Integrated Hillside biomass development in three Chinese counties

World Bank/UNDP/Bilateral Aid Energy Sector Management Assistance Program INTEGRATED EILCSIDE R I W S DEVELOPMENT IN THREE CHINESE COUNTIES Paul ~ y a n / ~ a n ~uldist/LorainneWest Household Energy Unit Industry and Energy Department Household Energy Unit Industry and Energy Department The World Bank Washington, D.C. 20433  TABLE OF CONTJDJTS Page I . INTRODUCTION.em.... Background . .............................................. ..................................... . Global Issues ........................................... Agency Cooperation ................................... Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................ FarmerIFarm Family Involvement ....................... Lack of Wood Supply Data Extension System ............................. .................................... ... T T ..................................... AL~XL'I'TIZAZ XETY"ML0GY The Use of Models ....................................... Overview of CostIBenefit Methodology .................... Model Development ....................................... Scenarios Used ....................................... Cost Assumptions ..................................... Labour Wage Assumptions .............................. Benefit Assumptions .................................. Environmental Benefits ............................... .............. Ranking of Models for Soil Conservation Fuelwood Production Costs ............................... I11 . COU?'Tk RSPOZI; ............................................. Hengnan ................................................. Background ........................................... Description of Models ................................... Soil Conservation Considerations..................... Comparison of Options and Recommendations............ Xiushui ................................................. Background ........................................... Description of Models ................................... Soil Conservation Considerations..................... Comparison of Options ................................ Kezuo .................................................. Background ........................................... Description of Models ................................... Soil. Conservation Considerations.................... comparison of Options ................................ IV . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................ Fuelwood Development Research ........................... Species Trials ....................................... Plantation Establishment ............................. Nitrogen Fixation and Nutrient Uptake ................ Agro-Forestry and Silvi Pastural Establishment....... Farm Families and Fuelwood Development Extension ........ Interagency Cooperation................................. Wood Supply Data ........................................ TABLES 1: Annual Household Energy Consumption by Counties............ 2 1: Models for Hengnan County.................................. 19 2 3.3: : Seedling Density's Effect on Rate of Return................ Results of the Integrated Hillside Development 20 Models for Hengnan...................................... 27 3.4. Models for Xuishui County.................................. 30 3.5: Results of the Integrated Hillside Development 3.6. Models for Xiushui...................................... Models for Kezuo County.................................... 35 38 3.7: Results of the Integrated Hillside Development Models for Kezuo........................................ 43  Background 1.1 In each of the three counties included in the rural energy assessment , Hengnan (Hunan Province), Xuishui (Jianxi Province) and Kezuo (Liaoning Province), estimates of the sustainable supply of household fuel showed an increasing deficit situation in relation to consumption. In many rural areas the fuelwood used by households consists largely of small branches, twigs and leaves, while large quantities of agricultural rcsldues (straw a116 l - and weeds are also burnt indicating the depleted state of the fuelwood supply situation. Table 1.1, based on data from the Household Energy Survey carried out by the Chinese and ESMAP in late 1987/early 1988, shows the quantities of fuelwood and agricultural residues consumed as energy, in relation to the estimated su-,tainable yield of fuelwood. The figures for Kezuo at first glance appear to indicate a surplus. However, to put these figures in perspective it should be recognized that the relatively small amount of Fuelwood that is used is mainly confined to those areas adjacent to the 36,000 ha of timber and fuelwood forests. The rest of the county derives its energy from agricultural residues (straw, grass and some dung) and coal, with the former applying mainly to the rural areas and the latter to the urban arcas. T t ~ r o~erall per capita energy consumption for the county, particularly the rural areas, at 410 kilograms of coal equivalent (kg CE) is below levels considered adequate for the climate. This, together with the large amount of agricultural residues consumed for energy with only a small fraction being returned to the fields indicates the crucial state of the energy supply in the county. 1.2 The trees that provide timber and biomass for energy usually grow on the hillsides in the three counties, with the lower slopes and flats being reserved for agricultural crops. Besides trees, the hillsides are also used for grazing and fodder crop production, while agricultural crops such as soybeans, are sometimes intercropped between trees on less steep slopes. In many instances though soil erosion has been occuring at various degrees of severity, and soil conservation measures need to be adopted. Thus the hillsides have a complex land-use pattern determined both by the existing edaphic conditions and the demand for wood (timber or fuelwood), fodder or forage crops, and agricultural crops. Any development for fuelwood, therefore, will need to take such Factors into account, and such development will be more on an integrated basis, rather than solely for fuelwood. This inherently implies knowledge of the other hillside land-use requirements and an agreement by the parties concerned on the allocation of land for the required activities.  Table 1 . 1 : ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY COUNTIES '/ -/ -/ 2 2 -/ Tota l - F .wood/- F .Wood/ Tota I Ag. Res/ Ag. Res/ Total Other Fuel / Energy/ Sustain Popu I a t ion County Capita Capita F.Wood Capita Capita Ag. Res. Capita Capita F.Wood ( 1988) (tonnes) (TCE) (tonnes) (tomes) (TCE) (tonnes) (TCE) (TCE ) (tonnes) (tonnes) Hengnan 0.30 0.15 280,000 0.23 0.10 ' 216,01)0 0.20 6.43 77,OUO 927,300 West Xiushui 0.59 0.26 125,000 0.47 0.21 101,000 0.05 0.52 20,000 212,400 East Xiushui 1.77 0.84 701,000 0.45 0.19 177,000 0 1.03 245,000 395 ,900 Urban Xiushui 0.60 0.29 32,000 0.01 0.006 500 0.05 0.35 0 54,000 Kazuo 0.07 0.04 26,000 0.57 0.27 198,000 0.15 0.46 50,000 346,000 - 1/ Includes charcoal roundwood equivalent i n Xuishui. 2/ - Includes grass. 1.3 This hillside development situation also applies to other counties in Hunan and Jianxi Provinces as well as to a number of other provinces, particularly in southern China. Although there are variations tree growing, crop production and livestock grazing patterns are similar. Thus hillside development options that prove feasible in Hengnan may be adopted by these counties with appropriate changes for local socio-economic and geoclimatic conditions. Global Issues 1.4 Before integrated hillside development options can be satisfactorily implemented several issues or constraints have to be resolved. These are mentioned below and recommendations for resolving them are presented in Chapter IV. Agency Cooperation 1.5 At present there is little if any cooperation between the government agencies that could potentially be involved in hillside development. These include those agencies concerned with forestry, soil conservation, animal husbandry and agriculture at the county and provincial level. In Xiushui County the Soil and Water Conservation Bureau is cooperating to some extent with the Forestry Bureau in the western part of the county, where it is responsible for soil conservation and forestry/fuelwood development. Such cooperation needs to be strengthened, and, in the case of Xiushui it may be worthwhile to include the Bureau of Animal Husbandry, as the production of livestock fodder or forage is an important element in farm household economics. Cost-Benefit Analysis 1.6 A~ 2rese,li , ,, ,, analysis is not included in the L;crsi..l...?-fi t fuelwood development and soil conservation programs being undertaken in the three provinces. The result is that high inputs of materials and labour are often applied to programs without considering the resultant benefits and the economic or financial returns. It is critical for such analysi~ ts be carried out so that the most cost effective options may be applied to achieve the objectives for a given site. Without such analysis funds could well be wasted in providing inputs, such as seedlings or labour, that are over costly in comparison with the benefits obtained. It is felt that this is what is occuring at present in several areas of the three counties. On the other hand appropriate cost-benefit analysis would ensure that funds and labour that are available will be used as effectively es px;itl~ dna cover as wide an area in as short a time as possible. FarmerIFarm Family Involvement 1.7 Currently most of the woodfuel development on hillsides is carried out on collective land, with farmers doing the site preparation, planting and tending on a joint basis under a uniform design and work plan established by the village or township forestry units. The farmers are then given the rights to manage and cut the trees either on a communal or individual basis. In the experience todate with communal management in Hengnan County, survival has been unsatisfactory (60- 70%). The key reasons for this are stated by officials to be too extensive a management system and lack of individual interest so that trees are destroyed by people and animals. There was also an element of distrust as regards the harvesting rights, meaning that insufficient efforts were exerted by the farmers to protect and manage the trees. 1.8 On che other hand, very little attention and technical support has been given by county and provincial officials to development of trees and -other crops on the family plots (zilioshan or ziliodi). -11 Some of 11 - These plots ranging in average size from one to 10 mu (0.07-0.7 ha) have usufructory rights given to farmers under contracts that range from 3 to 15 years or longer. these plocs are reported by the farmers in the household energy survey, to have very poor site conditions. Nevertheless, a number of farmers have indicated an interest in planting trees for fuelwood or timber on these plots. Such initiative needs to be encouraged and supported with the necessary physical inputs and technical advice as the growing of trees by individual farmers or farm families has been found ini a number of other countries to be a more cost effective approach than government or communal tree establishment, provided the right incentives are present. Data Lack of Wood S U D D ~ V 1.9 . Current estimates of sustainable fuelwood supplies in the three counties, and in most other counties, are based on very limited data. Generally such estimates appear to be derived from planting records, growth assumptions based on little if any empirical measurement, and maps showing vegetation. Where inventories of natural forest have been carried out, sampling was done only for timber, and wood for fuel subsequently derived from this. In fact even estimates of the standing volume and growth of timber lack precision for effective management as the sampling intensity was too low, and in some counties such as Xiushui was carried out over ten years ago, with poor management and lack of cut control since then rendering the inventory statistics even lzss accurate. 1.10 To effect sound fuelwood resource planning, development and management i t is essential to know, with some degree of accuracy, the location, quantity and net growth of the fuelwood supply. It will then be possible to estimate the existing sustained yield supply and plan to alleviate any deficit on a localised basis. The location of the fuelwood supply to che end use point is important, particularly in rural areas of China, as fuelwood is generally not traded, except to the urban areas and industries, and then only from an economical accessible distance. Thus the rural families, the major consumers of fuelwood, require fuelwood supplies within an accessible distance of their homes. Extension System 1.11 The existing extension system is inadequate to support the necessary hillside plantings, particularly the planting of trees on family plots. Efforts must be made to strengthen the forestry/fuelwood extension services, as well as the extension services of other disciplines involved in the integrated hillside development.  The Use of Models 2.1 Models have been constructed using various hillside development options or scenarios on different sites. The scenarios include planting fuelwood trees alone or in combination with timber trees, fodder plants or agricultural crops with varying inputs and benefits. ~ostlbenefit analysis has been applied to the models and several parameters used as discussed below under "Overview of CostIBenefit Methodology". 