China’s Classification-Based Forest Management: Procedures, Problems, and Prospects

China’s Classification-Based Forest Management: Procedures,Problems, and Prospects

Limin Dai Æ Fuqiang Zhao Æ Guofan Shao ÆLi Zhou Æ Lina Tang

Received: 26 March 2008 / Accepted: 25 October 2008

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract China’s new Classification-Based Forest Man-

agement (CFM) is a two-class system, including

Commodity Forest (CoF) and Ecological Welfare Forest

(EWF) lands, so named according to differences in their

distinct functions and services. The purposes of CFM are to

improve forestry economic systems, strengthen resource

management in a market economy, ease the conflicts

between wood demands and public welfare, and meet the

diversified needs for forest services in China. The forma-

tive process of China’s CFM has involved a series of trials

and revisions. China’s central government accelerated the

reform of CFM in the year 2000 and completed the final

version in 2003. CFM was implemented at the provincial

level with the aid of subsidies from the central government.

About a quarter of the forestland in China was approved as

National EWF lands by the State Forestry Administration

in 2006 and 2007. Logging is prohibited on National EWF

lands, and their landowners or managers receive subsidies

of about 70 RMB (US$10) per hectare from the central

government. CFM represents a new forestry strategy in

China and its implementation inevitably faces challenges in

promoting the understanding of forest ecological services,

generalizing nationwide criteria for identifying EWF and

CoF lands, setting up forest-specific compensation mech-

anisms for ecological benefits, enhancing the knowledge of

administrators and the general public about CFM, and

sustaining EWF lands under China’s current forestland

tenure system. CFM does, however, offer a viable pathway

toward sustainable forest management in China.

Keywords China forestry � Forest classification system �Subsidies for ecological services � Forest policy �Ecological welfare forest

With 159 million ha of forestland, China has the fifth-

largest forest area in the world (SFA 2004a). With diverse

physical environmental conditions, China is covered with

vegetation ranging from tropical forests in the south to

boreal forests in the north, and from wetlands along the

eastern coast to grassland/desert in the far west. With a few

exceptions, China contains almost all of the main forest

vegetation types of the northern hemisphere (Li 2004).

Nearly half of the country’s forestland is located in the

northeast (Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and Jilin prov-

inces) and southwest (Sichuan and Yunnan provinces)

(SFA 2004a).

China’s forests suffered from excessive logging in the

second half of the 20th century (Zhang and others 2000).

The first phase of excessive logging took place from the

early 1950s to the late 1970s (Zhou 2006). At that time, the

primary goal of forestry in China was to produce timber,

and excessive harvesting of timber was encouraged. At the

same time, conversion of forestland to cultivated lands

L. Dai � F. Zhao � L. Zhou

Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

72 Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110016, China

F. Zhao

Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences,

Beijing 100101, China

e-mail: [email protected]

G. Shao (&)

Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue

University, 715 West State Street, West Lafayette,

IN 47907, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. Tang

Department of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Guangdong

University of Business Studies, Guangzhou 510320, China

123

Environmental Management

DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9229-9

increased and ecological values of forestlands were not

taken into consideration. The second phase of excessive

logging occurred from the end of the 1970s to the late

1990s. This occurred in conjunction with national eco-

nomic reforms, the opening-up of international relations,

profound changes in economy and society, and rapid

development in many fields. Logging in forested areas

occurred along with afforestation in nonforested areas.

Although shelterbelt systems were established in northern,

northeastern, and northwestern China, most state-owned

forest enterprises had run out of timber resources and were

facing severe economic difficulties.

China never actually stopped making efforts at formu-

lating and adjusting forest laws and regulations in seeking a

balance between forest utilization and conservation,

between forest growth and harvesting, and between devel-

oping forest plantations and logging natural forests (Wang

and others 2004). However, these efforts were not enough to

prevent excessive logging of natural forests (Zhao and Shao

2002). As natural forests were disappearing, soil/water

erosion, biodiversity decline, and timber/nontimber forest

product shortages all became more serious concerns. The

capacity to support sustainable economic development was

dramatically weakened and the gap in living standards

between the people in forested areas and the rest of the

society was increasingly broadened (Zhou 2006).

A Forestry Action Plan in China’s Agenda 21, following

the United Nations’ Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED) in 1992, was proposed at China’s

National Conference on Forestry Principals and Directions

in 1995. One year later, the Ministry of Forestry (the current

State Forestry Administration, or SFA) issued its ‘‘Deci-

sions on a Number of Issues Concerning the Deepening of

Reform and Stepping Up the Development of State-Owned

Forestland’’ (Zhou 2006) and China’s National People’s

Congress officially approved accedence to the UN Con-

vention to Combat Desertification in China in 1997. The

nationwide destructive flooding in the summer of 1998

caused a total loss of 166.6 billion RMB (US$24 billion)

and convinced the government that it needed to adopt

effective measures to protect natural forests and restore

forest/shrub/grass vegetation in the upper reaches of major

river systems, including the Yellow and Yangtze rivers.

Accordingly, China’s central government launched the

Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP) in 1998

(Zhang and others 2000), which included a ban on logging

in natural forests as well as efforts to restore forest/shrub/

grass vegetation in the upper reaches of major river systems

(Zhao and Shao 2002). In 2000 the government later initi-

ated the Returning Farmland to Forest/Grassland Program,

also called the Grain-for-Green Program (Hu and others

2006). These two programs were to be implemented only in

selected regions and were designed to last only until 2010.

In the meantime, China’s central government has for-

mulated a long-term forestry program called Classification-

Based Forest Management (CFM). The overall concept of

CFM is to apply different management strategies to dif-

ferent categories of forestlands, namely, Commodity Forest

(CoF) and Noncommodity or Ecological Welfare Forest

(EWF) lands. Unlike the NFCP and Grain-for-Green pro-

grams, lasting only slightly more than one decade in

selected regions, the CFM program reflects a long-term

policy and its implementation covers the entire country.

