4.5 Article

Forest harvesting restriction and forest restoration in China

Journal

FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Volume 129, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102516

Keywords

Logging quota scheme; Forest restoration and expansion; Ecological protection; tenure reform; system; GMM estimator

Funding

  1. National School of Development in Peking University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies have shown that while the logging quota scheme effectively halted deforestation and forest degradation in China from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, it has played a minimal role in promoting forest restoration and regrowth. The significant expansions in forest area and stock volume are primarily due to sustained efforts in forest protection/ conservation programs and tenure reforms.
The logging quota scheme was established in 1987 to control over-harvesting and promoting forest restoration in China, and it is expected to remain in place for many years to come. But the scheme has rarely been subject to careful empirical scrutiny. In this paper, we develop and estimate an empirical model to disentangle its potential effects on different dimensions of the forest condition, based on a panel dataset of 28 provinces over the period of 1989-2018. Our estimations show that while the logging quota scheme was effective in halting the country's deforestation and forest degradation from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, it has played a minimal role in promoting forest restoration and regrowth by inhibiting investment in forest management. The tremendous expansions in forest area and stock volume have been driven mostly by the sustained efforts of forest protection/ conservation programs and tenure reforms. We suggest the government to phase out the scheme, especially in regions with abundant commercial forests. To start off, policymakers should carry out various piloting and experimentation working with large forestry enterprises and farms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available