The Grain for Green Project

By Mihir Khanna

The Grain for Green Project (GGP) was a large-scale environmental restoration initiative started by the Chinese government in 1999. It aimed to restore China's landscapes by converting degraded farmland, hills into forests & grasslands by strategically planting trees and grasses. By incentivising farmers to participate, the project has transformed over 30 million hectares of land across 25 provinces in China. At the heart of the GGP is a simple yet powerful idea that by converting marginal & degraded land into thriving forest ecosystems, it is possible to reverse the consequences of deforestation that has occurred in China over the years, including damaged ecosystems, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Farmers were encouraged to transform their sloping lands through technical support, adopt practices stabilizing soils, regulating water flow, & providing vital habitats. This approach's environmental & social benefits are far-reaching, making the GGP a model for holistic land management that inspires similar initiatives worldwide (Dayne, 2017; Delang & Yuan, 2014).

Key initiatives

The first key initiative of the project included afforestation, leading to improved environmental maintenance & ecological diversity. The project worked closely with local communities to ensure the long-term sustainability of efforts, empowering residents to take ownership of land & participate in its transformation. Hence, the second key initiative was to support & incentivise the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices among farmers. This included techniques like no-till farming, cover cropping, crop rotation, and precision nutrient management (Yu et al., 2022). These practices help improve soil health and reduce the dependence on chemical fertilisers to grow crops. Farmers also received training & financial support to transition to more diverse, resilient cropping systems that are better adapted to local climatic conditions. The last critical initiative of the project was monitoring efforts. As a part of this, multidisciplinary teams of scientists & technicians worked to assess the environmental conditions of target regions, tailored restoration plans and tracked the progress over time. This included mapping land use changes, measuring carbon sequestration rates, monitoring biodiversity indicators, and evaluating the socioeconomic benefits to the locals (Lu et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2023).

Aim

The GGP, as mentioned earlier, was founded upon the key efforts of afforestation or reforestation, aimed towards reducing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and tackling climate change, improper land use activities, soil erosion & water-logging issues. The Chinese government recognised the need to act towards environment conservation and initially introduced the GGP in the Loess Plateau, a priority region “well-known for its severe soil erosion & water loss” (McVicar et al., 2007, as cited in Zhou et al., 2012). The project was expected to improve vegetation conditions & the overall ecological situation. Increase in forest cover also led to improved carbon sequestration (the practice of removing carbon from the atmosphere & storing it). This can be supported by the fact that the “contribution of carbon sinks from woodland to total carbon sinks was over 90% in China from 1999–2014” (Lu et al., 2020).

One of the important aims with a focus on social impact was that of poverty alleviation. To ensure that farmers' incomes are not affected by the conversion practices being carried out on degraded land, the government provided them with subsidies. The policies of the GGP were aimed towards ensuring the socioeconomic welfare of the farmers who were willing to take part. Participation in the program also created job opportunities & led to diversification of livelihood practices of the farmers (Liu & Wu, 2010; Xu et al., 2022).

Impact: ecological, economic and social

The impact of the GGP had three strands: ecological, economic & social. Ecologically, there was a substantial increase in forest cover in a very short period of time since the “coverage of forested land (both older forest & newly forested land) increased from 12.4% in 1995 to 37.7% in 2010” (Zhou et al., 2012). This led to a number of ecosystem services being provided as a result of the project, such as, “soil, water conservation, & microclimate regulation” (Lu et al., 2020), as well as more efficient carbon storage.

In the economic aspect, studies have found that the average household’s net income increased substantially after participation in the project since multiple income channels had been created, enabling more opportunities for gaining profit. They gained greater revenue from the subsidies than from their usual grain production on sloping land. This also meant reduced demand for labour for agricultural practices & instead shifting/ reallocating labour to off-farm activities (Liu & Wu, 2010). Therefore, the heavy reliance on the primary sector (agriculture) was reduced, & there was an evident shift in contributions by the tertiary sector, indicating how big a role the GGP played in overall economic growth and change. Socially, despite being well received by the farmers due to the wide array of economic incentives available, they were worried about their future since the subsidies were not guaranteed after eight years according to the policies of the project. Furthermore, income inequality was also a prevalent problem since those who received a low income from the GGP made up the majority of the participants, whereas the advantages were reaped by those constituting the minority (Duan et al., 2021).

Systems perspective

Sources of power

This project was driven by four main sources of power: central and local governments, international organisations & farmers. The central government of China provided financial backing and organisational aid, controlling a budget of over 350 Billion Yuan to manage the conversion of millions of hectares of farmland into forests. Local governments managed the project’s implementation at a local level, identifying suitable farmland & coordinating with farmers. International backing, including support from the World Bank, boosted the project, widening its scope. This aid strengthened China's ecological restoration efforts (Cao et al., 2020). Lastly, the farmers & local communities were also sources of power, although they were limited to engagement through feedback mechanisms provided by local governments etc.

Stakeholders: who benefited? And who was harmed?