2.2 ~ostlbenefit analysis is a connnon tool for evaluating investment projects. It allows various options (models) to be compared when costs and benefits occur at different points in time, and the use of such analysis provides a financial or economic basis for decision making on investments. However, it should be borne in mind that costlbenefi t analysis of models is only a tool or guide in the decision-making process. The validity of the results depends on the accuracy of the data used, and generally these results provide orders of magnitude, for comparative purqoses, not absolute values. The results may then be used by the decision makers, along with other considerations, such as broader social and economic implications of using a given model, to decide on the most judicious course of act;.o-- Overview of CostIBenefit Methodology 2.3 The lifespan of projects covers a number of years and the costs and benefits usually occur in different years. There are two factors, inflation and the value of time, that must be accounted for before costs and benefits across different years can be compared. If costs occur first and benefits later, then with inflation the benefits look better than they really are in comparison to the costs that generated those benefits. Therefore all prices of costs and benefits must be converted into equivalent value or purchasing power terms, for proper comparison. This is known as working in constant monetary terms. The word "constant" is used to reflect the fact .that prices have been adjusted to reflect true purchasing power for a base year and exclude purely inflationary increases in prices. The rate of inflation for all prices involved in the project need to be estimated over the course of the project. If the rate of inflation is expected to be the same for all prices over the lifetime of the project, then in constant terms analysis, today's price can be used as the future price as well. If differential rates of inflation are forecasted, then only the relative price change should be included. Prices with the lowest expected rate of inflation would serve as the numeraire and prices with higher expected rates of inflation should have their current prices raised by the expected inflation differential. 2.4 The time value of money is accounted for through discounting. Discounting is the means by which the present value of a future cost or benefit is determined. An interest rate must be selected to serve as the discount rate. For economic costlbenefit analysis there are several approaches to selecting the discount rate. One is the "opportunity cost of capital", the marginal real rate of return on investment in the economy. A country with many investment opportunities having high real rates of return and limited capital available would expect the opportuni.ty cost of capital to be high. If investment in the project draws funds away from other investments, then the rate of return on the investment foregone is the opportunity cost of capital and can serve as the discount rate. 2.5 Another approach is to use the borrowing rate the country must pay to finance the project as the discount rate. This leads to selecting projects based on the financial terms available and not solely on the reiative contribution of the project to the country's economy. For China this approach also has the problem that China's currency is nut convertible and the use of foreign exchange loans is restricted. 2.6 A third approach is to use the rate of time preference for consumption. The rate of time preference shows an individual's or society's willingness to forego consumption today in order to ixicrease consumption in the future. It is often assumed that society takes a longer view and would not discount the future as heavily as individuals. Alternatively, it is said that society has a lower discount rate than do individuals. 2.7 A limitation of costlbenefit analysis is that the reliability of the results is highly dependent on the assumptions made and the quality of the data used in preparing the analysis. Assumptions regarding inflation, future technology, future yields, etc. must be made. Collecting accurate data on the necessary quantities and the prices of numerous inputs and outputs is seldom easy, and requires reliable data sources that may not always be available. Thus, models should be used circumspectly, but they are a useful tool in making planning and management decisions. 2.8 Because so many assumptions must be made and data estimated, sensitivity analysis should be performed on the models. Sensitivity analysis allows the profitability of the project to be recalculated under a range of plausible alternative assumptions thereby identifying the relative impact of various factors on profitability. Sensitivity analysis allows the most critical assumptions to be identified. If an assumption changes slightly and the project's profitability changes significantly, one can concentrate more resources on being sure those assumptions are as accurate as possible. Sensitivity analysis is also a way to incorporate uncertainty into the model. Agricultural projects in particular have a lot of uncertainty in yields and prices. Various prices or yields can be used in the model and the effect on profitability or worth of the project observed. 2.9 The time streams of costs and benefits can be compared by several different methods to arrive at measures of the worth of a project. One measure involves computing the rate of return on the time stream of costs and benefits. This figure, the internal rate of return, shows the equivalent implicit interest rate received on the investment in the project as measured by the benefits. A second measure is to discount separately the time stream of benefits and costs, sum them up over the life of the project, and form a ratio. This ratio of the present worth of the benefit stream and the cost stream is referred to as the benefitlcost ratio. A third measure is the net present value of the project. This is arrived at by applying a discount rate to the time stream of net benefits (benefit - cost) year by year. The summation of the discounted net benefits is the nst prezen+ value of the project. 2.10 Economic costlbenefit analysis, the analysis of a project's profitability from society's point of view differs from financial costlbenefit analysis, from the individual's or business entity point -of view. Factor prices may be adjusted in the analysis to capture costs and benefits to society which are generally not reflected in market or official prices. These prices used in economic costlbenefit analysis are known as shadow or economic prices. The starting point is often market prices and then adjustments are made for taxes, subsidies, and externalities to arrive at "shadow" prices which adjust for marketlprice imperfections. For example, if fertilizer is used in the project its shadow price should be what it ccste society he government) in terms of real resources to provide it; not simply what is actually paid for it. This would include the price the farmer pays as well as any government subsidies. Taxes collected on new income generated by the project should be treated as a social transfer payment. Transfer payments are - not real benefits. Only the real value of the product created by the project is. For example, if there is a tax on timber sales then only the value of the growth of timber production in the project should be included as a benefit to society and not the tax on timber sales. 2.11 Financial costlbenefit analysis involves costs that are actually borne by the individual and benefits actually received by the individual. These are therefore usually based on market prices or government set prices; the ones the individual actually faces when making decisions while purchasing or selling. 2.12 Even for a simple project a number of assumptions must be made and data used to prepare the costlbenefit analysis. First, all the inputs and outputs of a project must be identified. Quantities and current prices must be determined or estimated, and any taxes, subsidies, or externalities identified. The effects of future technology and inflation on real costs and benefits must be considered as was mentioned previously.  Model Development Scenarios Used 2.13 A number of hillside development models were established for all three counties. In each county, site classes 2/ were established based on the physical features of hills in that county. For Hengnan County there are two site classes, red or purple soil, not seriously eroded and red or purple soil, seriously eroded. In Xiushui County three site classes of western poor sites, western moderate sites, and fairly steep eastern sites were established. Four site classes were delineated in Kezuo County: poor, shallow-hilltop soil; mid/lower slope; gullies; and river flat land. For each--of these sites one or more scenarios of hillside development were constructed. Some scenarios are appropriate only for a subset of the site class land. For example, one scenario in Hengnan County on red or purple soil, not seriously eroded hills is intercropping of trees and crops where terraces already exist on the hillside. This type of land probably does not account for more than 10 percent of all red/purple soil, not seriously eroded hills. The site classes and models prepared for each site class are shown for each county in Chapter 3. 2.14 The models involved growing timber, fuelwood, fodder plants, and/or crops depending on the suitability of the site. For each model, assumptions were made about costs and benefits. The assumptions were based on information provided by Chinese government officials from the county, provincial and national levels, research institutes in China, farmers, and available relevant information elsewhere in China and from other countries. The costlbenefit analysis applied to the models used the financial price or free market price to value the good or service except for some items, where adjustments were made because of major price or market distortions. These are explained below. Cost Assumptions 2.15 Seedlings. Costs on a variety of tree species seedlings were obtained from county forestry bureaux, forestry research institutes, and farmers in special households raising seedlings. The opportunity cost of land is not included in the cost. In Hengnan seedling costs are higher than in the other two counties as most seedlings come from special households who include a substantial profit margin, part of which could compensate for the cost of land taken out of rice production. 2/ 2/ - Site classes represent a stratification of the site according to treelcrop growth and yield potential. 31 - The revenue per unit area is higher from raising seedlings than rice according to farmers interviewed. 2.16 Fertilizer. The cost of chemical fertilizers was taken to be the free market price for the fertilizer. Organic fertilizer seems to be traded in a very thin market although the mission did obtain one price of Y0.24 per kg which was used in all three counties. 2.17 Seeds. Crop and pasture grass seeds were priced at the cost to the government when supplied free to the farmers or at the market price if purchased by farmers. Labour Wage Assumptions 2.18 For the hlilside development models ';!-LC= shadow wage rate or opportunity cost of labor is needed as an input. Since a large percentage of the rural labor force in all three counties is engaged in agriculture, the seasonality of the shadow wage rate must also be considered. For any activity in the model requiring an input of labor, an important question is the timing of that activity and whether i t coincides with a peak agricultural labor period. In Hengnan and Xiushui counties, for example, the harvesting of the first rice crop and the transplanting of the second rice crop is a very busy time and the relative demand for labor is high. Any activities in models requiring labor at this time would have to be priced at the shadow peak agricultural wage rate. At other times during the year when the pressures on agricultural labor are lighier, the shadow wage rate would be lower. Regarding this point all labour activities identified in the models are considered to occur during the non-peak agricultural season and therefore all labor costs should be valued at the non-peak shadow wage rate. 2.19 Estimating the shadow peak season wage rate was facilitated by interviewing farmers who hire extra laborers at harvesting/transplanting periods and asking what wage is paid. The wage should include cash paid and in kind payments, such as the value of cigarettes, alcohol, and food. To determine the off peak season shadow wage rate, farmers who hire agricultural laborers for longer periods, say 3-12 months per year, can be interviewed regarding the wage paid. These cases are more rare, especially in poorer agricultural counties. Care should be taken not to include labor hired with special skills unless these skills are comparable to what is needed to perform the tasks in the hillside development models. 2.20 Given the rarity of households needing to hire agricultural laborers other than at peak seasons, other methods may need to be used to arrive at an off peak shadow wage rate. One possible measure of the opportunity cost of labor is the price farmers must pay to get out of one day of mandatory collective duty labor (yiwugong) in their village. Throughout most of rural China farmers are required to volunteer a certain number of days each year toward collective efforts such as repairing irrigation works, building/maintaining terraces, and planting trees. These activities are usually performed in non peak seasons of the year. The number of days required varies from village to village. If the farmer does not want to participate because he/she has a high opportunity cost, for example a full-time job in a factory, or is transporting goods, then the farmer can pay a fee to the village for each day he wishes to be excused. The fee paid also varies from village to village reflecting the wealth or development of the village. In many cases this fee may be a good approximation to the opportunity cost of labor in non peak seasons because if the fee is set too low (below the opportunity cost of labor) then a large percent of the farmers would pay the fee to get out of the work and the village would not get its collective work done. If the fee is set higher than the opportunity cost of labor, then all farmers would be forced to participate. - -. 