The jurisdiction and management of forestlands in

China are complicated. All land in the country, including

forestland, is legally owned by the central government.

Forests are actually managed by ‘‘Forest Bureaus’’ or pri-

vate enterprises. The former are county-level agencies

whose head is actually appointed by the provincial gov-

ernment. Forest bureaus and private enterprises are given

‘‘use rights’ to manage forestlands in China. Use rights

may also be given to local villages, which may harvest

timber and other forest products. These are sometimes

referred to as ‘‘collective users.’’

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concepts,

contents, and proposed implementation of CFM in China in

the 21st century. Future prospects as well as major limi-

tations of CFM implementation in China are also

discussed. Information sources for this paper included

Chinese forestry literature, a number of governmental

documents and reports, and personal communication with

Chinese forestry professionals. This paper does not provide

a complete analysis of all documents relative to CFM but,

rather, provides a summary of key elements of CFM for

communication among forestry researchers and others with

an interest in Chinese forest resources.

Historical Development of CFM in China

Figure 1 is a brief illustration of the historical development

of CFM in China, which has evolved from a five- to a two-

category classification system.

In 1984, China’s first forest law was approved by the

Seventh Session of the Standing Committee of the Sixth

National People’s Congress. China officially started to

implement forest management strategies based on a five-

category classification system of forest resources, which

included the following: (1) Shelterbelt/Windbreak Forest—

forestlands valued and utilized primarily for their protec-

tive functions, both ecological and otherwise, such as soil-

water conservation, source-water protection, road/river-

bank protection, farmland/rangeland shelterbelts, and other

protective uses; (2) Timber Forest—timber-producing for-

estlands, including bamboo forests; (3) Economic Forest—

forests producing nontimber products including fruits,


123

edible oils, ingredients of drinks, condiments, and medic-

inal herbs; (4) Fuel Forest—forests utilized primarily for

fuel wood; and (5) Special-Use Forest—forestlands utilized

primarily for defense, environmental protection, and sci-

entific experimental purposes (Ross and Silk 1987;

Richardson 1990). This CFM system had two major

drawbacks: (1) each forest category had a specific but

narrow purpose for management, and (2) the majority of

forests in China were classified as timber forest. The nar-

row purpose of forest management was inconsistent with

the fact that any forest might provide multiple services, and

managing the majority of forestlands as timber forest did

not facilitate forest conservation. As a result, forest har-

vesting continued as the main focus of China’s forest

enterprises and the CFM system failed to sustain the

nation’s forest resources (Zhao and Shao 2002). This was

the principal reason why forests in China were overhar-

vested and depleted during the 1950s–1980s.

In 1988, China’s forest law was amended to reclassify

the five forest categories into two: Commodity Forest

(CoF) and Ecological Welfare Forest (EWF) (Cai and Jiang

2005). This two-category forest classification system

overcame the first drawback but could not easily resolve

the second problem discussed above.

In 1995, the SFA released a document entitled ‘‘The

Outlines of Forestry Economy System Reform in China’’

(SFA 1995), in which the conceptual logic of the two-

category forest classification and corresponding CFM

system was laid out as a basis for reclassifiying the nation’s

forestlands. Emphasis was given to protecting existing

EWF, restoring new EWF, and maximizing economic

income from CoF (Wang 2004).

In 1996, the central government selected 10 forestry

bureaus across the country for a trial implementation of

CFM (Zhou and Song 2002; Wang 2004). Technical issues

related to CFM, such as forestland measurement, forest

identification, and database management, were also dis-

cussed and interpreted by Chinese forestry professionals

and academics (e.g., Liu 1996; Chen and others 1998).

In 1999, China’s SFA issued ‘‘A Memorandum on the

Nationwide Classifications of Forestland’’ (internal gov-

ernmental document), which explained the principles,

methods, and procedures of forest classification in China.

In 2000, China’s SFA formulated the first version of

‘‘Technical Criteria of Classifying Ecological Welfare and

Commodity Forests,’’ which was based mainly on a three-

level classification system reported by Lin (1999) of the

SFA. First-level forest classes included EWF and CoF

lands, second-level forest classes were based on the con-

ventional five forest categories, and third-level forest

classes were more magnified subdivisions of the second

level (Table 1). The official release of the criteria was fol-

lowed by expanded discussion on CFM at the national level

(e.g., Hong and Cai 2002; Tang and others 2002) and pro-

vincial level (e.g., Lin and Ma 2001; Zhang 2001; Zheng

2001; Guo 2002; Dong and others 2002). Chinese forestry

professionals were also involved in these discussions on

improving the national-level forest classification system in

China (see next section). Nevertheless, most provinces

quickly did their classifications based on the 2000-version

classification criteria. The preliminary results revealed an

estimated nationwide area of EWF lands that was greater

than the available national budget could afford and, there-

fore, was considered unsatisfactory by the SFA. As a result,

China’s central government allocated partial subsidies to

only a few provinces and some of the subsidies did not even

reach the local-level forestry organizations (Wang 2004).

