Fundamental Strategic Shift Required by the Expensive Ecological Policy in Chinese Grasslands

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Grasslands have critically important ecological and economic values while most of them have been suffering from various degrees of degradation in China due to overgrazing. The “Forage-Livestock Balance” (FLB) policy has been implemented for more than a decade, aims to balance the relationship between forage productivity and grazing consumption of grasslands by livestock. According to the review of statistical data and literatures on policy evaluation, FLB-dominated subsidies for grassland ecological conservation policies are ineffective on grassland restoration, livestock reduction in some overloaded areas and improvement on herdsmen livelihood. To deal with the dilemma, we suggest a fundamental shift of strategy from controlling livestock numbers to maintaining and improving grassland health (MIGH) based on ecological theories, and promote the sustainable development of grassland in China. The results show that, FLB policy failed to obtain expected benefits mainly because it interfered with the herders' autonomous use of contracted grasslands along with the defects of its underlying theory and methodologies. Implementing reward and punishment based on ecosystem health will not only motivate herders to manage their grassland autonomously, but also be more scientific and feasible than FLB.

Key words: forage-livestock balance, grassland degradation, grassland restoration, herders' livelihood, subsidy

ZHU Jiapei, XU Xingliang, LI Tong, LIU Yali, YANG Yaqian, CUI Xiaoyong. Fundamental Strategic Shift Required by the Expensive Ecological Policy in Chinese Grasslands[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(6): 955-963.

Figures/Tables 2

Fig. 1 The scheme of grassland quality based policy integrates the theory of alternative stable states, ecological service and economic benefits over the context of grassland quality. Note: X-axis represents grassland quality from high to low. Y-axis represents the value (dimensionless) of each parameter. The dark green line describes the dynamics of grassland net primary production (NPP) with grassland quality caused by grazing. An increase at early stage is ascribed to complementary growth of grasses under light grazing intensity. Light blue line represents the dynamics of ecological service (ES), which reaches the maximum at appropriate grazing intensity. The dark blue refers to economic benefits without considering ecological service (EB1), which shows higher economic income at the cost of grassland quality. The red line describes economic benefits considering ecological service (EB2). When it reaches higher values, the ecological service is also higher. The dark yellow area between EB1 and EB2 represents the cost of grassland degradation for economic benefits from overgrazing, which should be taken into account for ecological compensation. The purple line represents alternative stable states (ASS). When economic benefit reaches the maximum, the potential tipping point also arrives, which induces grassland shift to a worse stable state. When grasslands with low quality restore back to high quality state, a hysteresis occurs. The yellow bar represents the conditions resulted from Forage-Livestock Balance policy (FLB), while the purple bar represents the conditions resulted from Maintaining and Improving Grassland Health policy (MIGH).

Fig. 2 Proposed framework of the grassland quality based policy (Improved forage-livestock balance policy) Note: It consists of an executive committee including relevant departments of local governments. The roles of these local authorities will be shifted from command to service by providing technical supports and taking responsibility of social management. Potential indices of grassland quality assessment are listed with advanced technologies that are applicable to farm scale, which can be measured by using remote sensing (blue), hyperspectral detection (black) and mid-infrared spectroscopy (red), respectively. These indices should be parameterized by further researches incorporating climate, grassland type, relief, and other local characteristics. Third parties are designed to involve in this framework, e.g., assessing grassland quality of each farmer and training herdsmen. Multi-household and grassland transfer are stimulated by technical and financial support.