2.21 Observing the fee charged in a village and how many people opted to pay the fee will give some bounds to the shadow non peak wage rate. If a large percentage of the village population opted to pay the fee rather than participate in the collective work, then the village fee represents the lower level. If no one in the village pays the fee and all participate, then the fee represents the upper level of the opportunity cost of labor. 2.22 Peak and off peak wage rates determined at a county level can be unsatisfactory for a county with diversity within the county of agricultural systems and/or rural industry development. In Xiushui county the western part and the rest of the county have quite different cultivated land per capita ratios and hence different relative labor surpluses or shortages. Xiushui county is quite large in land area and the transportation system is rather weak. This inhibits the mobility of labor from one end of the county to the other. 2.23 In Hengnan county the peak agricultural periods are from late April to early May, about 10 days; from mid-July to early August, about 25 days; and in late October, about 10 days. Information collected on the rural wage rate includes 3 yuan/day as per the County Rural Energy Statistical Tables. The heads of the county Agricultural Bureau and Animal Husbandry Bureau said 5-8 yuan/day was paid during the peak harvest season. The Forestry Research Station used 5 yuan/day when calculating the.ir production cost of raising seedlings. Further data is needed to satisfactorily estimate wage rates for hillside models in Hengnan county. 2.24 In Xiushui county the peak agricultural periods are in mid July and mid October. The county Agriculture Bureau head said 4-5 yuan/day cash was paid for harvest labor or 8 yuanlday if in kind payments of food,cigarettes, and alcohol were included. Officials from the Rural Energy Office in charge of biogas said 5 yuan/day was paid for technical workers and 2 . 5 yuan/day for casual labourers plus 1.8 yuan/day in food for net wages of 6.8 yuan/day and 4 .3 yuan/day. Western Xiushui has a relative labor surplus because of a lower land per capita ratio than Central and Eastern Xiushui. However, no specific information was collected on how large the wage differential may be between Western and Eastern Xiushui. 2.25 In Kezuo county one farmer with 40 mu of land hired 15 workers paying 3 yuan/day for women and 3.5 yuan/day for men. Plantation labour was paid 4-5 yuan/day. One nursery reported paying 2 yuan/day but said it was difficult to get workers at that wage rate. 41 The county associate director said the hyiwugong fee villages ranged from 2-3 yuan/day. 2.26 At this point the best estimates of shadow wage rates for off peak casual agricultural labor to prepare land, dig pits, plant trees, grasses, and crops, tend plants, and harvest or collect crops, fodder, fuelwood, and timber for each county are: (a) Hengnan county 4 yuanlwd; (b) Xiushui county 3 yuan/wd; and (c) Kezuo county 3 yuanlwd. These are based on an 8 hccr work day. Gbservationz in3icate that among the three counties, Hengnan would have the highest opportunity cost of labor because of its location. The county is just south of Hengyang, the second largest city in the province, and it also has the nearly completed double track railroad line running through the county down to Guangzhou. The proximity to this large market provides more opportunity for labor. Xiushui county is in a more inaccessible location and the transportation infrastructure is not as favorable as Hengnan's. Kezuo county in some ways seemed to be the poorest of the three counties with the lowest wage rates, but the land per capita ratio is higher and there appears to be more opportunities for agriculture labor in the non peak season. Benefit Assumptions 2.27 Fuelwood. As markets for fuelwood in the three counties are very thin, the market price was not viewed as a reliable "shadow price" for fuelwood. Instead the opportunity cost of fuelwood was the approach taken to price or value the fuelwood output. If less fuelwood is available to the farmer, then the farmer must use an alternative fuel. In the three counties the principal alternative, commercial energy source is coal. Thus, fuelwood can be valued at the economic price of an equivalent amount of coal that would need to be purchased to perform the same energy tasks as one ton of fuelwood. The difference in kilocalories per kilogram between the two energy sources must be taken into account as well as the difference in end-use efficiency. The shadow price of fuelwood = Shadow price of coal* fuelwood kcallkg *fuelwood stove efficiency/(coal kcallkg * coal stove efficiency). 2.28 Tree Fodder. The tree fodder benefit (leaves from the fuelwood trees) is priced the same as other fodder comparable in livestock feed value. - 41 A farmer with 100 mu of pasture grass hired labor at a contract wage of 3 yuan per day. 2.29 Fodder ~lants/~rass/Pasture. In Kezuo County the fodder crop/pasture scenarios were valued in one of two ways. In some scenarios a pasture of lucerne that was cut and then sold as hay was assumed. In this case the market price of the lucerne hay was used to value the pasture output. In other scenarios a pasture of white clover or perennial ryegrass on which sheep are grazed was assumed. The pasture output was valued based on the conversion of the forage into sheep outputs of wool and meat. This was done by estimating a farm budget for raising sheep on pasture. The net return per ewe was estimated based on all costs and returns except for the cost of the pasture. It was assumed that a hectare of hillside pasture could carry 5 ewes (plus lambs) during the growing season. The net return per hectare of hillside pasture therefore is five times the net return per ewe. The net return per hectare of pasture is then divided by the dry matter yield of the pasture to arrive at a value per ton of pasture output. 2.30 In Hengnan County the pasture/grass scenarios are for the grazing of ruminant animals and the pasture output was valued based on the conversion of forage into beef. Valuation of the product is based both on the value of a draught animal, and also on the market price for beef. A farm budget for raising cattle was prepared, similar to the budget in Kezuo County for raising sheep. The pasture routput was then valued as the net return per hectare from raising cattle divided by the per hectare yield. This method would tend to overvalue the pasture cutput if there was a profit margin in raising livestock not covered by all the costs. This, therefore, would give an upper limit to the value of the pasture benefit. 2.31 In Xiushui County there are two different pasture scenarios. One is similar to Hengnan County in that the pasture is grazed by cattle and the pasture output is valued based on its conversion to beef. The second pasture scenario in Xiushui involves a mixed grass legume pasture in which the most digestable portion is cut and carried to feed pigs and the remainder is fed to ruminants. Two thirds of the pasture is assumed to be fed to ruminants and is valued at the cost of comparable fodder. The one third that is fed to pigs is valued on the basis of its conversion to pork, and a farm budget for raising pigs is estimated to arrive at the net return to the legume pasture. Ideally more information on fodder plant prices and/or more detailed farm budgets on livestock production could be collected to more accurately arrive a t the shadow price of pasture output. 2.32 Timber. The market price of timber at price-controlled government timber yards is used. 2.33 Crops. All crop output is valued according to the free market price. Environmental Benefits 2.34 One of the objectives of the hillside development models is to increase soil and water conservation particularly on the seriously eroded sites. This is achieved through engineering projects, and growing trees, fodder plants and crops. These measures help the eroded hillsides to retain more soil and water and to gradually build back the soil. In the long run the agricultural productivity of these hillsides will increase and this is reflected in the models in the yields from the trees and fodder plants. Without some measures being taken to conserve the soil and water, on the most seriously eroded sites green matter production would be nearly nil and over time the more moderate sites would experience a decline in ;r~ducti~i>. 2.35 In addition to affecting the onsite hillside soil, the soil and water conservation measures have some downslope effects. Hillside runoff causes siltation of fish ponds, reservoirs, and rivers, and flooding of lowland fields. reducing overall productivity. Quantifying these effects requires data that are seldom available however. The area affected by hillside runoff and the annual yield reduction rate would need to be estimated. The reduced crop yield could be valued at the market prices of the crops grown on affected fields. The number of fish ponds being silted up and the cost to dredge the pond or dig a new pond elsewhere would also need to be estimated as well as the loss in fish production caused by decreased food availability. Similar methods could be used in the case of reservoirs. Unfortunately the necessary detailed information on these kinds of down slope effects are not available from the three counties at the present time and consequently downstream benefits with the project are not included in analysis of the models. In this sense, the analysis as here carried out, represents a worse case scenario. 2.36 However, while it was not possible to quantify the downstream environmental benefits, the various models were ranked on a subjective basis to determine qualitatively the most efficient erosion control measures from a technical point of view. This includes on site as well as downstream effects. The rankings do not take into account benefitlcost analysis, so that technically highly effective but costly measures such as terracing may not be the most cost effective measures to use. Even though the environmental benefits are not explicitly included in the analysis of the models, the subjective rankings may be used to qualitatively compare two models that may be close in terms of profitability. Ranking of Models For Soil Conservation 2.37 Hengnan County. For site class I - red or purple soil not seriously eroded - the ranking from greatest reduction of current soil and water loss to least among the scenarios is 1.4, fuelwood trees and fodder plants; 1.5, pastures; 1.2, fuelwood trees (density 5000 seedlingslhectare); and 1.3, trees for fuelwood and timber (density 3330 seedlings/hectare); 1.1, intercropping fuelwood trees and crops on prexisting terraces. 2.38 For site class I1 - red or purple soil seriously eroded - the ranking from greatest reduction of current soil and water loss to least among the scenarios is 2.1, dynamite, terrace and then intercrop fuelwood and soybeans, sweet potatoes, wheat and rapeseed; 2.2 squamose pits, grasses and fuelwood trees; 2.3, grasses. Scenario 2.1 offers the best erosion control with the soil erosion situation "without project" serious and "with project" mild. Scenario 2.2 is not quite as good as terracing. 2.29 - Xiushui Cobnty. For site class I poor western sites - all three scenarios are very similar in their ability to reduce soil erosion and water runoff and all three should give a high reduction. The ranking is: 1.1, squamos pits, grass and low density trees; 1.2, squamos pits, grass and high density trees; and 1.3, grass and pits. 2.40 For site class I1 - moderate western sites - the ranking from greatest reduction to least is: 2.2, fuelwood trees and fodder plants; 2.1, fuelwood trees and crops on previously terraced land; and 2.3, fuelwood trees. Scenario 2.2 should be substantially better than 2.1. .-,* L .+: For site class I11 - fairly steep east-ern sites - the ranking from greatest reduction to least is: 3.3, fuelwood trees and fodder plants; 3.1, fuelwood trees; and 3.2, trees for timber and fuelwood. Scenario 3.1 is considered to have a soil erosion control factor greater than scenario 3.2 as the seedling density in 3.1 is 5000 per hectare and in 3.2 is 3330 per hectare, though the cost effectiveness of the two scenarios should be examined, bearing in mind that grass and possibly shrubs may grow between the trees and assist in erosion control. 2.42 Kezuo County. For site class I - poor shallow hilltop soil - the ranking from greatest reduction to least is 1.1, fuelwood trees and fodder plants; and 1.2, fodder plants. There is not a large difference between the two if fodder plants become well-established-and effectively cover the area. 2.43 For site class I1 - midllower slope - the ranking from greatest reduction to least is 2.2, fuelwood trees and fodder plants; 2.1, pitted fuelwood trees; and 2.3, fuelwood trees and crops.  