In 2003, China’s SFA incorporated the classification

standard of EWF into the ‘‘Technical Regulations of Forest

Inventory and planning in China,’’ which also included

some revisions of technical criteria from the 2000 version

(Table 1; also see next section). All the provinces reas-

sessed their forest classifications and adjusted their

classifications results. Most provinces lowered the total

areas of EWF by at least 10%; a few had substantially

larger reductions. For example, the ratio of National EWF

lands to total forestland within a province was reduced

from 78.8 to 30.0% in Sichuan Province, and from 60.6 to

29.0% in Yunnan Province. These two provinces in wes-

tern China are heavily forested, and initially officials had

preferred to include as much forestland as possible under

Launch of Grain-for-Green program in 2000

Acquiring Funds from Central Government

Forest Classificationsby Provinces

Provincial Foresters

Distributing Subsidies

Concept of Two-Category CFM in 1988

Initial Trial of Two-Category CFM in 1996

Launch of NFCPin 1998

Five-Category CFM in Forest Law in 1984

Nationwide Classification Criteria in 2000

Revised Classification Criteria

Proposed Area ofNational EWF

Fig. 1 Diagram of the processes for developing Classification-Based

Forest Management and determining National Ecological Welfare

Forestlands in China. Solid lines indicate the mainstream develop-

ment, dashed lines suggest the supplementary development, and

dotted lines indicate feedbacks


123

Ta

ble

1C

om

par

iso

no

fth

e2

00

0an

d2

00

3v

ersi

on

so

fth

eth

ree-

lev

elfo

rest

clas

sifi

cati

on

syst

emin

Ch

ina

20

00

ver

sio

n2

00

3v

ersi

on

Lev

elI

Lev

elII

Lev

elII

IL

evel

IL

evel

IIL

evel

III

Eco

log

ical

wel

fare

fore

st

(EW

F):

Sp

ecia

l,k

ey,

and

ord

inar

yE

WF

Sp

ecia

l-u

sefo

rest

Def

ense

fore

stE

colo

gic

alw

elfa

re

fore

st(E

WF

):

Nat

ion

alan

d

loca

lE

WF

Sp

ecia

l-u

sefo

rest

Def

ense

fore

st

Ex

per

imen

tal

fore

stE

xp

erim

enta

lfo

rest

See

dfo

rest

Mo

ther

-tre

efo

rest

En

vir

on

men

tal

pro

tect

ion

fore

stE

nv

iro

nm

enta

lp

rote

ctio

nfo

rest

Sce

ner

yfo

rest

Sce

ner

yfo

rest

Cu

ltu

refo

rest

His

tori

cal-

site

fore

st

Nat

ura

lly

pre

serv

edfo

rest

Nat

ura

lre

serv

efo

rest

Sh

elte

rbel

tfo

rest

So

il-w

ater

con

serv

atio

nfo

rest

Sh

elte

rbel

tfo

rest

So

il-w

ater

con

serv

atio

nfo

rest

So

urc

e-w

ater

pro

tect

ion

fore

stS

ou

rce-

wat

erp

rote

ctio

nfo

rest

Ro

ad/r

iver

ban

kp

rote

ctio

nfo

rest

Ro

adp

rote

ctio

nfo

rest

Riv

erb

ank

pro

tect

ion

fore

st

Win

d/s

and

shel

terb

elt

fore

stW

ind

/san

dsh

elte

rbel

tfo

rest

Far

mla

nd

/ran

gel

and

shel

terb

elt

fore

stF

arm

lan

d/r

ang

elan

dsh

elte

rbel

tfo

rest

Oth

erp

rote

ctiv

efo

rest

Oth

erp

rote

ctiv

efo

rest

Co

mm

od

ity

fore

st(C

oF

)

Tim

ber

fore

stO

rdin

ary

tim

ber

fore

stC

om

mo

dit

y

fore

st(C

oF

)

Tim

ber

fore

stO

rdin

ary

tim

ber

fore

st

Fib

erfo

rest

Sh

ort

-ro

tati

on

ind

ust

rial

-mat

eria

lti

mb

erfo

rest

Fas

t-g

row

ing

/hig

h-p

rod

uct

ivit

yti

mb

erfo

rest

Fu

elfo

rest

Fu

elfo

rest

Fu

elfo

rest

Fu

elfo

rest

Eco

no

mic

fore

stO

rch

ard

Eco

no

mic

fore

stO

rch

ard

Oil

fore

stO

ilfo

rest

Ch

emic

alm

ater

ial

fore

stC

hem

ical

mat

eria

lfo

rest

Oth

erec

on

om

icfo

rest

Med

icin

al-h

erb

fore

st


123

the EWF classification; hence the significant reduction

necessitated by the required revisions (Wang 2004).

In 2004, China’s SFA and the Ministry of Finance

jointly issued ‘‘Methods of Checking the Key National-

Level Welfare Forests’’ (SFA 2004b), which delivered a

series of forms and specifications for in situ implementa-

tion of CFM throughout the country. Forest classifications

were carried out by provincial forest inventory organiza-

tions. Attention then shifted to how to establish a viable

and effective nationwide compensation mechanism for

protecting EWF lands (e.g., Cheng and others 2004; Liu

and Liu 2005).

It should be noted that China’s Natural Forest Conser-

vation Program (NFCP) (Zhang and others 2000) and Grain-

for-Green Program (Hu and others 2006) are temporary

measures intended to function before the new CFM is for-

mally put into practice across the country. The

implementation of the NFCP and Grain-for-Green Program

was partially based on the concept of CFM, and these two

programs are technically compatible with CFM. Moreover,

the combination of the ban on logging and reforestation/

afforestation efforts has contributed to a rapid increase in

forest coverage in China over the past decade (Zhang and

others 2006). These changes in China’s forest policy have

also triggered complicated impacts on the international

timber market, as China’s continuing demand for wood

imports have been reported to cause ecological degradations

in other countries, particularly its neighbors Russia and

Myanmar (Lang and Chan 2006; Goodman and Finn 2007).

In particular, domestic production of high-quality logs in

China has declined since the implementation of NFCP, and

consequently logging in southeastern Russia has targeted

predominantly large, mature trees (Mayer and others 2005).

