我国退耕还林政策分析及其调整思路

退耕还林工程实施6年来,在生态环境的改善和增加农民收入方面取得了显著的成绩。但是自1999年以来我国粮食产量连年走低,退耕还林政策实施的环境发生了变化。同时,退耕还林政策本身也突显出许多问题,退耕还林工程各利益主体的利益也没有得到保障。因此,对退耕还林工程的目标、退耕还林工程的运作模式、退耕还林工程实施的方式等方面要进行调整,还要充分完善退耕还林后续产业发展的相关政策。     

四川省什邡市退耕还林工程的农民满意度研究

以农民的满意度为切入点,尝试从农民的角度出发较为系统的研究退耕还林工程的实施情况与效果,具有重要的理论研究价值与实践参考价值,有针对性地进行改正与完善。从而有利于巩固退耕还林成果,保证工程的持续实施,为后续政策提供可靠的依据,也为新一轮退耕还林工程的实施提供经验与借鉴。     

关于对退耕还林粮食补助资金实行挂账问题的思考

实施退耕还林、再造秀美山川是党中央、国务院站在可持续发展的战略高度做出的重大决策。退耕还林政策的贯彻落实,对于调整农业产业结构,改善生态环境,增加农民收入,促进农村经济持续稳定发展具有十分重要的意义。自2000年退耕还林工程开始实施以来,中央财政已通过我行累计下拨退耕还林粮食补助资金150.18     

退耕还林经济影响再分析

本文利用2003年调查和2005年跟踪调查数据，对退耕还林工程在陕西、甘肃和四川三省的实施过程及其对农民收入的影响进行了分析，并与早期的评估结果进行了对比。结论是，退耕还林工程在实施方面有一定改善，但工程的经济效果与早期的评估结论相近，即在就业结构调整、农业生产结构调整和农民收入增长方面没有显著效果。因此，退耕还林工程的经济可持续性不容乐观。今后政策改进的方向是，降低退耕还林工程的规模和速度，改善工程的质量，及早出台有利于延续工程寿命的后续政策。     

退耕还林工程对农户收入增长和收入分配影响的测度与分析——基于长期跟踪大农户样本数据

为恢复退化生态系统,20世纪末中国政府启动了退耕还林工程。提高农户收入是退耕还林工程两个核心目标之一,退耕还林工程与我国深度贫困发生地区高度重叠。党的十八大以来,精准扶贫上升到国家战略层面,实施退耕还林工程是否提高农户收入和农村扶贫具有积极作用引起中国政府和学界高度关注。文章利用6省区15市县72个乡镇216个行政村的952个样本农户1995-2016年的连续跟踪调研平衡面板数据和收入决定方程,估计了退耕还林工程对样本农户收入增长与收入不平等的影响;在此基础上,基于收入增长和收入不平等路径,测度了退耕还林工程对农村扶贫的影响。经验性结果表明:(1)实施退耕还林工程促进样本农户以土地为基础的收入增长了10.80%,对样本农户非农收入的影响不显著。(2)实施退耕还林工程拉大了样本农户的收入不平等,2003-2016年,退耕还林工程对基尼系数的贡献率保持在1.60%～2.80%之间。(3)在样本区域,退耕还林工程产生了良好的扶贫效果,1999-2016年退耕还林工程对农村减贫的贡献率维持在0.12%～1.67%之间。基于本研究得出的结论,政府部门应调整退耕还林工程政策,需要进一步体现其在农户增收和农村扶贫方面发挥的积极作用。需谨慎调整退耕还林工程补助政策,加大对经济林等退耕还林工程后续产业的扶持,强化对参与退耕还林工程农户生产要素配置优化的帮助和引导。同时,需要关注由实施退耕还林工程所引发的农户收入差距拉大问题,通过适度向低收入和贫困群体的政策倾斜,实现退耕还林工程区生态改善、农户收入增长、收入差距缩小和脱贫致富的共赢。     

退耕还林对西部地区农户收入的影响分析

本文基于陕南地区291个农户的调研数据,采用双重差分模型定量评估退耕还林工程实施对当地农户收入的影响,以期为退耕还林工程实施有效性和可持续性评估提供重要依据。研究认为户主身体健康水平越好、受教育程度越高、参加过农技培训、农户家庭所在位置离城镇越近等能够显著提升农户家庭收入。退耕还林工程的持续推进及配套政策措施的出台,对增加农民收入、促进非农就业和改善农民生计都产生了较为显著的正效应。最后提出了退耕还林背景下进一步提高农户家庭收入的政策建议。     

