China's New Forest Policy

In response to the ecological failure of recent forest policies, China has introduced a new policy called the Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP), which Zhang et al . discuss in their Policy Forum “China's forest policy for the 21st century” ( Science 's Compass, 23 June, p. [2135][1]). The NFCP focuses on natural forests and affects more than two-thirds of the land area of China; therefore, its success is critical not only to China's forestry and economy, but also to Chinese culture and the global environment. Although the NFCP may temporarily mitigate ecological degradations in proposed areas, there appear to be some flaws in this new policy. First, the reform of land ownership is absent from the NFCP. Currently, the Chinese government owns most of the land and authorizes its use by the local people. This separation of land ownership and use has created the “tragedy of the commons” in China's recent forestry history ([1][2]). If this problem is not addressed, the current efforts and investments by the central government to save the nation's natural forests will inevitably induce the next disaster when the reforested areas produce economic benefits in a few decades. Second, the decision-making process and implementation of the NFCP lacks democratic support from the people in the affected areas ([2][3]). The new policy has a “broad brush” approach that does not take into consideration the heterogeneity of nature, society, economy, and culture. Education and communication with the local people should be a top priority of the NFCP. Third, the new policy does not use the best scientific approach to forest management; namely, ecosystem management, which emphasizes sustainability, biodiversity, ecosystem functionality and integrity, and human interaction with the ecosystem. The NFCP focuses more on protection (natural restoration) than on management; the concept of ecosystem management is never mentioned. Local knowledge is also important in managing forest ecosystems, but is neglected in the new policy. Finally, the NFCP does not take into account the long-term social and cultural impacts, but is based solely on ecological and economic considerations. Relocating forest dwellers in the remote areas may provoke social conflicts and increase the loss of cultural diversity because most people living in the remote forest areas are minorities. Geographic separation has preserved their cultures for thousands of years, and moving them out of the forests to urban areas will result in cultural assimilation. These issues must be addressed before the NFCP can have relevance to other countries, particularly developing countries. 1. [↵][4]1. S. D. Richardson , Forest and Forestry in China Island Press, Washington, DC, (1990). 2. [↵][5]1. P. Zhang, 2. X. Zhou, 3. F. Wang , Introduction to Natural Forest Conservation Program China's Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 388 (1999) in Chinese. # Response {#article-title-2} We agree with the importance of the four factors that Xu, Qi, and Gong discuss, but we take a broader view than they present of China's forestry and the new policy. Xu and colleagues draw attention away from the primary targets the NFCP is intended to address. In the last 20 years, excessive logging and poor implementation of the old forest policy have led to a dire situation ([1][2]), illustrated by a study site located outside of Changbai Mountain Reserve, Jilin Province, in northeast China. Here the cutting fields constantly exceeded the legally allowed 5-hectare limit, the subsequent cuttings were only a few years apart, and the remaining forests were so thin that cleared fields connected and dominated the landscape matrix. The result was fragmentation that occurred at unprecedented rates. ![Figure][6] Landsat Thematic Mapper images of a 22- by 9-kilometer site in Jilin Province show progressive clear-cuttings in leaflet patterns, with an average cutting area of 15 hectares (orange represents cutting fields) ([3][7]). Credit: G. SHAO AND G. ZHAO. It has been recognized that a strong political and economic commitments from the top levels of government are needed to rapidly reverse deforestation such as that seen in Jilin Province and ensure an improvement in ecological conditions ([2][3]). NFCP is the first such program, and the value and substance of the NFCP would be lost if its role in protecting natural forests, the core component in China's forestry, were diminished. Regarding the issues raised by Xu et al ., we disagree that the separation of land ownership and use will induce another disaster. Natural forests can be effectively protected from fragmentation if land ownership is separated from use. Because more than 80% of natural forests is owned by the government ([1][2]), turning over ownership to local foresters would likely lead to partial removal of natural forests because of the foresters' economic difficulties and lack of recognition of ecological values of the forests. Lessons learned in the past drove the government to search for a better approach for redistributing land tenure. The mandatory conversion and share in private ownership programs outlined in the NFCP were determined to be the most practical measures to combat deforestation while encompassing the land ownership issue. Xu et al . contend that there is little democratic support for the NFCP from the people in the affected areas; however, we see the opposite. Development of the NFCP started in 1996 with the active involvement of forestry professionals, scholars, and local communities. It took 2 years for the central government to formulate the new forest policy. Forestry units from almost all provinces applied to participate in the NFCP. During implementation, the technical training and education program we discussed in our Policy Forum has been offering opportunities to hundreds and thousands of forestry professionals, nonprofessionals, and farmers to acquire government support and guidance and to negotiate with the policy practitioners. Regarding the criticism that the NFCP does not incorporate current forest management approaches, ecosystem management and biodiversity principles have indeed been incorporated into classifying forest regions, prioritizing NFCP zones, and developing the new policy since it began. Only when the remaining natural forests are successfully protected can ecosystem management become practically meaningful. The central government has assigned one of the three major research sites we mentioned, Baihe Forestry Bureau in Jilin province, as a test site where forest cutting and regeneration for maintaining ecosystem sustainability are being studied. Certainly, as the policy is implemented and the trend in deforestation reversed, more sophisticated practices of ecosystem management will be specified for the next stage. And as for the social and cultural impacts of relocating forest dwellers, extensive forest exploitation did not occur until the 1950s, when the government started to move thousands of people to forested areas. The native culture in forested areas has been severely affected along with forest. Relocating foresters who are non-natives is the only way to control human populations in forested areas and restore native culture and biodiversity. Educational and financial support provided by the government should adequately minimize the chances of major social conflicts during resettlement operation. 1. [↵][8]1. P. Zhang, 2. X. Zhou, 3. F. Wang , Introduction to Natural Forest Conservation Program China's Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 388 (1999) (in Chinese). 2. See information available at . 3. G. Shao and G. Zhao, in preparation. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.288.5474.2135 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [6]: pending:yes [7]: #ref-3 [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 1 in text