Fuelwood Production Costs 2.44 Ultimately the costs of various energy sources need to be compared to decide on the optimal supply mix of energy to the county. For all scenarios resulting in the production of fuelwood the present value of the cost of producing a ton of fuelwood is computed. As fuelwood may be part of a joint product (fuelwood and tree fodder) or (timber, fuelwood, and tree fodder) there are a number of ways to apportion the production costs and arrive at a cost for producing fuelwood. The costs can be apportioned based on the value (volume weight times the shadow price) of each joint product. The approach taken here in the case of joint production of fuelwood and tree rodde- was to subtract from the full establishment, maintenance, and harvest costs for fuelwood and tree fodder and any engineering project costs the value of fodder produced on the trees. This was then taken to be the cost of producing fuelwood. The present value of this stream of costs was divided by the present value of fuelwosd output over time to arrive at a present value cost of one ton of fuelwood. In the case of joint production of timber, fuelwood and tree fodder, since the principal purpose is to produce timber, the cost of producing fuelwood was taken to be only the fuelwood harvest labor costs. The present value of this stream of costs was divided by : he present value of fuelwood output to arrive at a present value cost of fuelwood per ton. 2.45 For site classes I11 and IV in Kesuo only one scenario was modeled for each. Site class I11 is in large gullies and site class IV is on the flat beds of rivers. 2.46 The models themselves show the "with project" environmental benefits of using construction works and/or planting on the hillsides in the tree and plant yields. Without any of these projects (status quo) on the most seriously erodfed sites green matter production would be nearly nil and over time the more moderate sites would see a decline in production. 2.47 Besides the benefit of producing timber, fuelwood, and fodder on these hillsides the projects have indirect environmental benefits from the reduction in soil and water erosion. The runoff causes siltation of lowland fields, fish ponds, reservoirs, and rivers. The runoff can reduce the yields on lowland fields,..and cause fishponds, reservoirs and river to have to be dredged. In Hengnan and Xiushui Counties these downstream effects were mentioned by several local officials. Quantifying these effects requires data that are seldom available. One would need to estimate the area affected by hillside runoff and the annual yield reducing rate which is difficult if not impossible to do. The reduced yield could be valued at the market prices of the crops grown. The number of fish ponds and reservoirs being silted up and the cost of dredging or digging a new pond elsewhere may provide another measure of benefits. If the river bottom is rising and the frequency of floods increases this is also an effect of soil erosion and would require the valuation of crops lost to the increased frequency of floods and the value of any structures damaged by floods . Unfortunately the necessary detailed information on these kinds of down slope effects are not available from these three counties at the present time.  111. COUNTY REPORTS Hengnan Background 3.1 Hengnan county is in the south of Hunan Province at approximately 2' north latitude. The population in 1986 was 912,000 of 6 which 94% (861,000) lived in 211,600 rural households. The total land area is 269,000 ha and the terrain is low to medium-sized hills with elevations mainly 50 to 100 m but risiilg LO over ~ O Um in piaces. !';d and purple soils occur throughout the county, but with the relatively less fertile red soil tending to predominate more in the east. The climate is sub-tropical with an average temperature of 1 8~ '. In July through September temperatures may rise as high as 40'~ while in January and February they may fall to - 9~ '. The average number of frost free days is 286. The mean annual rainfall is 1270 mm with March to June being the wettest months, but with no month receiving on the average less than 40 mm. Details of temperature, relative humidity, evaporation and rainfall are shown in Annex 1. 3.2 Forty four percent of the land (119,000 ha) is classified as being available for forestry. Of this 50% (59,000 ha; is a~ready forested with both plantations and natural forests. The timber stands are made up mainly of Cunninghamia lanceolata (Chinese Fir), Pinus - - massoniana (Masson Pine) and Sassafras tzumu (Sassafras) with some Pinus elliottii (Slash Pine), while those dedicated largely to fuelwood production are made up mainly of Robinia pseudoacacia (Black Locust) Quercus acutissinia, Q. dungu (Oaks) and Choerospondias spp. These are currently estimated to have an annual exploitable yield of fuelwood of about 59,000 tonnes including 36,000 tonnes from timber forest. A further 18,000 tonnes are available from sparsely forested areas, bushland and plantings around farms and homesteads, giving a total sustained fuelwood yield of 77,000 tonnes (air dry). Details of the fuelwood resources situation are shown in Annex 2. The fuelwood sustainable yield estimates must be considered as approximate. Very few actual measurements of standing biomass or of growth rates have been made. The estimates are based on subjective assumptions of local foresters and extrapolation from 10-year old low intensity timber inventories, with no up-to-date reference as to the spatid distribution of vegetation/biomass classes. 3.3 This fuelwood supply scenario compares with an estimated current consumption of 280,000 tonnes (air dry), for households and 6,000 tonnes for agricultural industry, leaving a shortfall of 210,000 tonnes. Fuelwood represents 32% of the fuel used by households in daily life, in terms of primary energy. Evidence of Hengnan County's fuelwood shortage can be seen in the type of fuelwood used - principally branches and twigs in many households. This is also an indication of the high  demand for small timber for such items as furniture and poles. The heavy use of fast-burning agricultural residues and grass - 216,000 tonnes per year, providing 23% of household fuel on a primary energy basis - further indicates the shortage of fuelwood. The obvious conclusion is that sustainable fuel supplies need to be increased, and as rapidly as possible as the current deficit situation almost certainly means that overcutting of both the timber and fuelwood resource for energy wood is taking place, with the resultant reduction in the sustainable fuelwood yield, and degradation of the timber resource. Description of Models -. 2.4 Sevorrl models were set up for Hengnan County as summarized in Table'3.1 A distinction was made between reasonable hillside sites with only a limited degree of erosion and badly eroded sites with low yield potential under the current conditions. On the latter sites the principle objective is erosion control and several scenarios were considered. In some of the scenarios, fodder and agricultural crops may also be benefits, but only as a by-product of achieving the most cost effective erosion control. Such sites would not be the preferred areas for producing trees, fodder and crops. The preferred areas would be the moderately better hillside sites, where soil fertility is higher. However, here trade-offs need to be made between the production of fuelwood, timber, fodder/forage and agricultural crop production. Table 3.7 set5 ut stvzral options and shows the relationships between them in ; terms of productivity and cost-effectiveness. 3.5 The annual yields for fuelwood represent the average quantity of wood that could be available for harvest on a hectare, as is illustrated in Annex 4, Table 1 . The actual current annual increment (CAI) varies with the age of the tree and is boosted after the first few harvests by coppice vigor. The result of averaging the theoretical CAIs is a mean annual increment (MI), and this was taken as the amount of wood that the farmer could cut on a sustained basis for 20 years. Actually, if the first harvest is not until year 5 or 6 then the annual sustainable cut is higher than the MA1 as there is a reserve built up over the first 4 or 5 years so that the annual sustainable cut is the sum of production for 4 ~ears/20 + M I . In practice this may be cut by clearfelling roughly 114th of the area every four years, but compensation would need to be made for extra wood production in the latter coupes in the first rotation.  Table 3.1: MODELS FOR HENGNAN COUNTY Site Class Models 1. Red/purple soils not seriously eroded. 1.1 Inter cropping fuelwood trees and crops on pre- existing terraces. 1.2 Fuelwood trees only. 1 Fueiwood and timber .. trees. 1.4 Fuelwood trees and pastures. 1.5 Pastures only. 2. soils ~ed/~ur~ l e seriously eroded. 2.1 Terracing with explosives and imported organic matter, intercropping fuelwood trees and crops. 2.2 Squamose pits, gully checks, fuel-.~oadLrees and fodder plants. 2.3 Pastures only. 3.6 Model 1.1 Moderate Site; Fuelwood Trees and Crops. This model assumes that slopes are under 20° and that terraces already exist, at least in some usable form. Several examples of such sites were seen in Western Hengnan, but the area is limited. To allow for the intercropping with agricultural crops trees could be planted at 2 x 2 m or preferably 4 x 1 m (2500 seedlings per ha). Narrower spacings are possible, and are being used at present by the farmers, but these would cause excess shading and competition with the crops limiting their growth, particularly after the first three years. The yield of fuelwood is expected to be lower than for closer spaced trees with no crops. However,. the difference may not be great as the trees are expected to dominate the site by year three or four. A yield of 5 to 6 tonnes/ha/year is expected with harvesting commencing in year 5. 3.7 The crop inputs and outputs are as for current hillside dryland practices in Hengnan. A simplified cropping rotation is suggested of wheat, sweet potato, rapeseed and soybean, but the 20-year picture of soil nutrient levels is not clear. Available nitrogen levels over this period are affected by some inputs of inorganic and organic fertilizer, plus Rhizobium generated inputs from soybeans and locust trees; but the balance is difficult to determine without empirical research. Crop yields will be affected by tree canopy and root encroachment and a yield factor is applied accordingly. Leaves from the trees cut for fuelwood would be available for fodder and are valued as such, with a yield of 10% of the wood yield assumed, though they may also be burnt or, in the case of nitrogen - species such as black locust, form a green manure for the soil. 3.8 Model 1.2 Moderate Site; Fuelwood Trees Only. This could apply to all slopes in the not severely eroded classes, of which there is an estimated 40,000 ha in Hengnan County. Planting spacement is suggested to be 1.4 x 1.4 m (5,000 seedlings per h a). This is less than the 10,000 seedlings currently planted in most areas of the province, but represents a more cost effective approach as is shown in Annex 3. The reduction in y i s l d shcnl2 c ~ the that great as after the root systems and the crowns fully occupy the site there is negligible incremental yield benefit between 10,000 and 5,000 seedlings. However, the cost of establishing the 10,000 seedlinglha woodlot is nearly double that of the 5,000 seedling woodlot. The question of spacing and yield is dealt with in Annex 4 and table 3.2 shows the rate of return for various planting densities with different yield assumptions. The first harvest would be in year 5. T a b l e 3.2: SEEDLING DENSITY'S EFFECT ON RATE OF RETURN Seedling Density Annual Y i e l d R a t e of R e t u r n 3.9 The soil texture and depth will vary, but in general it should be possible to dig 80 pits per work day. After refilling of the pits and planting, some ring tending may need to be done in the first year to keep down competitive weeds and grasses. 3.10 Model 1.3 Moderate Site; Fuelwood and Timber Trees. This model could apply to most of the area referred to in Model 2.2. Several options could be used here: (a) Chinese fir only with early thinnings and residues from timber production being used as fuelwood as is presently the case in many areas;  (b) Interplant the Chinese fir with a coppicing fuelwood species such as black locust so as to obtain a longer lasting fuelwood resource base coupled with residues and some thinnings from the Chinese fir. The effect of competition from the locust trees on the Chinese fir is difficult to ascertain, but if spacing is wide enough at 2 -x 1.5 m, competition should be minimal until after three years. The competition would be mainly from shading and this is alleviated when fuelwood cutting occurs after five years; (c) Planting improved species such as one or more species of eucalypt. This could then be managed on a coppice with standards basis, I/ with the coppice bii~t;used for fuel and the standards for sawtimber and poles, with residues also being used for fuel. 3.11 Model 3.1 presents option (c) and - a mean annual increment over 24 years of 12 M /ha/year is assumed .to be achievable, Spacing would be at 2 x 1.5 m (3,330 seedlings per ha) and 20 grams per seedling of high percentage nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer would be applied in the first year. It is felt the value of the response should justify this expense, though trials to test the cost effectiveness of fertilizers are necessary. Ring tending (weeding) plus general grass slashing is included twice in the first two years and one ring tending is included in year three. The grass that is slashed may be used as cut and ccrr;. fodder. 