退耕还林工程对农业产业结构和人口流动的影响研究

后退耕时期对退耕还林工程实施效果提出了新的要求。文章基于1999~2014年省域面板数据,理论和实证分析了退耕还林工程对农业产业结构和人口流动的影响。研究表明:空间上单位面积退耕还林成本差异明显,西部最高,时期上单位成本呈下降趋势;退耕还林工程促进农业产业结构中粮经比扩大,对农业产值存在挤出效应,对牧业存在溢出效应,但影响效应较低;退耕还林工程倒逼农村剩余劳动力转移,提高城镇化率。对后退耕时期提出政策建议:保证项目的可持续性,强化标准的浮动性;加强政策宣传,注重自愿公平;引导产业调整和效益提升,促进农民再就业和持续增收;落实退耕林地产权保证,完善退耕对象社会保障。     

退耕还林政策博弈分析——基于公共产品提供视角

转型时期,退耕还林政策是我国重要的公共政策,对其他公共政策实施具有较大借鉴意义。本文立足公共产品外部性,运用博弈论对退耕还林政策进行了分析,结论表明：对提供公共产品的退耕还林户给予永久性补偿是政策可持续发展的必然选择,并提出中央对地方政府追加转移支付,改变博弈方式的必要性;指出实施差别化补偿和监督,以及完善林权和配套措施有利于减低政策实施成本和提高效果;同时提出建立动态评价管理退耕还林指标体系,增强政策安排的可操作性的必要性。     

河北省退耕还林工程政策思考

采用农户抽样调查方法,对河北省张家口、承德两市5县退耕还林实施情况与所取得的成效作概述与分析。找出影响退耕还林工程实施中存在政策执行不到位、补偿收益不确定性、退耕户开辟新的增收能力弱等问题是后期成果巩固的关键困素。据此,相应提出了工程政策建议。包括:适度控制退耕还林规模,工程实施应赋予农户自由选择权,调整完善工程相关制度,扶持后续产业发展等。     

新一轮退耕还林优先区选择研究:一个文献综述

任何一项公共政策的实施都应以政策收益大于政策成本为前提,退耕还林工程实施的成本有效性是衡量工程是否成功的重要指标之一。通过对国内外退耕还林工程相关文献的研究,阐述了退耕还林工程在区域和农户选择中应关注相关问题的研究现状,分析了已有研究的贡献与不足,进一步展望了该研究领域未来发展趋势。     

新一轮集体林改对不同类型农户林业生产投入的影响研究

基于连续跟踪调研获得的9省区18县市1497个样本农户8年的长期平衡面板数据,采用扩展生产函数,分析了集体林产权制度改革主体改革及其配套改革对不同类型农户林业生产投入的影响。结果表明:⑴实施集体林产权制度改革主体改革增加农业兼业户、非农兼业户和非农户单位面积林业劳动力和生产费用投入,但降低了纯农户的林业投入;⑵森林保险对纯农户单位面积林业劳动力和生产费用投入的影响比农业兼业户、非农兼业户和非农户积极;⑶林权抵押贷款对农业兼业户、非农兼业户和非农户林业投入的影响优于纯农户。因此,政策在深入推进的过程中,需因地制宜、因户制宜,最大限度地考虑不同类型农户的利益。     

Forests to fields. Restoring tropical lands to agriculture

In discussing land use in tropical forest regions, there is an emphasis on the following topics: the need for the expansion of cropping areas, the precedent for use of the tropical forest for cropping based on past use patterns, the pressure from conservationists against cropping, debunking the mythology that forests are "natural" and refuting the claims that forest clearance is not reversible, the archeological evidence of past forest use for agricultural purposes, abandonment of tropical land to forest, and rotation of forest and field. The assumption is that the way to stop food importation is to increase crop production in the tropics. Crop production can be increased through 1) land intensification or clearing new land, 2) output per unit of land increases, or 3) reallocation to agriculture land previously cleared and overgrown with tropical forest. "Temporary" reuse of land, which reverted back to tropical forest, is recommended. This reuse would ease population pressure, and benefit bioconservation, while populations stabilize and further progress is made in international plant breeding. The land would eventually be returned to a forest state. Conservation of tropical forest areas should be accomplished, after an assessment has been made of its former uses. Primary forests need to identified and conversion to farming ceased. Research needs to be directed to understanding the process of past forest regeneration, and to devising cropping systems with longterm viability. The green revolution is unsuitable for traditional cropping systems, is contrary to demands of international funding agencies for sustainability, and is not affordable by most poor farmers. Only .48 million sq. km of closed forest loss was in tropical rainforests; 6.53 million sq. km was lost from temperate forests cleared for intensive small-scale peasant farming. The use of tropical forest land for farming has some benefits; crops in the wetter tropics are perennial, which would "reduce seasonal soil tillage, increase nutrient cycling, and remove a lower proportion of biomass." Water availability would not be a problem. Low soil nutrient levels could be increased with cutting and burning or fertilizer. The key is proper and careful management, particularly under intensive cropping systems such as rice production or extensive long fallow shifting cultivation.     

Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S.: Implications for policy design and outreach

One-third of the forestland in the U.S. is owned by 10.4 million family forest owners. Their collective decisions have a great impact on the sustainability of forest landscape across the country. Public policies and programs for encouraging landowners to properly manage their land include cost-share, forest certification, and conservation easements. However, to date, less than 6% of the family forest owners have participated in a cost-share program, less than 1% have certified their land, and less than 2% have an easement. By analyzing data from USDA Forest Service's National Woodland Owner Survey, we examined the characteristics of family forest owners who had participated in these programs and identified strategies to capitalize on these landowner characteristics to improve current programs and attract a wider range of participants. We found that family forest owners with larger land holdings were more likely to participate in all three types of programs. Obtaining forest management information or advice was important for program participation; however, the effects differed depending on the types of programs and the sources of information. Income was not significant in predicting participation in cost-share programs, implying family forest owners from lower-income strata were not more likely to use cost-share program. The results also suggest the importance of targeting the right audience when promoting forest certification programs, namely those who are participants of cost-share programs, own forestland for reasons other than farming or ranching, and plan to harvest sawlogs or pulpwood in the future. Age was not significant in any of the empirical models. This result is particularly intriguing in the context of conservation easement, considering recent discussions about the high cost of dying unprepared and the potential for promoting conservation easement as part of estate planning among older family forest owners. Finally, few variables were significant in the model predicting landowner decision about donating or selling an easement, suggesting the easement decision is very different from cost-share and forest certification decisions and further efforts are needed to understand the dynamics of this increasingly popular conservation policy tool. In summary, this study provides a better understanding of the relationship between program participation and the demographics, attitudes and behaviors of family forest owners. This understanding contributes to the development of outreach strategies for improving landowner interest in forest conservation programs.     

Agricultural Sustainability and Open-Field Farming in England,c.1650–1830

Recent debates about modern farming have come to be couched in the terminology of sustainable agriculture, a concept originally developed in respect of international post-World War Two farming, and especially in developing countries. In this paper we ask whether there is a historical dimension to the sustainability question and, in particular, whether by recasting the approach to the long-term development of agriculture it is possible to develop a new view of the manner in which farming has changed through time. We look at open-field farming where it dominated the agriculture of 17th and 18th century England. We show how collective community action had developed over many centuries to protect scarce land resources, and how pressures upon these resources through changing economic and demographic conditions inspired communities to develop and promote sustainable methods of husbandry and management. We demonstrate this world of sustainability through its maintenance of the ecological integrity of the land resource, the economic climate in which it operated, and the equitable ownership and decision-making processes that kept it in place. We also show that eventually the ecological integrity was put under mounting economic pressure arising from demographic forces, and also the external pressures arising from war. In particular we show how such pressures compromised the equitable ownership and access to land resources.     

The land cost of agrarian sustainability. An assessment

Improving the sustainability of farms often incurs additional costs for farmers. These costs come from allocating land to the maintenance of the ecological processes (energy and material flows, natural population regulation) required for the agroecosystem to function. Since these costs are not recovered on the markets, farmers see a fall in profits, the financial viability of their farms is compromised, and they suffer the consequences of the environmental services they are providing. All this makes it essential to implement government policies designed to compensate farmers for their efforts. The issue of how to assess sustainability has generated widespread debate within ecological economics, specifically as to whether it is possible to place a monetary value on it and if so, how this should be done. In a previous article we showed that agrarian sustainability involves a land cost, therefore this cost can be translated into monetary values. The purpose of this study is to develop this concept in practical terms by applying it to organic farming. We calculated the land cost of agrarian sustainability (LACAS) in order to compare organic versus conventional management in olive farming, as this crop is grown extensively in Spain and other Mediterranean countries. The results show that the agro-environmental subsidy is not enough to encourage olive growers to make the conversion from conventional to organic methods, because the land cost of sustainability is not adequately offset. They also show that improving agroecosystems can allow the land to take on more functions without increasing the land cost. In our case, encouraging the multifunctionality of the land has permitted a reduction in this cost. The LACAS could be a useful tool, not only for drawing up government policies designed to support organic farming, but also for improving the sustainability of the agrarian sector.     

Forest cover,development, and sustainability in Costa Rica: Can one policy fit all?