The farmers, local communities & the environment were the key stakeholders of this project who benefited & harmed to a varying extent. The environment & biodiversity largely benefited because the GGP led to substantial environmental gains. The conversion of farmland into forests and grasslands helped reduce soil erosion on a large-scale. Reforestation complemented it by creating habitats for endangered species like the giant panda, which benefited from restored bamboo forests, resulting in an increase in species in biodiversity hotspots (Ye et al., 2003). Moreover, assistance was given to farmers & local communities who participated in the GGP to stabilize their incomes & encourage alternative livelihoods. For example, some farmers in Yunnan transitioned to eco-tourism, attracting visitors to restored landscapes, while others diversified into agritourism or sustainable forestry.

In addition, The Chinese government gained substantial political capital from the GGP, demonstrating its commitment to combating environmental degradation & establishing China as a leader in global environmental initiatives. The project also helped China meet several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including climate action & life on land, bolstering China's international image & securing support domestically (Delang & Yuan, 2014; Xu et al., 2022).

Lastly, NGOs & research institutions also benefited from the project. Organizations like the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) conducted studies on the GGP, producing research publications that helped in framing policy decisions & raising global environmental awareness. Moreover, research institutions such as Beijing Forestry University & the Chinese Academy of Sciences also analyzed the program's data (reforestation & ecosystem restoration) to help advance the understanding of the project & its impact (Yu et al., 2022).

However, it is also important to consider that some stakeholders, like small-scale farmers, & rural communities, were harmed as a result of the project. In districts like Guizhou, transitioning to new livelihoods turned out to be challenging for several farmers & local communities with some experiencing food shortage due to a decline in grain production (Duan et al., 2021). The change from conventional to newer farming methods led to socio-economic issues for some local communities of the subsequent displacement & finding alternative livelihoods in different sectors.

Furthermore, the GGP altered the economic structure of rural areas, leading to depopulation in places like Gansu. Younger generations moved to urban centers for work, leaving the aged behind, causing a decline in social services, cultural activities, & economic opportunities, making it difficult for several rural communities to remain viable. Overall, the local economy also suffered to a fair extent because the reduced agricultural production led to ripple effects in local markets. In provinces like Henan and Shandong, staple industries like grain farming saw a decline, causing price increases for staple foods like wheat & rice, affecting both consumers & traders (Zhiyong, n.d.).

Merits and limitations

The project’s strengths lie in its multifaceted approach, which can be seen through its merits. One of the project's main strengths is its holistic approach towards addressing both environmental & socio-economic concerns. It improves biodiversity, effectively combats soil erosion, and lowers desertification by converting marginal croplands into forests or grasslands. In addition, the project also offers financial incentives to farmers, including opportunities for employment, subsidies, & higher land productivity, which helps in promoting local economic development (Zhiyong, n.d.).

The GGP has proved to be beneficial from an economic perspective. It promotes sustainable agricultural practices & increases land production, enhancing economic stability & food security. It also creates income streams from ecosystem services & carbon sequestration, providing financial incentives for sustainable land management. The project has significant ecological implications. The restoration of forests contributes to regulating water cycles, lowering the possibility of floods & droughts, ensuring a consistent water supply for human use & agriculture (Delang & Yuan, 2014).

However, the project also has its limitations. One is the amount of time needed for ecological restoration to have noticeable effects. Reforestation projects can take years, if not decades, to fully develop, which delays the environmental benefits from being noticeable. Inadequate control & regulation protocols could also result in illegal harvesting or expansion on land that was reclaimed, hence jeopardizing the sustainability of the project. The connection of social, ecological, & economic themes brings further challenges. Finding a balance between conservation goals & the socioeconomic requirements of people living nearby might be challenging. Sometimes, demands for livelihoods & conservation clash, requiring careful discussion & involvement of stakeholders. In addition, unequal distribution of resources & shared benefits has the potential to lead to greater social inequality, which makes project execution & long-term sustainability extremely difficult (Zhiyong, n.d.).

Recommended changes

The GGP, though successful in its own right, requires certain improvements in its implementation to ensure long-term efficiency & achievement of the initial goals of this project: water and soil conservation, along with poverty alleviation (Zhiyong, n.d.). These improvements can be described with respect to different areas as follows:

Changes to the industrial sector: The land-use structure must be reworked. Avoiding growth in steeper regions with low yield & replacing such patterns with newer plants like fruit trees & medicinal plants would not only boost farmer incomes but also nurse the land back to its full potential. Farmland infrastructure must be upgraded, leaving land for farmers’ subsistence, & practices such as captive breeding & controlled grazing must be observed. Township enterprises, such as tourism & processing industries, must be developed in areas with required resources to diversify the economic portfolio and reduce farmers’ dependence on the land & its resources (Zhiyong, n.d.).

Reducing farmers’ reliance on the newly grown forests: The rural energy sector must also be developed in tandem with the environmental & economic sectors. Resources must be allocated to establishing fuelwood forests & renewable energy sources, like hydroelectricity plants. A rational energy consumption system with multiple energy sources feeding into one another should be created & an organizational structure for rural energy consumption needs to be completed (Zhiyong, n.d.).