3.12 Harvesting is scheduled to start in year six (5 years growth) with the thinning of 10% of the stems for fuelwood annually until year ten, at which point small class three poles (less than 12 cm butt diameter) could start to be harvested. By year 15 class two poles (12-15 cm butt diameter) would become available and by year 20 class three poles (15-18 cm butt diameter) should be available, In the one hectare model cutting is scheduled to occur each year from year six, to provide a regular flow of income. This could be done by harvesting a proportion of the hectare each year. The usual practice with larger areas available of a given age would be to thin poles at years six, ten, fifteen and twenty and clear fell at year 24. Fuelwood coppicing could be done on an annual basis from annual coupes or again cut every four to five years. Areas of different ages would then be cut for poles and fuelwood in the intervening years, with a regular annual cut being established over time to fit market demand and silvicultural needs. 51 - In a coppice with standards system a number of stems of a coppicing species are cut at an early age and then encouraged to coppice for production of lower value products, while larger and better 11 standards" are left to grow on a longer rotation, 3.13 Model 1.4 Moderate Site, Fuelwood Trees and Fodder. Fuelwood trees would be planted as per model 1.1 for intercropping with agricultural crops, planting 2500 seedlings per ha, preferrably at 2 x 2 m spacing. Perennial fodder plants, in this case a mixed grass - legume pasture, would be established between the trees. The choice of fodder species is difficult to determine, but it must be assumed that those used include both summer growing temperate species 5 1 which are adapted for low. winter temperatures, and sub-tropical species which also have some tolerance to cold winter spells. - 71 3.14 Important constraints to the establishment and growth of either of these groups are: - the need to inoculate the soil with the appropriate Rhizobia for the legumes being used; - the need for plant species which can tolerate extremely acid soils with high levels of aluminium; and - the need for substantial inputs of phosphate and possibly lime fertilizer. There is also the need to adopt management strategies which provide for the buildup and maintenance of soil organic matter, and the maintenance of the most pi-~d~ctivc: species mix in the long term. Such strategies include the timing and intensity of harvesting by grazing or cutting, and the need for periodic reseeding and renovation. 3.15 Utilization of the proposed pastures will be either by cut and carry methods or direct grazing. However, the latter can only occur after about three years of growth, and then with supervision to protect the trees from damage. In either case a fodder conservation strategy is needed to preserve some summer growth for winter maintenance of livestock. As the fodder benefits are related to conversion of fodderiforage into beef the keeping of liveweight losses over winter to a minimum is important for model efficiency. 3.16 As with model 2.1 there will be a reduction in wood and fodder yield from that obtained under a pure cropping system. The reduction in wood yield due to increased spacing is difficult to estimate but is assumed to be 15% to 6 tonnes/haIpear. The fodder yield reduction is assumed to be 25% to about 5.2 tonneslha due to competition from the trees. 61 - E.g. white and red clovers and fescues as used successfully in Western Hunan Province. - 71 E.g. Desmodium spp Paspalum spp and Setaria spp as used in the livestock projects of Northern Guansu and Guandong Provinces. 3.17 Model 1.5 Moderate Site; Pastures Only. Pastures would be established and managed as per model 2.4, except that no trees would be planted. This allows grazing from the second year and a yield averaging 7 tonneslha. 3.18 Model 2.1 Seriously Eroded Site; Terracing, Fuelwood and Cro~s. L In these most seriouslv eroded areas all the A horizon and most of the B horizon has been removed, and a network of bifurcating gullies is present. To reclaim these areas for cropping substantial and costly engineering works are necessary. These may include the use of explosives to loosen the soil and rock prior to terrace formation. A Chinese feasibility study on such reclamation suggests the need for up to 27 tonneslha of organic matter to be spread over the site. Tine effectiveness of such organic matter in producing a soil with satisfactory quantities of moisture infiltration and retention will depend on the quality of the organic matter used. 3.19 Terraces 3.5 m. wide would be constructed using-manual labour and trees would be planted every 2 m . along the front of terraces with agricultural crops planted between and behind the trees. The tree species used should have good erosion control characteristics and could include Acacia mearnsii and Robinia pseudoacacia, and possibly several other species that should be tested in research trials (refer below). 3.20 Even after rehabilitation it is expected that tree growth will- be slow, given the inherently poor soil fertility. The relatively wide spacing of 2x3.5 m. will also contribute to poor tree yield which should average 3 tonnes/ha/year once harvesting commences in year 6. There will be higher yields of both wood and crops from purple soils compared with the red 'soils. The former are less acid and the parent material may weather more rapidly, giving better physical characteristics for seedling growth than in the red soils. The 3 tonneslha of wood represents an average for the soils. Production of wheat, rapeseed, soybean and sweet potato is estimated to be initially 70% and 50% of yields on reasonable slopes (model 1.1) for purple and red soils respectively. Over time this should increase to 90% and 70% respectively. 3.21 Model 2.2 Seriously Eroded Site; Squamose Pits, Gully Checks, Trees and Fodder Plants. This model represents a second approach to soil and water conservation on seriously eroded red and purple soil sites with fuelwood and fodder production being a secondary benefit. The inputs are much less costly than the major engineering works in model 2.1. A series of squamose pits (2 x 1 m.) would be dug every 10 m . along the contours and 2 mi apart up the slope resulting in approximately 400 pits per ha. The rationale of the model is to produce a series of focal points where trees and fodder plants can be established, with the latter spreading from these "watering" points. A series of physical check structures would also be constructured in the gullies. 3.22 The selection of fodder plants to colonize these areas involves the same constraints and considerations that apply in models 1 .4 and 1.5. In addition the plants should have rhizomatous or stoloniferous growth habits and soil binding properties. The trees selected should also have strong soil holding capabilities and would include the same species proposed in model 2.1. Two trees would be planted per pit. The tree spacing (800 per ha) is sub-optimal from the wood production point of view, but effective from a soil and water conservation point of view - the primary objective. Accordingly wood yields are reduced to about 2 tonnes/ha/year. 3.23 Model 2.3 Seriously Eroded Site; Fodder Plants Only. The pzs:r?res Kay li: esiab?leheA -ither by planting slips or seedlings of fodder plants or by sowing legume/grass seed. It is assumed for the model that seed sowing would be done. With the exclusion of cattle in the initial years a slow rehabilitation of the site could occur with a gradual increase in fodder/forage production.- It should be noted, however, that the application of this method for restoring badly degraded and gullied red soil sites on sandstone or granite parent material depends on a number of factors. Primary among these is the availability of species or cultivars that are able to colonize the site under the extremely poor moisture and nutrient availability conditions. Secondly, reseeding or replanting of slips will be necessary over succeeding years to ensure adequate establishment of the plants. Thirdly, heavy inputs of scarce fertilizer all6 ?ossiLly lime would be necessary. It will also be necessary initially to have full exclosure of animals and subsequently to carefully control the timing and intensity of herbage removed. Soil Conservation Considerations 3.24 Although much background work has been done to map soils and soil erosion categories within the county, and to look at variations between soils (see Annex 7 ) , there are steps in the planning process which need to be completed. These include: 3.25 Assessment of Potential Land-Use. Current land-use planning in Hengnan involves either cropping or tree-planting. A broader viewpoint should include ruminant livestock production, either in conjunction with the planting or as a separate option. As background data for this assessment, it would first be needed to establish the overall economic framework and market prospects, for example for beef production. Secondly, evaluation would need to be carried out of suitable Livestock systems (see Annex 2 ), and thirdly a program to identify suitable fodder species and their management would be required (see Annex 5). 3.26 Possible Conservation Methods. Traditional Chinese remedies for soil erosion have involved bench-terracing for crop production or tree planting, with limited use of agronomic methods which rely on permanent ground treatment, including the establishment of ground cover plants, to reduce both detachment and transport of soil particles. Establishment of perennial soil-binding forage species is a recognized agronomic method, the success of which in Hengnan would depend on identification of suitable species. Establishment of such species could also provide a basis for livestock production. 3.27 Mechanical methods used to complement fodder plant establishment and provide initial runoff control include various types of channel terraces, contour furrows or ditches, and vegetation strips or contour belts of bunch forage grasses, vetiver grass or shrub legumes. These all slow down soil and water movement at a substantially lower cost of installation than bench terraces. Costing and testing of such measures, in comparison with present strategies such as squamose pits, is essential. 3.28 Evaluation of the benefits of establishing these fodder plants in conjunction with trees is also necessary, in terms of not only increased erosion control, but also of gaining the maximum benefit from the system, such as livestock and timber products etc. Comparison of Options and Recommendations 3.29 Table 3.3 summarizes the analysis of each of the models in terms of internal rates of return (IRR), net present values (NPV) and the present value of the cost of producing fuelwood in tons of coal equivalent (TCE) with the end-use efficiency factored in. 81 In several cases the effects of different fuelwood yield assumptions are shown (models 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4). 3.30 On the moderate hillside sites, on the basis of NPV, the combination of fuelwood and timber trees (~odel 1.3) gives the best return. If IRR is considered, dedication of the site to pastures (Model 1.5) provides the best return, though with considerable fertilizer inputs that may be unrealistic from a farmers point of view. It also presupposes that there is a market for the additional cattle products that would be produced from the sites represented by the model. The difference between the two benefitlcost criteria is that although the pastures gives a higher IRR, the discounted inputs are smaller than in the case of the timber and fuelwood so that the quantity of discounted benefits are smaller for the farmer resulting in a lower NPV. Supporting this is the fact that the benefitlcost ratio for Model 1.3 is 7.49 versus 2.39 for Modei 1.5 (pastures). 3.31 Regarding fuelwood development, the key word is 'Iflexibility". Large-scale forestry development efforts clearly are a high priority for the county, both from the perspective of the household fuel problem and from the perspective of the county's overall economic development. Because a variety of outputs are needed from Hengnan's 8/ - A real discount rate of 10% is used for the latter two calculations. hillsides, and there are needs to provide both fuel and the highest economic returns possible, however, the county should not tie its hands through massive promotion of only two or three forestry development models, a very limited number of tree species, and little or no flexibility concerning the eventual product mix. The best results may be obtained through the promotion of a more diverse set of development models and tree species, and greater emphasis on multi-purpose plantations, combining tree planting with the planting of agricultural crops or grass and legumes, or timber and fuelwood production objectives. In the case of Hengnan, plantation and management regimes which provide some timber and some fuelwood production (over and above that obtained from the pruning of branches), and some discretion as to the miv bet wen^ the t w 9 , doaerve special attention. One possibility is a regime such as Model 1.3, whereby mixed timber and fuelwood woodlots are planted. 3.32 The estimated 40,000 ha of moderate sites in Hengnan, should provide sufficient fuelwood over the long-term, while the production of higher valued poles and sawlogs ensures an optimum return on investment. It may be necessary to plant some areas to fuelwood only for the first year or two where there is an acute shortage. In establishing and managing the mixed woodlots, special emphasis has to be given to the early production of fuelwood so that farmers do not overprune or destroy designated timber trees. This may be achieved by the interplanting of fuelwood species such as R. ~rs:.4osracia with C. lanceolata or eucalypts, or planting of pure eucalypts. Early and heavy thinning with resultant coppicing irom the locust -and eucalypts provides fuelwood while over time the fir may be harvested for timber and better eucalypt seeding or coppice stems may be left to be harvested for timber. 