TY - JOUR
T1 - China's new rural “separating three property rights” land reform results in grassland degradation
T2 - Evidence from Inner Mongolia
AU - Li, Ang
AU - Wu, Jianguo
AU - Zhang, Xueyao
AU - Xue, Jianguo
AU - Liu, Zhifeng
AU - Han, Xingguo
AU - Huang, Jianhui
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Guoxiang Niu, Liang Zhang, Hasimuqier, Jiao Su, and Saqirilatu for their help with the field survey and the Mongolian translation. We also thank our anonymous reviewers and editor for their valuable comments, which helped improve the quality of our paper. This work was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology through the National Basic Research Program of China (grant numbers 2014CB954303 and 2016YFC0500706 ), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 31400408 ), and the State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology .
Funding Information:
The grassland lessors receive the same PES subsidies as the family managers, while the tenants receive no subsidy. All members of cooperatives receive the basic PES policy subsidies and can also obtain other subsidies from competitive government projects. For example, a cooperative obtained funding from a national livestock and poultry genetic resources protection project supported by the Ministry of Agriculture. This cooperative obtained 400,000 yuan from the project merely by raising 280 pure native male sheep. Our survey indicated that applying for projects and obtaining extra subsidies depends on the social networks and personal abilities of the cooperatives’ chiefs. Of course, the cooperative chiefs usually receive the lion’s share of these extra subsidies. Compared to these knowledgeable chiefs, ordinary herders and tenants are less likely to know how to apply for and implement these competitive projects.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - China is currently implementing the “separating three property rights” (STPR) reform to consolidate rural land. This reform divides rural land property rights into three components: nontradable ownership, nontradable contractual rights and tradable land use rights. The STPR reform adopts the rental of grassland use rights, a market-oriented approach, as the main arrangement for grassland consolidation. However, this arrangement may undermine the cornerstones of grassland restoration, which are the security of grassland property and payments for ecosystem services (PES) policies. As an alternative to the market-oriented approach, cooperatives are also encouraged to consolidate grassland use rights. We used a natural experiment approach to systematically examine how two different land consolidation arrangements affected key grassland ecosystem services in Inner Mongolia. In rented grasslands, all ecosystem services except provisioning services degenerated severely. Traded grassland use rights were perceived as insecure, which led to predatory land use by tenants. In contrast, cooperative-managed grasslands showed no serious degradation in ecosystem services. However, these cooperatives limited their group size by chief kinship to avoid the free-rider problem; thus, they are unlikely to become a primary channel of grassland consolidation. Because PES policy subsidies are still allocated to grassland contractors rather than to tenants, these policies are irrelevant to the conservation of rented grasslands. Based on our analysis, we suggest several ways to improve this new rural land property reform to avoid a major wave of grassland degradation in China.
AB - China is currently implementing the “separating three property rights” (STPR) reform to consolidate rural land. This reform divides rural land property rights into three components: nontradable ownership, nontradable contractual rights and tradable land use rights. The STPR reform adopts the rental of grassland use rights, a market-oriented approach, as the main arrangement for grassland consolidation. However, this arrangement may undermine the cornerstones of grassland restoration, which are the security of grassland property and payments for ecosystem services (PES) policies. As an alternative to the market-oriented approach, cooperatives are also encouraged to consolidate grassland use rights. We used a natural experiment approach to systematically examine how two different land consolidation arrangements affected key grassland ecosystem services in Inner Mongolia. In rented grasslands, all ecosystem services except provisioning services degenerated severely. Traded grassland use rights were perceived as insecure, which led to predatory land use by tenants. In contrast, cooperative-managed grasslands showed no serious degradation in ecosystem services. However, these cooperatives limited their group size by chief kinship to avoid the free-rider problem; thus, they are unlikely to become a primary channel of grassland consolidation. Because PES policy subsidies are still allocated to grassland contractors rather than to tenants, these policies are irrelevant to the conservation of rented grasslands. Based on our analysis, we suggest several ways to improve this new rural land property reform to avoid a major wave of grassland degradation in China.
KW - Cooperative
KW - Ecosystem services
KW - Grassland degradation
KW - Grassland rental
KW - Payment for ecosystem services
KW - Rangeland ecology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85036627907&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85036627907&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.052
DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.052
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85036627907
SN - 0264-8377
VL - 71
SP - 170
EP - 182
JO - Land Use Policy
JF - Land Use Policy
ER -