It is important to note that China’s new CFM system is a

long-term program that involves more protected forest-

lands and concurrently greater spatial and temporal impacts

than the NFCP and Grain-for-Green Program (Cai and Ji-

ang 2005). Forest stocking per unit area is increasing in

areas where CFM has been implemented during the past

few years (Yao and others 2008). It is hoped that the

implementation of CFM will promote the sustainable

development of forestlands in China while balancing eco-

logical and economic benefits. The two categories of

forestlands are identified on the basis of key functional

differences in a way that may help relieve some of the

ongoing pressures for timber production and, in the pro-

cess, enhance forest health and ecological services.

CFM: Forest Classification Systems and Criteria

The goal of CFM is to facilitate sustainable development of

forestry in China. The approach of CFM is to balance

multiple services of forest resources according to their

differences in composition, structure, landscape context,

and geographical locations. The design of CFM is based on

the principles of landscape integrity, forest diversity, forest

services, and regional sustainable development (He 2005).

CFM is not intended to address single-purpose forest

management issues within a forested landscape. Instead, it

seeks to strengthen integrated forest management based on

national-level forestry regulations, local socioeconomic

and natural conditions, and forest-level ecological proper-

ties (Liang 2001).

The two-category classification system was initially laid

out by merging the five forest categories into two: (1)

Ecological Welfare Forest (EWF) lands, including Special-

Use (defense, experimental, seed, environmental protec-

tion, scenery, culture, and naturally preserved forests) and

Shelterbelt Forests (soil-water conservation, source-water

protection, road/riverbank protection, wind/sand shelter-

belts, farmland/rangeland shelterbelts, and other protective

forests); and (2) Commodity Forest (CoF) lands, including

the Timber (ordinary timber and fiber forests), Fuel, and

Economic Forests (orchard, oil, chemical materials, and

other economic forests) (Table 1).

In 2000, the forest classification criteria were improved

by incorporating the purposes and locations of forests.

EWF lands were defined to include:

• forests within at least 5 km of national borders, military

bases, and any defense facilities;

• forests devoted to education and scientific research

activities approved by the government;

• forests in species-protection areas, botanical gardens,

arboreta, seed orchards, and nurseries, which are used

by the government for genetic and species protection;

• forests for improving the landscape, reducing pollution,

screening noise, and purifying air around towns and

cities;

• forests in urban gardens, forest gardens, scenic spots,

recreational areas, skiing fields, and hunting fields,

which are officially approved;

• forests surrounding historical and cultural heritage

sites; and

• forests in national-level nature reserves, and any old-

growth natural forests.

Based on the criteria of ecological fragility (EF)

(Table 2) and ecological importance (EI) (Table 3), EWF

lands also include:

• forests for soil-water conservation in all regions at the

first- or second-level EF for slope, vegetation cover,

bare rock, and soil erosion, in all regions at the third-

level EF for the same four factors and with 79% of

annual precipitation occurring during the rainy season,


123

Table 2 Forest classification criteria based on ecological fragility (from the 2000 version)

Factor Application

region

Ecological fragility levela

1 2 3 4

Slope NE China [35� 26–35� 16–25� B15�SC China [45� 36–45� 26–35� B25�Others [35� 31–35� 26–30� B25�

Vegetation cover NW China B0.2 0.3–0.4 0.5–0.6 [0.7

Others B0.1 0.2–0.3 0.4–0.5 [0.6

Bare rock Countrywide [51% 41–50% 21–40% B20%

Soil erosion

by water

NW China

SW China

Tropics

Gully density [3 km/km2,

erosion area [21%

Gully density 1–3 km/km2,

erosion area 15–20%

Gully density \1 km/km2,

erosion area \10%

Light or no

soil erosion

Others Gully density [2 km/km2,

erosion area [15%

Gully density \2 km/km2,

erosion area \15%

Topsoil light erosion Topsoil no

erosion

Soil erosion

by wind

Countrywide Movable sand dunes Semimovable sand dunes Sand dunes or sand soils Light erosion

Farmland/

rangeland

distribution

Countrywide – Contiguous, concentrated

distribution

Large area, mosaic

distribution

Sparse

distribution

Coastal zones Countrywide Sandy beach \200 m or

muddy beach \100 m

Sandy beach 200–500 m or

muddy beach 100–300 m

Rocky Base rock

complete

NE China—northeastern China including Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, and eastern Inner Mongolia; SC China—south-central China including

Hunan, Fujian, Hubei, Jiangxi, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui; NW China—northwestern China including Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia,

Xinjiang, Xiaanxi, central-western Inner Mongolia, and North Tibet; Tropics—Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainana Level 1 is the most fragile

Table 3 Forest classification criteria based on ecological importance (from the 2000 version)

Target Ecological importance levela

1 2 3 4

River Banks for rivers of length

[1000 km and

watersheds of their first-

order subrivers

Banks for rivers of length [500 km and

watersheds of their first-order

subrivers. Areas within the first

mountain ridges along rivers of length

[1000 km

Original areas and

banks along

upper/middle

portions of other

rivers

Banks along lower

portions of other

rivers

Water

body

Within the first mountain

ridges or 500 m (in

plains) of alpine lakes

and drinking-water

reservoirs

Within the first mountain ridges or 500 m

(in plains) of lakes/reservoirs with

water storage of 10 million–100

million m3

Surrounding areas of

lakes/reservoirs

with water storage

of 0.1 million–10

million m3

Surrounding areas of

lakes/reservoirs

with water storage

\0.1 million m3

Road and

rail

track

Slopes along national/provincial roads in

mountain areas of Ecological Fragility

level 1–2, within 100 m of national/

provincial roads in areas of Ecological

Fragility level 3–4, and within 6–12 m

along roads in plains

Along county/

township roads

Nature

reserve

Core zones Buffer zones Experimental zones

Parks National level Provincial levels City/county levels

a Level 1 is the most important


123

and within a distance of 100–200 m from high-eleva-

tion ridges;