3.33 The fuelwood and timber production should be confined to the moderate sites, while the poor, eroded sites, with low productivity potential should have as their primary management objective soil and water conservation by the most cost effective means. The models 2.1 - 2.3 are all expensive options with unsatisfactory rates of return. Model 2.1 is extremely expensive with P.V. of costs at over ~9,60O/haand a benefitlcost ratio of 0.77. This makes it 116 times as cost-effective as establishing timber and fuelwood trees where the benefitlcost ratio is 0.75. Model 2.3 appears to 'be the best, but has high inputs of fertilizer. It may be possible to achieve adequate conservation without the fertilizer and with longer term exclusion of animals, and this should be seriously considered. The planting of some trees with gully checks does, however, provide better erosion control than pure grasses and fodder plants and should be evaluated again considering downstream benefits. 3.34 The models therefore indicate the direction that hillside development, on moderate and poor sites, in Hengnan county should follow, with the key word being flexibility to allow for future variations in fuelwood demand while striving for the best economic, environmental and  .- - 0 m * t m a CV muJ L - a - o 3 u t a m 3 U L U 0 a I u J L 02 W social benefits. While much of the planting probably would be done on the uniform collective basis with subsequent communal or private management and harvesting, special emphasis should be placed on development of private woodlots on zilioshan and ziliodi. As detailed in Chapter IV, an effective extension system will be needed to support such activities and basic applied research needs to be undertaken to ensure the optimal species as well as silvicultural and management techniques are available. The hillside development options will be more closely defined and a program developed during the subsequent fuelwood preparation mission to Hunan Province. Background 3.35 Xiushui county is located in the north west corner of Jiangxi province at approximately 2' north latitude. The population in 9 1986 was estimated at 659,000 of which 606,000 (92%) lived in 106,000 rural households. The total land area of the county is 450,000 ha and the terrain is quite hilly with some 65% of the county consisting of mountaneous terrain and 34% of hills usually with steep slopes. The climate is humid sub-tropical with an average temperature of 16.5' C. In July and August the average .nai:l~am temperature is 3 ' 4 C, while in January the average minimum is '0 C . The average number of frost-free days is 247, and the mean annual rainfall is 1580 mm, with April, May and June being the wettest months. However, no month receives less than 40 mm. 3.36 Forestry is a major economic activity in the county and 74% of the land (331,800 ha) is classified as being available for forestry. Of this 62% (205,200 ha) is tree-covered, principally with natural timber forests as well as with timber plantations. The principal species are Cunninghania lanceolata and Pinus massoniana. Fuelwood is obtained from cutting branches and from residues in the timber forest as well as from dedicated natural fuelwood forests and scrub or brushland. The total sustainable annual fuelwood yield i s roughly estimated at 265,000 tonnes (air dry), of which 117,000 tonnes comes from timber forest and 126,000 tonnes from the fuelwood forest. Details of the fuelwood resources is shown in Annex 2. Again, as with the fuelwood resource data in Hengnan, the figures should be taken as approximate given the low level of statistical accuracy. 3.37 In Xiushui, it is important to distinguish between the west and central west, from the rest of the county as there is considerable difference in the soil erosion situation and site growing potential. The western area is dominated by sandstone and granite-type rocks, and severe erosion occurs over wide areas. Productivity of both crops and wood is low compared with the rest of the county. About 35% of the population lives in the western area, but the consumption of household energy is lower than elsewhere, particularly fuelwood, with per capita consumption being estimated at 0.6 tonnes per annum. This, and the use of grass and straw for fuel indicates a fuelwood shortage in the area. By comparison the rest of the county has a per capita fuelwood consumption of about 1.8 tonnes per annum. 91 Total fuelwood consumption in the west is estimated at 125,000 tonnes per year. 2 1 A rough mission estimate indicates that the approximate sustainable fuelwood yield in the west is 20,000 tonnes leaving a current fuelwood deficit of some 100,000 tonnes. In the rest of the county the annual sustainable yield is estimated at 245,000 tonnes and consumption, including that for industry, at 795,000 tonnes leaving a deficit of 550,000 tonnes. Description of Models 3.38 The models set up for Xiushui county distinguished between: (a) the very poor areas in the west where erosion is serious and site productivity low with the consequence that the primary objective of hillside development would be erosion control; (b) less depleted but still low productivity western sites; and (c) reasonably productive eastern hillsides. It is roughly estimated that there is 30,000 ha each of (a) and (b) and 60,000 ha of (c). - 111 Table 3.4 summarizes the models for the county. 3.39 Model 1.1 - Poor Western Site; Pits, Grass and Low Density Trees The site has no A horizon and virtually no B horizon with exposed parent rock and weathered rock fragments, very low organic matter and low indices of wash resistivity and water stable aggregation. Terracing is not recommended here as the cost would be very high in relation to subsequent production - even more so than in Hengnan. The digging of pits to contain soil and water runoff has the advantage over terracing that it is much less costly, requires low levels of design and supervision for construction, traps an acceptable level of runoff, and needs no maintenance. Four hundred pits per ha (1 x 2 x 0.5 m) would be dug, but not refilled. The trees would be planted on the contour 1 m. apart, with the countour rows 6 m. apart, their primary purpose being to assist in soil stabilization'and to increase water in£iltration. Smaller pits (about 50 x 50 x 30 cm.) would be dug and refilled for growing the - 91 - Source: Household Energy Survey 1988. 101 - Includes roundwood equivalent for charcoal. - 111 County officials verbal communications. trees. The tree species used would include Robinia pseudoacacia, Amorpha fructiosa, Schima superba and Liquidamber formosona plus several other species accepted under research trials. 3.40 The grass and legume fodder plants would include those already tested in Jiangxi and found suitable such as Setaria viridis, Paspalum thumbergii and Lespedeza bicolor. However, i t is essential that summer growing, cold tolerant, sub-tropical species be investigated in trials. The grasses and legumes would be established from seeding and the planting of slips. Fertilizer inputs and the control of herbage removal are important elements, even more so than in Bengnan. Table 3.6: MOnEI,S FOR XUISHUI COUNTY Site Class Models 1. Poor western soils 1.1 Pits, grass and low density trees. 1.2 Pits, grass and high density trees. 1.3 Furrows and grass only. 2. Moderate western soils 2.1 Fuelwood trees and crops. 2.2 Fuelwood trees and fodder plants. 2.3 Fuelwood trees only. 3. Moderate central and eastern soils 3.1 Fuelwood trees only. 3.2 Fuelwood and timber trees. 3.3 Fuelwood trees and fodder plants. 3.41 The tree spacing (1670 plants per ha) means that from a wood production point of view, production would be sub-optimal. From yield observations mortality may be relatively high and a yield of one tonnefhafyear is all that could be expected. The productivity of the fodder plants will be l o ~ e rthan in Hengnan County, because of slightly lower temperatures and longer winters, and because of higher erodability and subsequent poorer fertility of the Xiushui sandstone and granite- based soils in the west of the county. Initially yields may be 1.5 tonnes of dry matter per ha but rise to 4.5 tonnes by year 17 as the fertility of the site improves. 3.42 Model 1.2 - Poor Western Site; Pits, Grass and High Density Trees. This model is similar to 1.1, but the trees would be planted at high density (10,000 seedlings per ha). The expected result is that wood yield will be optimal for the site, unless mortality is excessive under the harsh conditions. However, the yield would still be low at an estimated 3 tonnes/ha/year because of the site conditions. Fodder production will be reduced slightly from that in model 1 .1 (3.5 t~nnes/ha/~ear in years 17 to 20) because of tree shading. 3.43 Model 1.3 - Poor Western Site; Furrows and Grass Only. Under the same site conditions as models 1.1 and 1.2 contour furrows would be dug manually, estimated to require the same labour input as the pits (80 wd/ha). The grass and legume plants would then be grown by direct seeding or planting of slips. Yields should be slightly higher than for the other two models as there will be no competition from trees. The output in the 17th to 20th years is esimated to be 5 t~nnes/ha/~ear. 3.44 Model 2.1 - Moderate Western Site; Fuelwood Trees and Crops. These sites are less degraded than those for the first three models, but, nevertheless, they are still relatively poor. A similar regime intercropping trees and agricultural crops as on the moderate sites in Hengnan county would be established. Tree seedlings would be planted in small pits at a density of 2500 per ha to allow adequate-crop growth. Robinia psendoacacia would be the principle species. 3.45 Wood yields would lower than for higher density planting; but once the site is fully occupied, and provided survival is respectable (minimum of 85X), then yields should be equivalent to more densely planted trees. The first harvesting should be delayed until year six. Then the average wood yield given the spacing and site conditions is expected to be 4 tonnes/ha/~ear. Crop output will be affected by competition from the trees, particularly shading as shown in the model presented in Annex 3. 3.46 Model 2 .2 - Moderate Western Site; Fuelwood Trees and Fodder Crops. The model is similar to 2.1 with fodder substituting for agricultural crops. The fuelwood yield with 2500 seedlings per ha is 4 t~nnes/ha/~ear and the pasture yield, affected by competition with the trees reaches 6.6 tonnes/ha/year as shown in Annex 3. 3.47 Model 2.3 - Moderate Western Site; Fuelwood Trees Only. Fuelwood trees would be planted at a spacing of 1.4 x 1.4 m (5000 seedlings per ha), and harvesting would commence in year 6, given the relatively poor site conditions. The average yield is estimated at 5 tonnes/ha/year. 3.48 Model 3.1 - Moderate ~entral/Eastern Site; Fuelwood Trees Only. The same spacing and planting technique would be used as for model 2.3. -- However, with improved site conditions the opportunity exists for a greater range of species to be used. As Robinia pseudoacocia has proved e successful under the site conditions it would be the ~ r i n c i ~ l s~ecies used initially. However, after suitable trials several other species may be introduced, such as Acacia mearnsu, Eucalyptus grandis (southern provenance), E. maidenii and Alnus spp. Such newly introduced species thus raise the fuelwood yield potential and this is taken into account in the yield estimates. With the first harvest at year 5, an average annual yield of 8 t~nnes/ha/~ear might be expected. This is higher than the moderate Hengnan sites, but the latter appear to have poorer shallower soils on average with 300 mm. less rainfall per year, including 350 mm. less over the critical growing months of April through September. 3.49 Model 3.2 - Central/Eastern Site; Fuelwood and Timber Trees. This model has as its principle objective the production of timber with fuelwood a secondary objective, and- has the same options that applied in Hengnan model 2.3 i.e. (a) Chinese fir; (b) Chinese fir interplanted with a fuelwood species ~ u r has t'l~ck ?cc~sT: e r (c) improved species on a coppice with standards approach. Spacing would be 2 x 1.5 (3330 seedlings per ha), with nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer applied in the first year. A similar thinning regime could be set up as per Hengnan, with the initial thinnings producing fuelwood only, then by year 10 the trees should be large enough for poles, with fuelwood continuing to come from residues and from the coppicing of trees cut earlier. Because of the slightly better site conditions and higher rainfall, yields should be higher than in Hengnan with earlier production of higher class poles. They are shown in Annex 3. The final felling of poles or timber logs would be in year 24, but could be earlier depending upon the size demand. 3.50 Model 3.3 - Moderate Central/Esstein S t i:; Fuelwood Trees and Fodder Plants. Fuelwood trees would be established at a spacing of 1 x 4 m (2500 seedlings per ha) and grass/fodder plants either directly sown or planted between the trees. The same fuelwood trees would be used as per model 3.1, with initial emphasis on R pseudoacaci, but with faster-growing trees being introduced as early as possible. With the first harvest in year 5, an average of 6 tonnes of fuelwood per ha should be harvested each year. Pasture output varies with the variation in shading caused by fuelwood tree cutting and coppicing, although a slow decline is likely to occur due to continued removals. A maximum of 7 tonnes of dry matter may be harvested in peak years, declining to 4 .8 tonnes after nine years. To overcome this decline pasture renovation would take place in year 10. Soil Conservation Considerations 3.51 Soil conservation issues in western Xiushui are more critical than in Hengnan. This is due to the degree of erodability of the granite-based soil (see Annex I) and the even wider disparity between the heavy demands for biomass and fodder from the hillsides and the capability of the hillsides to sustain these demands. 