Increasing ecological immigration: Developing small townships would help decrease pressure on the land in water & soil erosion areas. The GGP has highlighted the need for better land usage strategies. Although subsidies are provided to farmers, they are limited to a specific time frame of 5 years - after which cultivation on steep slopes resumes. Increasing the time period of these subsidies, as well as raising the amount by 50% would provide the farmers with more time to adjust to these changes, as well as more incentive to follow these practices. In addition to increased subsidies & development of small townships, vocational skill training, as well as creation of job opportunities must be offered to increase adaptability of the immigrants (Zhiyong, n.d.).

Encouraging local participation: Establishing review boards, with local representation would allow for better accommodation of interests of the indigenous people. They would be able to share their views, cultures & traditional knowledge, & inculcate the same in the new programs developed by the government. They would be provided with better representation along with an increase in accountability (Ye et al., 2003).

Ensuring sustainability & development: Continuous environmental assessments could be carried out to determine the soil stability metrics & biodiversity gains to observe improvements. These could be conducted periodically—around every two years. Introducing third-party oversight could also help with unbiased allocation of available resources (Cao et al., 2020).

References

References

Cao, Shixiong, et al. “Payoff of the Grain for Green Policy.” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 57, no. 6, Wiley-Blackwell, Apr. 2020, pp. 1180–88, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13608.

Dayne, Suzanna. “‘Grain for Green’: How China Is Swapping Farmland for Forest.” CIFOR-ICRAF Forests News, 28 Nov. 2017, forestsnews.cifor.org/52964/grain-for-green-how-china-is-swapping-farmland-for-forest?fnl=en.

Delang, Claudio O., and Zhen Yuan. China’s Grain for Green Program: A Review of the World's Largest Ecological Restoration and Rural Development Program. Springer International Publishing, 2014

Duan, Pei, et al. “Grain for Green Project in Farmers’ Minds: Perceptions, Aspirations and Behaviours in Eco-Fragile Region, Xinjiang, China.” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, vol. 13, no. 2, June 2021, pp. 191–207, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm-06-2020-0069. Accessed 27 Nov. 2022.

Hu, Yu, et al. “Quantifying the Impact of the Grain-For-Green Program on Ecosystem Service Scarcity Value in Qinghai, China.” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, Feb. 2023, p. 2927, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29937-7.

LIU, Can, and Bin WU. “‘GRAIN for GREEN PROGRAMME’ in CHINA: POLICY MAKING and IMPLEMENTATION?” Www.chinapolicyinstitute.org, The University of Nottingham, Apr. 2010, www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/documents/cpi/briefings/briefing-60-reforestation.pdf.

Lu, Ya’nan, et al. “Did Government Expenditure on the Grain for Green Project Help the Forest Carbon Sequestration Increase in Yunnan, China?” Land, vol. 9, no. 2, Feb. 2020, p. 54, https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020054.

Xu, Tingyu, et al. “The Grain for Green Project in Contiguous Poverty-Stricken Regions of China: A Nature-Based Solution.” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, June 2022, p. 7755, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137755.

Yan-qiong, Ye, et al. “Impacts of the ‘Grain for Green’ Project on Rural Communities in the Upper Min River Basin, Sichuan, China.” Mountain Research and Development, vol. 23, no. 4, Nov. 2003, pp. 345–52, https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2003)023[0345:iotgfg]2.0.co;2.

Yu, Ziyue, et al. “The Grain for Green Program Enhanced Synergies between Ecosystem Regulating Services in Loess Plateau, China.” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 23, Nov. 2022, p. 5940, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14235940.

Zhiyong, Li. “Proceedings of the Workshop on Forests for Poverty Reduction: Opportunities with CDM, Environmental Services and Biodiversity.” Www.fao.org, www.fao.org/3/ae537e/ae537e0j.htm#:~:text=The%20Grain%20for%20Green%20Programme%20is%20also%20the%20largest%20project.

Zhou, Decheng, et al. “The Grain for Green Project Induced Land Cover Change in the Loess Plateau: A Case Study with Ansai County, Shanxi Province, China.” Ecological Indicators, vol. 23, Dec. 2012, pp. 88–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.021.

Mihir Khanna is currently a student at Ashoka University, majoring in Economics and Finance, with a minor in Environmental Studies and a concentration in Entrepreneurship. His academic interests span a wide range of disciplines, and he especially enjoys writing on themes such as sports, public policy, current affairs, economics, finance, and emerging markets, with a strong emphasis on stakeholder impact.

With a passion for data analysis and data-driven storytelling, Mihir has explored the intersection of numbers and narratives through multiple internships at renowned firms like Deloitte and ICICI Wealth Management (Private Banking and Securities). These experiences have helped sharpen his analytical abilities, deepen his understanding of financial systems, and enhance his ability to communicate complex ideas effectively.