References 70

[1]	Al-bukhari A, Hallett S, Brewer T. 2018. A review of potential methods for monitoring rangeland degradation in Libya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 8: 13. DOI: 10.1186/s13570-018-0118-4. DOI URL
[2]	Bao Z W, Zhang S Y. 2015. Analysis on the implementation effect of the policy of compensation to and rewarding for grassland eco-protection -Taking Chifeng grassland as example. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 43(10): 328-329. (in Chinese)
[3]	Bateer. 2012. Assessment of livestock balance and discussion of new modes in West Ujimqin Banner. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[4]	Byrne A T, Hadrich J C, Robinson B E, et al. 2020. A factor-income approach to estimating grassland protection subsidy payments to livestock herders in Inner Mongolia, China. Land Use Policy, 91: 104352. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104352. DOI URL
[5]	Cao F, Li J, Fu X, et al. 2020. Impacts of land conversion and management measures on net primary productivity in semi-arid grassland. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 6(1): 1749010. DOI: 10.1080/20964129.2020.1749010. DOI URL
[6]	Cao J J, Du G Z, Wei H L, et al. 2009. SWOT analysis on group-household grassland management in Maqu and strategies for future development. Pratacultural Science, 26(10): 146-149. (in Chinese)
[7]	Cao J J, Holden N M, Qin Y Y, et al. 2012. Potential use of willingness to accept (WTA) to compensate herders in Maqu County, China, for reduced stocking. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65(5): 533-537. DOI URL
[8]	Cao Y N, Wu J S, Zhang X Z, et al. 2019. Dynamic forage-livestock balance analysis in alpine grasslands on the Northern Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Environmental Management, 238: 352-359. DOI PMID
[9]	Cui X L, Wu L N. 2018. Land transfer willingness in agro-pastoral interlaced region: Comparing farming and grazing households. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 39(4): 626-634. (in Chinese)
[10]	Cui Y N, Li S W, Yu C Q, et al. 2017. Effect of the award-allowance payment policy for natural grassland conservation on income of farmer and herdsman families in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 26(3): 22-32. (in Chinese)
[11]	Dabasso B H, Oba G, Roba H G. 2012. Livestock-based knowledge of rangeland quality assessment and monitoring at landscape level among borana herders of northern Kenya. Pastoralism, 2(1): 2. DOI: 10.1186/2041-7136-2-2. DOI URL
[12]	Engler J O, Abson D J, Feller R, et al. 2018. A social-ecological typology of rangelands based on rainfall variability and farming type. Journal of Arid Environments, 148: 65-73. DOI URL
[13]	Feng X. 2019. Adaptive study on the herdsmen's production decision-making behavior to grassland eco-protection subsidy and incentive policy. Diss., Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. (in Chinese)
[14]	Gang C C, Gao X R, Peng S Z, et al. 2019. Satellite observations of the recovery of forests and grasslands in Western China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 124(7): 1905-1922.
[15]	Gao L F. 2012. Study on the pastoralists' specialization cooperation participating in the rangeland conservation in Inner Mongolia. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[16]	Guo Y W. 2015. Study on the effect evaluation and its countermeasures of reward-compensation policy of grassland ecological protection in Xinjiang. Diss., Urumqi, China: Xinjiang Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[17]	Guo Z G, Liang T G, Zhang Z H. 2003. Classification management for grassland in Gansu Province, China. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 46(2): 123-131. DOI URL
[18]	Hao T. 2016. Inner Mongolia grassland ecological protection subsidy incentive effects evaluation-The Ewenke District as an example. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[19]	Hong Y Y. 2016. Analysis of spatial-temporal changes of vegetation NDVI in border areas of China-Mongolia. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Normal University. (in Chinese)
[20]	Hou X Y, Li X L, Gao X L. 2019. The process and future trend of grassland management in China. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 40(7): 1-10. (in Chinese)
[21]	Hu Y N, Cui X, Meng B P, et al. 2015. Spectral characteristics analysis of typical poisonous weeds in Gannan alpine meadow. Pratacultural Science, 32(2): 160-167. (in Chinese)
[22]	Hu Y N, Huang J K, Hou L L. 2019. Impacts of the grassland ecological compensation policy on household livestock production in China: An empirical study in Inner Mongolia. Ecological Economics, 161: 248-256. DOI URL
[23]	Hu Z T. 2016. China grassland eco-compensation mechanism: Empirical research in Inner Mongolia and Gansu. Diss., Beijing, China: China Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[24]	Huang A Q. 2015. Evaluation of the ecological effects of grassland ecological subsidy incentives policy in Northwest of Sichuan. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