• forests for source-water protection at the first- or

second-level EI for rivers and water bodies;

• windbreak forests where EF levels for soil wind erosion

fall in the first to third categories, annual precipitation is

\300 mm, and there are [30 days/year with a wind-

speed [5 m/s, forests within 500–1000 m of sandy/

muddy coasts with a high frequency of typhoons, or

forests within 200 m of sandy/muddy coasts with a

lower frequency of typhoons;

• farmland/rangeland shelterbelt forests within 100 m of

large areas of contiguous farmland or rangeland,

crisscrossing small areas of farmland or rangeland,

within 250–500 m of farmland or rangeland neighbor-

ing sandy areas or used for preventing erosion or wind

damage within farmland or rangeland; and

• road/riverbank shelterbelt forests at the first- or second-

level EI for roads and rail tracks, within 10 m of levees,

ditches, or dams, within 100 m of rivers longer than

1000 km, or within 50 m of rivers with lengths ranging

from 500 to 1000 km.

CoF lands should be grown mainly in places at the third-

or fourth-level EF and the fourth-level EI. CoF lands include:

• industrial fiber forests with an accumulated site-factor

score of C6 (Table 4) and with a growth rate [6 m3/

year/ha for poplar (e.g., Populus canadensis and P.

euramevicana) and eucalyptus (e.g., Eucalypt urophy-

lla and E. urophylla 9 E. grandis), 5 m3/year/ha for

larch (e.g., Larix gmelini and L. lolgensis), and 8 m3/

year/ha for horsetail pine (Pinus massoniana); and

• economic forests with a total land-condition score of

C6 (Table 4) and with a profitable economic potential.

If a forest can be classified as both EWF and CoF, the

former takes higher priority. EWF lands were further

classified into Special, Key, and Ordinary EWF subcate-

gories. However, the specific differences among the three

subcategories of EWF lands were not explained in the 2000

version of the forest classification criteria, and the three

subcategories were replaced with National and Local

EWFs in the 2003 version (Table 1) (see next section).

The major drawback of the 2000 version criteria was

that the three subcategories of EWF lands were difficult to

segregate consistently in practice across the country, as

different provinces tended to have different classification

standards in meeting with their own forest conditions and

management purposes. The criteria in the 2003 version

defined EWF as a forest, stand, or land used for protecting

and improving the living environment of human beings,

maintaining ecological balance, preserving special and

genetic resources, scientific experiments, forest tourism,

and homeland security. EWF consisted of two subcatego-

ries: National EWF lands and Local EWF lands. National

EWF lands are supposed to serve more important ecolog-

ical functions than Local EWF lands. Both of these were

identified by provincial forestry bureaus, but the former

had to be approved by SFA because it is financially sup-

ported by the central government. It is up to individual

provinces to identify Local EWF lands that are not finan-

cially supported by the central government. Other revisions

in the classification system and criteria included: (1)

Timber Forestlands were defined as consisting of short-

rotation industrial-material timber forests, fast-growing/

high-productivity timber forests, and ordinary timber for-

ests; (2) Economic Forestlands included medicinal-herb

forests in addition to orchard, oil, chemical material, and

other economic forests; (3) for water-source protection

forests, the length of protected rivers was reduced from

1000 to 500 km and snow and glacier protection were

included as additional considerations; (4) the category of

road/riverbank protection forests within the category of

Shelterbelt Forest was split into road protection and riv-

erbank (riparian) forests; (5) the slope threshold for

northeastern China was reduced from 36� to 25� for

defining soil-water conservation forests within the category

of Shelterbelt Forest; and (6) riparian forests were defined

to include those within 100 m of a major river and 50 m of

their tributaries, any mangrove forest, and forests within

500 m of sea/ocean beaches.

CFM Implementation

Defining and selecting EWF lands—both national and

provincial—was not an automatic process, even though

forest classification criteria had been made available in

2000 and revised in 2003. The SFA had to control the

designation of National EWF lands among provinces for

financial reasons since the implementation of CFM was

driven and guaranteed by limited subsidies provided by the

central government. During 2000–2004, Key or National

Table 4 Scoring system of Commodity Forest (CoF) lands (from the

2000 version)

Land condition Score

3 2 1 0

Slope (deg) B5 6–15 16–25 C26

Road density (m/ha) [5 3.1–5 2.6–3 B2.5

Forestland area (ha) [10 5.1–10 3.1–5 \3

Each targeted CoF land has three scores in response to three land

conditions and receives a total score by summation of the three

numbers. For example, 2 ha of CoF growing in an area with a slope of

B5� and a road density of 4 m/ha receives a total of 5 points

(=3 ? 2 ? 0)


123

EWF determinations were repeated two or three times by

most provinces. Such redundant efforts were made because

the criteria in the 2000 version resulted in estimates of

National EWF lands that were too large to be accommo-

dated by the available national funding (Fig. 1). After the

release of the 2003 version criteria, forest classifications

were allocated again across the country. If the amount of

lands to be designated ‘National EWF’ requested by a

province was higher than that which had been expected by

the SFA, the provincial forestry bureau had to revise the

forest classifications until a mutually acceptable compro-

mise was reached.

As noted above, subsidies from the central government

were used to protect National EWF lands, whereas those

from provincial governments were used to protect Local

EWF lands. However, few provincial governments have

actually committed subsidies to protecting Local EWF

lands. It was planned that the total available funds from the

central government would be increased from 1 billion

RMB (US$145 million) per year in 2000–2003, to 2 billion

RMB per year in 2004–2005, and to 3 billion RMB per

year in 2006–2007. The actual investment from the central

government was 3.34 billion RMB in 2007 and 13.34 bil-

lion RMB between 2000 and 2007 (Yao and others 2008).