3.52 In assessing the potential land-use there are two aspects: the first is that as grain production per capita is relatively low the maximum area possible is cultivated; secondly much of the hillside forage, apart from maintaining draught animals, is committed to pig rations. 3.53 Thus the scope for development of ruminant livestock production is limited in Xiushui at this stage to the less heavily populated areas. It is still important however to undertake an evaluation programme of fodder plants for the area and possible ruminant livestock systerns. 3.54 In defining conservation needs, as in Hengnan, testing of soil- binding fodder species which can colonize nutrient-bankrupt granite subsoils is a priority. Combining them with low-cost mechanical methods such as contour terraces, and evaluating them against currently used measures such as squamose pits can then provide the basis for future conservation work. 3.55 For the county Soil and Water conservation Bureau to undertake evaluation of grass and legume species and mechanical erosion control methods it will need strong resources including trained personnel, the ability to isolate trial areas, and the support of other Bureaux including Forestry and Animal Husbandry. In addition quantification of the impact of erosion on the landscape and productivity is essential to allow useful costlbenefit analysis of alternatives. Comparison of Options 3.56 Table 3.5 summarizes the analysis of each of the models as a basis for discussion. 3.57 In the west on the seriously eroded sites the primary objective should be soil and water conservation. As shown in the paper on fuel mix it may be ~ossibleto obtain adequate fuelwood supplies on a macro level from moderate western sites if strong energy conservation measures are implemented. The growing of fuelwood on the poor sites is a dubious proposition with only very low yields possible. Should fuelwood be needed on a local level best results would be obtained from planting around houses and fields. 3.58 The model that seems most satisfactory after costlbenefit analysis is 1 . 3 (pits and grass). It has the best IRR, NPV and benefitlcost ratio. The models only consider on-site benefits, with no account being able to be taken of downstream soil and water conservation benefits. As has been mentioned in Chapter I1 "Ranking of Models", all three models have similar abilities to reduce soil erosion and water runoff. However, Model 1.1 (pits with grass and low density trees) is considered to have marginally better soil and water conservation characteristics when the downstream benefits are considered. The combination of the tree root and fodder plant root systems and ground cover with pits provide the best characteristics. Model 1.1 also has the option of supplying some fuelwood should this be needed to augment fuelwood supplies. However, i t must be emphasised that the cutting of trees and fodder, should it occur, must be well regulated to maintain the optimum conservation; otherwise overcutting would result in an environmental reversal and renewed degradation of the site with increasing soil erosion and water runoff. 3.59 On the less badly eroded western sites the optimum return is under Model 2.1 (fuelwood trees and crops). The overall IRR for 2.1 does not compute as there is a positive benefitfcost stream from the first year with the annual crops. However, NPV at 2469 is much higher than either of the other two models for the site. Fuelwood production costs are lower at Y465 per TCE for Models 2.1 and 2.2 where either crops or pastures are interplanted with the trees than where fuelwood trees only are planted. It is recommended that where possible fuelwood trees with crops be planted. However, it is estimated that only as much as 3,000 ha of land may be suitablz for s i z h a -;ar,tcr=, so other areas of the estimated 17,000 ha of moderate western sites might best be planted with the trees or treefpasture combination (Model 2.2). With estimated annual yields of 4-5 tonnesfha, an incremental fuelwood supply of 68,000-85,000 tonnes per year would be available. I- Z W 4 W E 8 - V) - 2 2 =- a 3 W I I 3 F - z V) E *2 - W V ) I 2 I8- 8 = V) 5 3 V) % .. VI Pl - a n a I- 3.60 In the center and east of the county the best returns are obtained with Model 3.2 (timber and fuelwood trees). This Model gives the highest IRR, NPV and benefit/cost ratio, which is understandable given the timber (pole) yields and their value, with harvesting starting at a relatively early stage. The production cost of the fuelwood in this model is the lowest for the site at Y121 per useful TCE. 3.61 It is recommended that fuelwood development in Eastern and Central Xuishui be mainly done in combination with timber production as per Model 3.2. This should provide sufficient incremental fuelwood over time to meet the project deficit (refer paper on integrated household fuels), but at the same time provide the highest return. The latter is particularly important where individvsl f z r a e t s e r e concerned as it provides an incentive to plant trees as was observed by the mission. There is also a need to replenish the supply of timber in the county as the mission considers the current management and silvicultural practices are overcutting and degrading this valuable resource. There is a need . . for short term fuelwood to meet the large deficit in Eastern Xuishui, however, it is felt that apart from some dedicated fuelwood plantings in critical areas, the flexibility and higher benefit of the mixed fuelwood and timber plantations is a more desirable option. 3.62 The models have therefore indicated the general direction that hillside development should take in Xiushui. Final development plans would take this into account but would also w e d 3 consider the attitudes and needs of the farmers who would plant and manage the areas. Again as with Hengnan much of the tree planting would be done on the uniform collective system, but increasing emphasis needs to be given to small holder plantings. At present the extension system in the county is inadequate to support optimal development of the desired scenarios. As is detailed in Chapter IV, it needs considerable strengthening. Chapter IV also details proposals for strengthening appropriate forestry research that will be needed also for optimal development of wood and other products on the hillsides. Kezuo Background 3.63 1 Kezuo county lies in the west of Liaoning Province at about 4' north latitude. The population in 1986 was 385,000 of which 342,000 (89%) lived in 80,500 rural households. The total area of the county is 223,800 ha with the terrain being almost equally split between mountains, hills and plains. Erosion is a major problem in the county. The Kezuo County Soil and Water Conservation Bureau estimates that 183,000 ha (82% of the county area) is affected by erosion, with a long term average of approximately 1,000 tonnes/km2 of soil having been lost per annum. -1 12 In the most serious areas the soil loss is estimated at 2,400 tonnes/km2 . 3.64 The climate is temperate with an average temperature 8 .' 1~. The summers are warm to hot, but the winters are bitterly cold with temperatures falling as low as - 5 2'. ~ The growing season is May to October, with their being an average of 140 frost-free days per year. The mean annual rainfall is only 500 mm. This semi-arid situation with the relatively short growing season results in slow growth and low yields from trees and pastures. The situation is exacerbated by erosion which has left many sites with poor soil depth and fertility. 3.65 Forty nine percent of the land (110,500 ha) is allocated to forestry. Of this 60% (66,800 ha) is said to be tree covered to some extent with both plantations and natural forests. Some 25,000 ha are classified as protection forest and 27,000 ha is timber forests, the latter consisting mainly of .Pinus tabulaeformis on the hills and ~ o . ~ u l u s on the river flats. Fuelwood reserves are mainly concentrated in two pockets, one in the north and the other in the south east. A total sustainable fuelwood yield of about 50,000 tonnes (air dry) is estimated to be available from some 9,000 ha of dedicated fuelwood plantations as well as from timber forests, and from "four-around" trees (around village, houses, water holes/rivers and along roads). 3.56 Biomass is relied upon heavily as a fuel in Kezuo, contributing approximately 76% of total energy consumed in the county in coal equivalent terms. However, approximately 65% is straw, stalks and grass with only 11% being wood. 131 This high consumption of agricultural residues together with the fact that the total rural household energy consumption is only 412.5 kgCE, which is far below satisfactory standards for t h e climate, shows the seriousness of the energy deficit. The high use of crop residues for energy with only a small percentage being returned to the fields has a detrimental effect on soil fertility, particularly where continued cereal cropping is practised, though it should be noted that some residues, such as sorghum stalks, are not suitable for returning to the fields and would probably be burnt in any event. Description of Models 3.67 A similar set of models to those established for Hengnan and Xiushui counties were set up for Kezuo counties. The distinctions in - 121 Measured by hydrological stations. - 131 It should be noted that the sample is skewed as most of the wood consumed is in limited areas where there is a wood resource. this case are primarily between the poor hill top and relatively better downslope sites. In the former the general edaphic pattern and soil erosion have formed shallow, lithosolic soils with, reportedly, only 70% of the yield potential of deeper soils further down the slope. Such hill top sites are overcut for fuel and are a source of runoff for downslope erosion. They are uncultivated, have been overgrazed and would be the fuelwood development areas of last resort. They should be primarily managed for erosion control and for some pasture development with careful pasture management. The mid to lower slope sites are comparatively better for tree growing and pasture production. However, the poor climate conditions mean that intensive, and relatively costly, site preparation is needed for wood production. 3.68 Given the past and present erosion problems in the county a model was developed for planting trees and fodder plants in gullies. A final model considers the current practice of planting some river flats with timber trees (poplars) and interplanting fuelwood species. Table 3.6 shows the models used in Kezuo county. Table 3.6: MODELS FOR KEZUO COUNTY Site Class Models 1. Poor hilltop soils 1.1 Fuelwood trees and fodder plants. 1.2 Pastures only. 2. Mid to lower slope 2.1 Fuelwood trees only. 2.2 Fuelwood trees and pastures. 2.3 Fuelwood trees and crops. 3. Gullies 3.1 Fuelwood trees and pasture. 4. River Flats 4.1 Timber and fuelwood trees. 3.69 Model 1.1 - Poor Hilltop Site; Fuelwood Trees and Pasture Plants. Pits would be dug (approximately n.5 x 1.6 x 0.5 m) with an average of 1,100 pits per ha. This is less than is current with dedicated fuelwood plantations when the pits are 2 m. apart down the slope and 30 cm apart along the slope averaging 2,200 pits per ha. In this model the pits would be about 4 m. apart. The pits are dug with the subsoil forming a ridge on the down hill side and the surface soil together with some subsoil being used to partially refill the pit. The tree species to be used will include R. pseudoacacia and Hyppophae ramnoides, the two species commonly used now in the county. However, research should be undertaken to introduce improved species and provenances. 3.70 The fodder plant aspects of the model would involve establishment of a perennial fodder species such as lucerne (Medicago sativa or M.Minima) or erect milk vetch (Astroglus adnorgens) where the soil is deep enough and cut and carry harvesting required. Where grazing is more appropriate, care needs to be taken with poor soil conditions and increased erosion hazards. The establishment of species adapted to heavy grazing, tolerant of winter cold and capable of providing good ground cover is suggested, e.g., white clover (Trifolium repens) perennial rye grass (Lolium ,perenne). Investigations into germ plasm suitability and fertilizer response is essential. 3.71 Pasture establishment methods should limit the amount of soil disturbance. The possibilities are hand cultivation and seeding or seeding into the mulch formed after herbicide application. Controlled management of these sown pastures is crucial as increased productivity, in part, depends on increasing the rate of nutrient cycling that occurs with grazing. Management would be through control of the amount of removal of organic matter, return of dung, and application of fertilizer to replace nutrients removed in animal products. 3.72 Given the poor site, climate and relatively wide spacing wood yields would be low at about 1.5 tonnes per ha with harvesting commencing in year 6. Pasture output is estimated at 1 .3 tonnes of dry matter per ha annually, considerably lower than in Hengnan and Xuishui. A small shading effect from the trees would be experienced and there is also an area reduction factor of about 13% because of the trees. 