[25]	Jamsranjav C, Fernández-Giménez M E, Reid R S, et al. 2019. Opportunities to integrate herders' indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: An example from Mongolia. Ecological Applications, 29(5): e01899. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1899. DOI
[26]	Li J. 2018. The implementary effect analysis of Sonid Left Banner's Grassland Ecological Award and Subsidy Policy. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agriculture University. (in Chinese)
[27]	Li L Q, Ma Y S, Li S X, et al. 2017. Effects of rest-grazing in the regreen-up period on moderately degraded steppification meadow of Qilian Mountain. Pratacultural Science, 34(10): 2016-2023. (in Chinese)
[28]	Li M J, Li Z H, Bao Y J, et al. 2016a. The study on grassland carrying capacity and regulatory approaches of livestock-feeds balance in Hulunbuir Grassland. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 38(2): 72-78. (in Chinese)
[29]	Li P, Bennett J. 2019. Understanding herders' stocking rate decisions in response to policy initiatives. Science of the Total Environment, 672: 141-149. DOI URL
[30]	Li P, Sun X L, Zhang J L, et al. 2017. Problems and suggestions on the grassland eco-compensation policy. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 39(1): 1-6. (in Chinese)
[31]	Li Q F. 2011a. Series of studies on balance control between animal demanding and feed availability (3)-Discussions and comments on the currently practiced animal-feed balance control system. Pratacultural Science, 28(12): 2190-2194. (in Chinese)
[32]	Li Q F. 2011b. Series studies of animal demanding-feed availability balance control (2)-Evaluation on current method of animal carrying capacity calculation. Pratacultural Science, 28(11): 2042-2045. (in Chinese)
[33]	Li W J, Li Y B, Gongbuzeren. 2016b. Rangeland degradation control in China: A policy review. In: Behnke R H, Mortimore M (eds.). The end of desertification? Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer: 491-511.
[34]	Li Y B, Li W J. 2012. Why ‘Balance of Forage and Livestock' system failed to reach sustainable grassland utilization. China Agricultural University Journal of Social Sciences Edition, 29(1): 124-131. (in Chinese)
[35]	Liu J B, Xie J C, Han J C, et al. 2020. Visible and near-infrared spectroscopy with chemometrics are able to predict soil physical and chemical properties. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 20(7): 2749-2760. DOI URL
[36]	Liu X J, Zhao J, Du Z Q, et al. 2018. Net primary production pattern of grassland in China and its relationship with hydrothermal factors during 1993-2015. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 38(1): 299-305. (in Chinese)
[37]	Liu X Y, Liang T G, Guo Z G, et al. 2014. A rangeland management pattern based on functional classification in the northern Tibetan Region of China. Land Degradation & Development, 25(2): 193-201. DOI URL
[38]	Ministry of Agriculture of China. China grassland monitoring report. Beijing, China: Ministry of Agriculture of China. (in Chinese)
[39]	Qi Y J. 2017. Study on the impact of grassland eco-compensation standard on compensation efficiency: A case study on Maqu County. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
[40]	Qi Y L, Wang Y K, An T. 2018. Evaluation on implementation effect of the award-allowance payment policy for natural grassland conservation in Golmud city of Qinghai province. Qinghai Prataculture, 27(4): 39-42. (in Chinese)
[41]	Qin L, Song X, Feng X. 2019. Forage-livestock dynamic balance of pasturing area based on rotational grazing theory in northern slope of Qilian Mountains. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 35(11): 256-264. (in Chinese)
[42]	Seybold C A, Ferguson R, Wysocki D, et al. 2019. Application of mid-infrared spectroscopy in soil survey. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83(6): 1746-1759. DOI
[43]	Shallner J W, Ganguli A C, Stovall M S, et al. 2020. Measuring land potential and human impacts in rangelands. In: Goldstein M I, DellaSala D A (eds.). Encyclopedia of the World's Biomes. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 99-106.
[44]	Shen H H, Zhu Y K, Zhao X, et al. 2016. Analysis of current grassland resources in China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 61(2): 139-154. (in Chinese)
[45]	Shi W L. 2017. Xinjiang grassland ecological protection award policy implementation effect evaluation. Tianjin Agricultural Sciences, 23(6): 64-67. (in Chinese)
[46]	Shi Y, Ma Y L, Ma W H, et al. 2013. Large scale patterns of forage yield and quality across Chinese grasslands. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(10): 1187-1199. DOI URL
[47]	Sullivan S, Rohde R. 2002. On non-equilibrium in arid and semi-arid grazing systems. Journal of Biogeography, 29(12): 1595-1618. DOI URL