The per-area subsidy was 75 RMB/ha/year; this was split

between the owners/managers (95%) of National EWF

lands and the local government (5%). Logging was pro-

hibited on National EWF lands and limited logging could

be conducted on Local EWF lands. The organizations that

benefited the most from CFM were the national-level nat-

ure reserves and state-owned forest enterprises. Both of

these had experienced difficulties in supporting their

employees before the implementation of CFM; they did,

however, receive large amounts of funding from the central

government since they were responsible for protecting

large areas of National EWF lands.

During the 4-year trial period from 2000 to 2003, 13.3

million ha of forestlands was classified as National EWF

lands in China. The area of National EWF lands increased

to 26.6 million ha in 2004/2005, and to[0.0 million ha in

2006/2007. The National EWF lands accounted for 36.33%

of the total forest area in China in 2007; nearly 60% of

National EWF lands were administered directly by the state

and 50% were located in soil erosion regions (Yao and

others 2008) (Fig. 2). It is anticipated that the area of

National EWF lands will remain at least at the current level

in the future. By 2010, all the forests under NFCP will

likely be merged into National-Level EWF lands. This will

add an additional 45 million ha of forests to the category of

National EWF lands (Zhang and others 2000).

Problems in CFM Implementation

Based on previous work and a comprehensive survey (Yao

and others 2008), the task of designating and describing

National EWF lands across the country has begun and the

classification operating system is planned to be fully

operational in 2010. CFM policy at present is still in the

developmental stage, given that there are there are some

conflicts and problems that still need to be resolved. We

found that CFM has the following significant problems.

(1) One of UNCED’s forestry principles/elements is that

‘‘the provision of timely, reliable and accurate

information on forests and forest ecosystems is

essential for public understanding and informed

decision-making and should be ensured’’ (UN

1992). However, the implementation of CFM in

China is still semitransparent and even the total area

under CFM in each province is not released to the

public. The ‘‘gray’’ process of CFM implementation

Fig. 2 Distributions of EWF

lands by their a ownership and bfunctional purposes (after Yao

and others 2008). Note: In

China, ownership by

nongovernment groups or

organizations is equivalent to

use-rights, since all land

ultimately belongs to the central

government


123

has limited free participation of interested parties

(including local communities and indigenous people,

industries, labor, nongov,ernment organizations and

individuals, forest dwellers, and women) in the

development, implementation, and planning of CFM

in China. The central government did not release the

total areas of EWF lands for individual provinces but

did allow reporting of report regional proportions of

EWF lands (Fig. 3) (Yao and others 2008).

(2) Public education efforts were inadequate in formu-

lating and implementing CFM. Cai and others (2003)

and Yuan (2003) believe that the general public did

not have a sense of the ecological benefits of forest

resources. Effective and ideal CFM is supposed to be

based on principles and methods of various disci-

plines within forestry, ecology, and environmental

science, such as landscape ecology, conservation

biology, forest economics, silviculture, and landscape

planning (Liang 2001; Guo and others 2003). How-

ever, the development of the current CFM involved

limited consultations with academic communities,

although many forestry scientists were actively

involved in scholarly discussions. This is an under-

lying reason why there are still conflicts,

controversies, and problems with respect to CFM.

As a result, more serious problems could emerge in

the future. Public education needs to be improved for

effective implementation of CFM in China.

(3) The forest classification system failed to effectively

address difficulties arising from differences in

jurisdictional and management use rights for CFM

lands. This leads to major differences in the way CFM

is implemented across the country. Many Chinese

forestry professionals and scholars, e.g., Cai and

others (2003), Yuan (2003), and Wang (2004), have

argued that the separation of forest stewardship (use

rights) and ownership (central government) is reduc-

ing the effectiveness of implementing CFM in China.

Depending on geographic location, users have differ-

ent preferences for forest services. For example,

collective users in southern China rely on timber

production for economic income. When their forests

are classified as National EWF lands, they are not

allowed to harvest trees from their forests. Subsidies

of 75 RMB/ha/year are insufficient to compensate for

the economic deficit caused by such a prohibition

from harvesting wood.

(4) There are no technical guidelines for specifying what

land unit—compartment or subcompartment—should

be used for classifying and mapping different cate-

gories of forestlands. The subcompartment is the

fundamental land unit for in situ forestry activities,

while the compartment is a land unit above subcom-

partment used primarily for periodic forest inventory

(Tang and others 2006). Chen and others (1999)

proposed that forest classifications should be con-

ducted at the subcompartment level because

subcompartment is the most magnified forest-man-

agement land unit. However, forest classification in

several provinces, particularly in northeastern China,

Fig. 3 The proportions of EWF

lands in four regions across

China (based on Yao and others

2008)


123

where state-administered forest enterprises are exten-

sive, is conducted at the compartment level (Cai and

others 2003). Wang and others (2006) observe that

there are major differences in forest pattern and area

between compartment- and subcompartment-based

forest classifications. Since the former tend to smooth

spatial variations of forested landscapes, subcompart-

ment-based forest classifications need to be

encouraged in implementing CFM.

(5) The national subsidies for ecological services do not

reflect the differences in socioeconomic conditions

and forest productivities among different regions.

While it is not unusual for China’s central govern-

ment to set up national standards of forest regulations

(Shao and others 2001), it would be difficult to

institute a single level of subsidies across such a large

country encompassing so broad a range of socioeco-

nomic conditions and forest productivities. Our

results suggest that CFM is more acceptable in

northern China than in the south, mainly because

state-administered forest enterprises predominate in

the north, and that CFM is more acceptable in the

western part of the country than in the east, partly

because the majority of people in the west are poor

and welcome any source of local income. In southern

China, most of the forests are collectively owned and

their timber values are greatly exceed the ecological

subsidies (Yao and others 2008). It has been difficult

to implement CFM in these highly productive

regions. The owners/managers of EWF with higher

productivities should receive greater subsidies.