Forest Transition Theory offers the hope that global economic development can continue in tandem with forest recovery. Costa Rica has been lauded for its successful forest transition—once the fastest deforesting country in Central America, forests began to regrow in the 1980s and have had a steady trajectory of recovery since. This forest regrowth can be linked temporally to Costa Rican policies that have promoted tourism and discouraged small-scale agriculture. We use a case study from the Bellbird Biological Corridor (Corredor Biológico Pájaro Campana; CBPC), Costa Rica, combining remote sensing analysis with interviews and ethnography, to unravel the relationship between national policy, forest regrowth, and social-ecological sustainability. The forest cover change analysis between 1986 and 2014 indicates that, at the parcel-level, national policy has served to promote farm abandonment in favor of tourism and that this change has been critical to forest regrowth. However, these changes have occurred within a development framework that has created new social-ecological challenges that threaten future forest and economic sustainability. Examining the parcel-level impacts of the driving forces of landscape change highlights that forest cover is an insufficient proxy for conservation success, and conservation policy focused primarily on forest recovery may create new sustainability challenges.     

退耕还林后期农户复耕意愿选择研究分析——以甘肃省安定区为例

退耕还林工程的直接作用对象是农户,退耕还林后期,退耕农户是否会保持已有的退耕规模,农户的参与积极性是否会改变,都将对退耕还林的可持续性产生一定影响。通过建立logistic回归模型,以安定区样本农户调查数据为基础,对退耕还林第一轮补助后期的农户复耕意愿选择进行分析。结果显示,影响农户复耕的因素主要以农户家庭收入和对退耕还林政策的满意度为主。     

农户退耕还林可持续性路径分析——以全国退耕还林示范县(吴起县)为例

基于吴起农户调查面板数据,采用统计描述法和结构方程分别对退耕农户复耕的可能性进行甄别,并分析了农户退耕还林持续性传导路径。结果表明:不同复耕意愿农户非农化程度存在显著差异;农户非农化程度与退耕还林可持性之间显著相关,即农户非农化程度越高,农户复耕可能性越低;且以补助作为激励手段作用依然存在,但影响不如非农化程度对退耕还林可持续性影响大。因此,为保证退耕还林工程可持续性,一方面应为农户创造更多非农就业机会,消除农户难以向非农产业转移的障碍;另一方面应实行有差别的补助标准,提高大规模退耕且主要从事农地经营农户的退耕还林补助标准。     

基于生态足迹模型的河南省农业生态承载力动态评价

[目的]河南省是农业大国,研究其农业生态承载力可持续性不仅对河南省乃至全国都有重要意义。[方法]将生态足迹模型应用于农业领域生态可持续发展分析,将河南省农业生物生产性土地面积划分为耕地、林地、草地、水域用地,分别计算农产品、林产品、水产品及畜牧产品人均生态足迹及承载力。[结果]河南省人均耕地生态足迹由2007年的1.491hm2/人上升至2016年的2.164hm2/人,增长率45.10%,而人均耕地承载力却未出现同步增长,生态赤字不断加大。(2)2007年河南省草地人均生态足迹为0.101hm2/人,2016年上升至0.132hm2/人,增长率3.1%;而人均草地承载力却出现下降,下降率达26.2%,处于不可持续发展状态。(3)2007—2016年河南省水域人均生态足迹和人均水域承载力均未有太大变化。相比于耕地、林地和草地,其水域的供求差距最大。降低水域供求矛盾,提高水域及水产品利用效率是关键。(4)在农、林、牧、渔业中,河南省林地的人均生态足迹是唯一呈下降趋势的产业,2007年人均林地生态足迹为0.052hm2/人,2016年下降为0.046hm2/人,下降比率为11.54%;林地的人均生态承载力也是在4个产业中唯一出现增长的产业,上升比率为27.90%,但仍处于不可持续状态。[结论]2011—2016年河南省农业生态承载力严重不足,耕地保护、草地的确权及保护、提高水域及水产品利用效率、继续退耕还林是关键。     

退耕还林与粮食安全的博弈

我国退耕还林的面积近几年波动幅度很大,这与我国的粮食安全问题有关。有人认为要保证我国的粮食安全就应减缓退耕还林的步伐。文章认为,退耕还林不是粮食减少的主要原因,其主要原因是由于经济发展和种植结构调整导致的耕地面积减少,以及粮食单产的减少。从一定角度来看,退耕还林不仅不会危机粮食安全,而且还会提高粮食安全的系数,只要在搞好退耕还林工作的同时,做好其他方面的工作,退耕还林不会对我国粮食安全造成影响。