[48]	Sun Y, Yi S H, Hou F J. 2018. Unmanned aerial vehicle methods makes species composition monitoring easier in grasslands. Ecological Indicators, 95: 825-830. DOI URL
[49]	Thulin S, Hill M J, Held A, et al. 2014. Predicting levels of crude protein, digestibility, lignin and cellulose in temperate pastures using hyperspectral image data. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5(7): 997-1019. DOI URL
[50]	Wang D Y. 2018. Benefit evaluation of grassland ecological protection subsidy and reward policy in Xilingol. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agriculture University. (in Chinese)
[51]	Wang J T, Wang Z L, Lin L B, et al. 2016. Problems and countermeasures in the implementation of grassland ecologic grant-premium mechanism based on investigation of household in Xilihot. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 38(2): 1-12. (in Chinese)
[52]	Wang X Y. 2005. Management absence-A case study of the management of a semi-farm semi-pasturing area. Journal of Huazhong Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 44: 19-28. (in Chinese)
[53]	Wang Y. 2019. Evaluation of land resources carrying capacity of Xilin Gol grassland based on grass storage balance. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Normal University. (in Chinese)
[54]	Wei H, Zhao L. 2017. The willingness of herdsmen participating in community-based grassland management and its influential factors in west China: A case study from Maqu. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 54(6): 106-110. (in Chinese)
[55]	Wei Q, Hou X Y. 2015. Reflections on establishing a long-term mechanism of grassland ecological compensation in China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 48(18): 3719-3726. (in Chinese)
[56]	Wei S. 2006. Study on effect and problem of implementing ‘Returning Grazing-Growing' project in Inner Mongolia. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[57]	Wu J, Zhang Q, Li A, et al. 2015. Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: Patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 30(9): 1579-1598. DOI URL
[58]	Wu Y. 2019. Evaluation on the implementation effect of Grassland Ecological Protection Subsidy and Reward Policy in the Yellow River source area. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
[59]	Xu M Y. 2014. A review of grassland carrying capacity: Perspective and dilemma for research in China on ‘forage-livestock balance'. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 23(5): 321-329. (in Chinese)
[60]	Xu M Y, Gao L J, Li Y Q. 2014. A review of grassland carrying capacity (Ⅱ): Parameters and calculation methods. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 23(4): 311-321. (in Chinese)
[61]	Yang C, Meng Z X, Yang X D. 2016. Livestock production and pastoralists' income in pastoral and semi-pastoral area under Grassland Ecological Protection Award and subsidy policy. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 32(8): 8-12. (in Chinese)
[62]	Yang L, Hou X. 2005. Research on the “determine livestock carrying capacity according to grass” theory. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 21(3): 346-349. (in Chinese)
[63]	Yang S X. 2017. Temporal and spatial dynamics of alpine grassland biomass and grassland livestock balance and its influential factors in the Three River Headwaters Region. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
[64]	Yang Y, Deng X Z, Bai Y P, et al. 2017. Grassland dynamics and response to management policies in China's typical steppe from 2000 to 2015. Resources Science, 39(7): 1272-1280. (in Chinese) DOI
[65]	Yin X Q. 2017. Implementation performance and suggestions of grassland eco-compensation policies: Based on Urat Back Banner, Inner Mongolia. Ecological Economy, 33(3): 39-45.
[66]	Yin Y, Hou Y L, Langford C, et al. 2019. Herder stocking rate and household income under the Grassland Ecological Protection Award Policy in Northern China. Land Use Policy, 82: 120-129. DOI URL
[67]	Zhang H P, Xiao R R, Luo Y Y. 2018. The effects of pasture ecological reward and compensation on farmers' income-Evaluation of policy effect of the new round of pasture ecological reward and compensation. Finance Research, 12: 72-83. (in Chinese)
[68]	Zhang J, Brown C, Qiao G H, et al. 2019. Effect of eco-compensation schemes on household income structures and herder satisfaction: Lessons from the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia. Ecological Economics, 159(C): 46-53.
[69]	Zhao T. 2019. The difference of grassland ecological compensation policy: Implementation and response-Taking Alashan League and Xilingol League as examples. Diss., Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[70]	Zhou J, Maimaiti Z, Pei Y, et al. 2019. Analysis of herdsmen's willingness to accept the compensation standard of grassland-livestock balance: Based on a survey of 223 herdsmen in Xinjiang. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 33(10): 79-84. (in Chinese)