(6) Subsidies are administered directly by the central

government and the funds are allowed to be used only

for hiring forest guards to protect forests from illegal

logging. Misuse of governmental funds was common

in the past decades (Liu and others 2004) and China’s

central government learned a lesson from the past and

clearly specified that the subsidies for ecological

services could be spent only on hiring forest guards.

Such use of ecological subsidies is not all that

different from spending money on installing iron

fences around protected forests, which seems effec-

tive in form rather than in function (Zhao and Shao

2002). While this governmental control effectively

avoids the misuse of funds, it also has the unfortunate

effect of restricting the funds for other forest protec-

tion activities such as building infrastructure,

enhancing facilities, and providing training and edu-

cation to forestry professionals and local residents. A

broader range of approved uses for the overall

increased level of funding for forestry development,

combined with effective oversight procedures, would

be desirable.

Broader Prospects for China’s CFM

The key operational characteristics of CFM are (1) a focus

on the protection of natural forests; (2) implementation at

the compartment and subcompartment levels; (3) emphasis

on environmental issues in each province; and (4) estab-

lishment of a specific organization and funding mechanism

for CFM. The principal role of China’s central government

is to provide forest managers with subsidies to assure the

protection of National EWF lands from logging and to use

market mechanisms to promote the productivity of CoF

lands.

Healthy development of CoF lands under a market

economy is largely determined by the efforts of forest

owners in adopting forest management practices (Wagner

and others 2006). In contrast, effective protection of EWF

lands needs to be accomplished with governmental support

in addition to owners/managers’ efforts. The subsidies

from the central government are helpful for the protection

of EWF lands, but the money alone is inadequate for

solving all the problems involved in the protection of these

forests. Subsidies for ecological services need to be adop-

ted to natural and socioeconomic variations and dynamics.

The passive protection strategy of hiring forest guards

needs to be supplemented with active use of subsidies in

proactive forest management and protection activities,

including assuring the involvement of local people in the

protection of EWF lands. The implementation of CFM has

provided momentum for the government to speed up

reforms in the nation’s forestland tenure system. A new

policy from the central government allows the collective

forestland owners to use forestlands for up to 70 years and

gives them the right to manage their CoF for their own

economic benefits (FRO of SFA 2008).

The total forestland under protection within CFM is

much larger than that under the previous five-category

forest classification system in China. The expansion of

protected forestland is theoretically consistent with the

UNCED’s forestry principles (UN 1992). As a long-term

forestry strategy, the overall extent and stocking per unit

area of China’s forests are expected to increase. CFM will

also make positive contributions to global carbon seques-

tration efforts in the coming decades. Under internationally

recognized certification mechanisms, it is possible for the

owners/managers of EWF lands to sell carbon credits on

the global carbon market. The income from carbon credits

may exceed the current level of ecological subsidies from

the government. At the same time, the expansion of pro-

tected forestland will also lead to an increase in timber

imports from other countries, which may, in turn, lead to

ecological problems in these countries (Mayer and others

2005; Goodman and Finn 2007). On an overall

basis, however, through active regional and international


123

collaboration, it should be possible to enhance the positive

and diminish the negative impacts of China’s CFM at

different levels of geographic scale.

Acknowledgments This research was financially supported by the

National Key Technologies R&D Program of China (2006BAD0

3A09), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC40

873067), and the 863 Program (2006AA10Z251). We would like to

thank the Academy of Forest Investigation and Planning for providing

the information about Classification-Based Forest Management.

References

Cai TJ, Jiang MX (2005) Forest classification management: theory

practice and visualization. Science Publishing House, Beijing (in

Chinese)

Cai TJ, Kong FB, Jiang DT (2003) Present situation, problem and

countermeasure of forest classified management in China.

Journal of Northeast Forestry University 31:42–44 (in Chinese)

Chen LS, Cai TJ, Jiang DT, Jiang MX (1998) Principles, bases, and

suggestions of forest classifications and divisions. Research on

Forestry Work 1998(12):29–36 (in Chinese)

Chen LS, Cai TJ, Jiang DT (1999) Study on divisional principles and

basis of forest classification management of Heilongjiang

province. Journal of Northeast Forestry University 27(3):1–6

(in Chinese)

Chen RY, Yan SJ, Wu CZ (2004) The compensation mechanism for

ecological benefit of forest under the classification management

situation. System Sciences and Comprenhensive Studies in

Agriculture 20(2):157–160 (in Chinese)

Cheng RY, Yan SJ, Wu CZ (2004) Ecological subsidies under

classification-based forest management. Systems Sciences and

Comprehensive Studies in Agriculture 20:157–160 (in Chinese)

Dong JX, Duan YZ, Gao CS (2002) A study and demonstration on

forest division for classification management in Kunming.

Journal of Southeast Forestry College 22(1):23–28 (in Chinese)

Forestry Reform Office (FRO) of the State Forestry Administration

(SFA) (2008) Guide of the Central Governmental Plan for

Promoting Collective Forestland Ownership Reform throughout

China. China’s Forestry Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese)

Goodman P, Finn P (2007) Corruption stains timber trade. Washing-

ton Post, April 1, p A1

Guo YP (2002) The summary of Xinjiang forest classification

management work. Xinjiang Forestry 2:8–9 (in Chinese)

Guo ZW, Gan YL, Li YM (2003) Spatial pattern of ecosystem

function and ecosystem conservation. Environmental Manage-

ment 32(6):682–692

He CC (2005) Discuss the problems about forest classification

management. Forest Inventory and Planning 30:7–8 (in Chinese)

Hong J, Cai TJ (2002) Forest classification management compart-

mentalizing based on GIS. Journal of Northeast Forestry

University 30(4):14–18 (in Chinese)

