products according to the FAO definition; grey area. But they are forestry products according to the Chinese definition of forest. Pricing of subsistence/environmental goods use farm-gate (local) prices. These values were crosschecked by comparing with retail prices at local markets when available, comparing local prices between the different villages in the survey, and by independently consulting with a wide range of local people about their opinions on the value of various products (the only product that seemed to be undervalued across all villages was firewood, which was traded rather ‘thin’, and given the time and effort involved in collecting and processing seemed to be grossly undervalued). Quantifying the amount of resources collected, consumed or sold was not a problem for the respondents in this survey, most of whom have a very clear understanding of weights, measures and their associated values.

Most valuable forest product overall Undervalued? Definitions?

Non-forest environmental sand 53 : 47 Payment for forest services Other Environmental Income Income source Product % contribution Cash : subsistence Land type Fish Wild fish 100 33 : 67 river Non-forest environmental sand 53 : 47 Payment for forest services compensation NA Natural forest

SLIDE V: Income composition and poverty Explain the patterns: absolute value of forest income is positively correlated with the increases in income i.e. Q1 has the lowest absolute value and Q5 has the highest. Forest dependency: However the share of forest income is negatively correlated with income; i.e. as income increases the forest income share decreases. i.e. the poor are more dependent on forest resources

SLIDE VI: Other patterns 0% of households reported using forests particularly to weather misfortune How did you cope? Frequency Percent Did nothing in particular 18 33 Assistance from friends and relatives 10 19 Do extra casual labour work 8 15 Spend cash savings 7 13 Harvest more agricultural products 5 9 Tried to reduce household spending 4 Sell assets (land, livestock, etc.) 1 2 Get loan from money lender, credit association Forest income used as a stepping stone out of poverty? A high level of cash income from forest sources (slide II) may indicate potential ‘Ecological migration’ poverty alleviation project involving bamboo has demonstrated success Evidence that forest income is used, directly or indirectly, as a stepping stone out of poverty: A high level of cash income from forest sources (as in slide II) may indicate the potential to use this income as a Stepping stone out of poverty, however there is no direct evidence in the PEN data to see how the forest income is used. Correlation between market distance and forest income (DFI & FDI)  Very low correlation between DFI & FDI

SLIDE VII: Policies & overall findings Projects & policies that have impacted on the patterns observed Natural Forest Protection Program ↓ in access to natural forest resources (timber); some financial compensation (J2 & J5) Program for the Conversion of Cropland into Forest ↓ in cropland, ↑ in forest land; some financial compensation (J2 & J5) Taxes and bureaucracy heavy fees, taxes, cutting permits, quotas, transport permits, and strict marketing controls discourage investment by individual farmers in forestry  hence the focus on NTFPs ‘Ecological’ Migrant Project ↑ in bamboo shoot production (dfi & fdi) Investment in bamboo processing factories Most surprising, exciting, or convincing findings? I was initially surprised at the low income from timber, but upon learning of the NFPP and the taxes and bureaucracy associated with timber harvesting I was not surprised. I was surprised how low the livestock income share is, but this is probably because the livestock capital is not taken into consideration Most surprising, exciting, or convincing findings? Low income from timber & livestock; big difference in income between quintile 1 & 2

Relationship of income with smiling high THANKS! income medium low