Hu CX, Fu BJ, Chen LD, Gulinck H (2006) Farmer’s attitudes towards

the Grain-for-Green programme in the Loess hilly area, China: a

case study in two small catchments. International Journal of

Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13:211–220

Lang G, Chan CHW (2006) China’s impact on forests in Southeast

Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia 36:167–194

Li WH (2004) Degradation and restoration of forest ecosystems in

China. Forest Ecology and Management 201:33–41

Liang XQ (2001) Forest classification management. China Forestry

Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese)

Lin J (1999) Studies on technical criteria and index system for

classifying public benefit forest and commodity forest. Scientia

Silvae Sinicae 1999(4):23–28 (in Chinese)

Lin CX, Ma XJ (2001) A preliminary study on forest division

methods of classified management. Jilin Forestry Science and

Technology 30(6):22–24 (in Chinese)

Liu WP (1996) Research of classification-based forest management.

Problems of Forest Technology 1996(5):1–8 (in Chinese)

Liu QB, Liu MG (2005) The necessity for establishing the compen-

satory institution of forest ecological benefit in classified forest

management. Forest Inventory and Planning 30:54–56 (in

Chinese)

Liu JL, Zhang SG, Ye JZ, Wang YH (2004) Forestry revenue policy

in China: what has happened and why. International Forestry

Review 6:335–340

Mayer AL, Kauppi PE, Angelstam PK, Zhang Y, Tikka PM (2005)

Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science

308:359–360

Richardson SD (1990) Forests and forestry in China. Island Press,

Washington

Ross L, Silk MA (1987) Environmental law and policy in the People’s

Republic of China. Quorum Books, New York

SFA (State Forestry Administration) (1995) A general guideline of

forestry economics reform. China Forestry Publishing House,

Beijing (in Chinese)

SFA (State Forestry Administration) (1999) A memorandum on the

nationwide classifications of forestland. Internal Document of

Chinese Government, Beijing (in Chinese)

SFA (State Forestry Administration) (2000) Technical criteria of

classifying ecological welfare and commodity forests. Internal

Document of Chinese Government, Beijing (in Chinese)

SFA (State Forestry Administration) (2003) Technical regulations of

forest inventory and planning in China. Internal Document of


SFA State Forestry Administration (2004a) China Forestry Statistical

Yearbook in 2003. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing (in

Chinese)

SFA (State Forestry Administration) (2004b) Methods of checking

the key national-level welfare forests. Internal Document of


Shao GF, Zhang PC, Bai GX, Zhao G, Wang Z (2001) Ecological

classification system for China’s natural forests: protection and

management. Acta Ecologia Sinica 21:1564–1568 (in Chinese)

Tang TF, He MJ, Yu XH (2002) Concerns about forest classification

with remote sensing technology. Xinjiang Forestry 2002(3):12–

13 (in Chinese)

Tang LN, Wang QL, Shao GF, Dai LM, Wang SZ, Li X, Xu D (2006)

Digitally determining forest inventory units with an ecological

classification system. Science in China (Series E Technological

Sciences) 49(Suppl I):118–127

UN (United Nations) (1992) Non-legally binding authoritative

statement of principles for a global consensus on the manage-

ment, conservation and sustainable development of all types of

forests. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environ-

ment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June

Wagner RG, Little KM, Richardson B, McNabb K (2006) The role of

vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the

world’s forests. Forestry 79:57–79

Wang H (2004) Discussion on forest resources management coun-

termeasures in classified forest management. Forest Resources

Management 5:29–32 (in Chinese)

Wang S, van Kooten GC, Wilson B (2004) Mosaic of reform: forest

policy in post-1978 China. Forest Policy and Economics 6:71–83

Wang SZ, Shao GF, Gu HY, Wang QL, Dai LM (2006) A geographic

information systems approach for classifying and mapping forest


123

management categories in Baihe Forestry Bureau, Northeast

China. Forest Research 17:211–215

Yao CT, Liu JF, Dai GC, Yan CL, Yan WH, Miao GP, Wang L

(2008) An investigation report on the policy of regional forest

ecological compensations. Available at: http://www.forestry.

gov.cn/sub/FstArticle.aspx?id=kjyj.275.2008-05-29 (in Chinese)

Yuan LF (2003) Problems about the classification and management

forest in China. Guizhou Forestry Science and Technology

31:59–62 (in Chinese)

Zhang XG (2001) Discussion of countermeasures for implementation

of forest classification management in Jiangxi Province. Jiangxi

Forestry Technology 2001(2):42–43 (in Chinese)

Zhang PC, Shao GF, Zhao G, LeMaster DC, Parker GR, Dunning JB,

Li QL (2000) Ecology: China’s forest policy for the 21st century.

Science 288(5474):2135–2136 (23 June)

Zhang YF, Tachibana S, Nagata S (2006) Impact of socio-economic

factors on the changes in forest areas in China. Forest Policy and

Economics 9:63–76 (in Chinese)

Zhao G, Shao GF (2002) Logging restrictions in China: a turning

point for forest sustainability. Journal of Forestry 100:34–37

Zheng SQ (2001) The problems and management measures of

classification-based forest management in Liaoning Province.

Journal of Liaoning Forestry Science and Technology 2001(1):

15–17 (in Chinese)

Zhou SX (2006) Forestry in China: historical transitions and industry

developments. Thomson, Singapore

Zhou LX, Song JC (2002) The problem about policy and management

system of classification-based forest management. South-Central

Forest Inventory and Planning 21:15–17 (in Chinese)


123

http://www.forestry.gov.cn/sub/FstArticle.aspx?id=kjyj.275.2008-05-29

http://www.forestry.gov.cn/sub/FstArticle.aspx?id=kjyj.275.2008-05-29

Documents

China’s Classification-Based Forest Management: Procedures, Problems, and Prospects