3.73 Model 1.2 - Poor Hill Top Site; Pastures Only. Pasture establishment would be as per model 1.1. Yields would be some 25% higher with no trees. 3.74 Model 2.1 - ~id/LowerSlope; Fuelwood Trees Only. The fuelwood trees would be established in pits as per model 1.1, but with 2200 pits per ha and 4,400 seedlings planted. Some weeding and soil cultivation should be done in at least the first year to reduce competition for moisture and to improve infiltration rates while breaking soil capillaries to conserve the maximum amount of moisture. Yields should be in the order of 3 tonnes per ha annually, with the first harvest in year 6. 3.75 Model 2.2 - Mid/Lower Slope; Fuelwood Trees and Pastures. The pits are more widely separated as per model 1..1 with 2,200 tree seedlings planted per ha. Terracing would be preferrable for pasture establishmentbut pits would still need to be dug for the trees. Pasture rehabilitation is based on the establishment of a perrenial fodder crop such as lucerne, for cut and carry, either for direct sale of fresh fodder or hay in the market place, or for the breeding and raising of cattle for sale. Fodder production should not be reduced by more than 20% because of the trees. Apart from the advantages of erosion control and fertility improvement, lucerne (or milk vetch) has demonstrated profitability and is grown by 5% of the households in the county. This profitability could be enhanced if there was greater recognition of responses to phosphate fertilizer. In the model 500 kg per ha of superphosphate are costed for the first year with an annual replenishment of 200 kg per ha. 3.76 Wood yields would be reduced by an estimated 20% from those in model 2.1 to an average of 2.4 tonnes per ha annually from year 6. Pasture outputs reach 5.25 tonnes per ha annually as is shown in Annex 3. 3.77 Model 2.3 - Lower Slopes; Fuelwood Trees and Crops. The tree establishment would be as per model 2.2, with approximately 4 m between the rows of pits and some 2,200 seedlings hsing plzorei p2r hz. 3.78 The model refers generally to the lower slopes where summer cropping is currently being carried out. In some cases terraces are present, in others there is partial terracing or in some cases there are no measures to reduce soil and water movement, and erosion is occurring. The crops grown on a rotational basis are usually corn, sorghum, millet and soybean. The planting of the trees in pits along the contour combined with appropriate farm management methods such as contour plowing and minimum tillage would serve as soil conservation measures. 3.79 Wood yields would be as per model 2.2 (2.4 t~nnes/ha/~ear). There will be interaction between the trees and crops nas.tiruL~r~y cs root and crown diameters increase, with a corresponding decrease in crop yields would decrease. However, the soil conservation and improved fertility as well as the shelter belt effect on soil moisture should have an offsetting effect. 3.80 Model 3.2 - Gullies; Fuelwood Trees and Pasture. The objective in this model is to stabilize the gullies, while at the same time taking advantage of their relatively better fertility and moisture conditions to produce fuelwood and fodder. The trees would be planted only in the gully bottoms at a wide spacing of 4 x 3 m. (830 seedlings/ha) to allow a good ground cover of fodder plants and grasses to be established, not only on the gully bottoms, but also on the sides of the gullies to assist with soil stabilizaion. Tending of the trees would probably be necessary in the first year to keep down competition from weeds. 3.81 Wood yields under fully stocked conditions may reach 6 t~nnes/ha/~ear. However, under the wide spacing regime this would be reduced by an estimated 30% to an average of 4 tonnes/ha/~ear with the first harvest in year 6. Pasture output is estimated at 1.3 tonnes of dry matter/halyear. 3.82 Model 4.1 - River Flats; Timber and Fuelwood Trees. This model follows the current methodology used to establish poplar and willow plantations primarily for timber with fuelwood trees interplanted. Intensive site preparation measures are taken including plowing and subsequent levelling with a 75 hp farm tractor; building of ridges for the trees to allow for flood irrigation; then marking and digging ofholes for the seedlings. Irrigation is carried out in the first year only. Fertilizing is carried in the second and third years. The response to fertilizer (N & P) has not been tested and will undoubtedly vary with the local site conditions. Nevertheless, observations indicate the application of fertilizers would be cost effective for timber production. The fuelwood species to be used would be R. pseudoacacia and 8 . ramnoides. 3.83 Fuelwood yields are estimated to be about 8 tonnes/ha in years 6 and 7. At this point the fuelwood trees wou'ld be mainly cut out and dominated by the poplars and willows. However, some remnant coppice w@zld prnbahly occur, and fuelwood would be obtained from residues of timber tree thinnings and final fellings. Thus an annual average yield of fuelwood is estimated at 1.4 t~nnes/ha/~ear for the years 8 through 11, 1 .5 tonnes/ha/year for the years 12 on through 15, and 2 tonnes/ha/year for the years 16 through 24. Timber output commences with thinnnings in year 8 at 10 m3/ha and increases to an average of 16 m3/ha/year for the years 16 through 24. Refer to Annex 3. Soil, Conservation Considerations 3.84 County statistics demonstrate the critical nature of the situation. These indicate that 82% of the county is affected by erosion with an estiq;t_ed annual soil loss of greater than 300 tons/km2 . long-term county average is 1050 tons/km2 with mountains losing 1420 The . tons/km2 and cultivated areas 1400 tons/km2' 3.85 Some of Kezuo's hillsides are potentially usable for cropping providing that appropriate conservation measures are taken and they are not too steep or gullied. Due to the relatively low grain production per capita in the county, it is likely that these areas will continue to be cropped heavily. 3.86 Soil conservation of the cultivated hillsides consists of a mix of treatments. The primary aim is to rebuild soil organic matter so that structure improves, infiltration increases and runoff decreases. This can be done through increased return of crop residues. Minimum tillage is another approach when the soil surface is protected by some crop residues rather than ploughing them under. Other agronomic approaches involve forms of ley-farming where a pasture legume phase in the rotation protects the soil surface and also allows organic matter buildup (and subsequent improved crop yields). 3.87 Mechanical conservation measures are also essential for hillside cultivation on these cinnamon soils. A basic requirement is contour cultivation, which may be difficult unless land allocated in strips across the contour is reallocated. Terracing is encouraged by county construction subsidy payments, but to be worthwhile, terraces should be adequately designed and built. More important are measures to ensure that waterways are not cultivated but grassed. 3.88 Where steeper hillsides are retained for livestock use the conservation needs relate again to the amount of organic matter which is recycled. Under heavy grazing regimes where livestock housed at night are not returning dung to the grazing areas, production is not sustainable and soil loss must occur. Control-of grazing is necessary; all the moreso if fertilizer is added and responsive pastures planted. 3.89 Where erosion gullies have formed, reclamation needs depend on runoff control up slope, while trees and adequately protected ground cover that may be used for pastures on the gully floor are likely to be the most cost-effective on-site measures. 3.90 Table 3.7 sets out the results of the various models for Kezuo county as a basis for comparing development options. 3.91 On the poor hilltop sites the best option from a benefit/cost point of view appears to be rehabilitation with improved grasses and fodder plants (model 1 .2). This only takes into account on-site benefits, including the incremental production of fodder. It does not consider downstream environmental benefits, which should boost the IRR of model 1.1 (fuelwood trees and pastures) more than model 1.2, as the soil binding and water infiltration properties of the trqe root systems I: combination with fodder plants should be better at soil and water conservation than pastures alone. However, the high cost of site preparation and tree establishment may still make fodder production the more cost-effective site use. The cost of producing Euelwood on these sites, at Y1865 per useful TCE, is above the cost of coal. Given the poorer site conditions than on the mid to lower slopes fuelwood production would be more profitable on these latter sites and fuelwood production efforts should be primarily concentrated there with development of the hilltop sites being principally for soil and water conservation with fuelwood production being a secondary option where necessary. This necessity may occur when local villages have no better alternative sites within a reasonable accessible distance. -  Table 3.7: RESULTS OF THE INTEGRATED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT MOMLS FOR KEZUO Model 1.1 Model 1.2 Model 2.1 Model2.2 Model2.3 Model 3.1 Model 4.1 Poor H i l l Top P o o r H i l l Top Mid/Lower Mid/Lower M i d /Lower Gul I i e s River F l a t s Fwd. Trees d Pastures Slope; Fwd Slope; Fwd Slope; Fwd Fwd-Treesd Timber& Pastures Only Trees O nly Trees d Trees d Pastures Fwd. Trees Pastures . Crops p p p p p - Cost o f Fuelwood (Yuan/tonne) 865 - Average Annual ue l wood Prod. ,~'onnes/ha) IRR ( % ) a) b) IRR Fuelwood (%) a) b IRR P a s t u r e s (% Coal and fuelwood a t same end-use e f f i c i e n c y o f 20% b) Coal end use e f f i c i e n c y 75% h i g h e r than f o r fuelwood (35%). 3.92 The models for mid to lower slope scenarios show that the combination of fuelwood trees and fodder gives the best rate of return. Undoubtedly, a pastures only model would have given a still better return as per Hengnan model 1 .5 versus 1.4, but with heavy inputs of fertilizer. The growing of fuelwood trees in combination with either pastures or crops gives a better return in terms of IRR and NPV than growing fuelwood trees alone. The cost of producing the fuelwood is also lower in the former scenarios ( Y ~ ~ ~ / T CE versus Y712/TcE). The planting of crops, either alone or with trees, should be limited to the lower, flatter and more stable slopes, and only then with satisfactory soil conservation procedures. The lower slopes may also be considered for fruit tree development including Chinese date and almond. Although there have not been included in the models they appear to be economically competitive. Fuelwood production costs are lowest, however, on the more moist and fertile river flats when fuelwood is produced almost as a by product in timber plantations, though trees are specifically interplanted for some of the fuelwood yield. The area for such production is limited to an estimated 5,000 ha, giving a potential annual production of only 12,000 tonnes. 3.93 The shortage of fuel in ~ezuo's rural areas, and its effect on soil fertility and conservation undoubtedly requires the development of fuelwood resources as quickly as possible. At the same time cost effective soil and water conservation needs to be continued and intensified. From a fuelwood production point of view development should commence on the mid to lower slopes, gullies and river flats. The hilltops should primarily be left for soil and water conservation, unless ultimately needed for fuelwood production. The most cost-effective method to achieve such conservation may be exclusion- of ma;: and aaliiiiil: to allow natural regeneration. In places it may be necessary for the tree and/or grass planting to occur. As in the other two counties it will be necessary to development a more effective extension system and to carry out applied research to obtain optimal fuelwood development. Details of the extension and research recornmendatinns are given in Chapter IV.  IV. CONCLUSIONS AM] RECOHnENDATIONS Fuelwood Development Research 4.1 At present there is very little effective applied research being carried out on fuelwood development in Hengnan and Xiushui counties; in fact the same could be said for Hunan and Jiangxi provinces. Species trials at the Hengnan County Forestry Research Institute do give some indications, but poor funding a rid staffing has meant that inadequate maintenance has been carried out and little or no monitoring so that no significant results are forthcoming. In Liaoning province and particularly in Kezuo county the Institute of Applied Ecology (Academica Sinica) has recently started work on improving the nitrogen fixation abilities of R. pseudoacacia and H. ramnoides; improved nutrient uptake by inoculation with mycorrhiza; fertilizer response trials; and the effectiveness of containerizing seedlings. Some early results are encouraging, but the program is hampered by insufficient funds . 4.2 In the provinces visited by the mission there was, a heavy reliance on R. pseudoacacia for fuelwood production and erosion control. In Liaoning H. ramnoides is used to some extent and in Hunan and Jiangxi P. mcssmz?i-. is planted with fuelwood production in mind. Several other species including Nyssa sinensis and Choerospondias species are also considered for fuelwood production in the two southern provinces, but little evidence of them was seen in the field. 4.3 The mission feels that there is considerable scope for improving wood yields on a weight basis through the introduction of new species, after selection has been made through well-designed, maintained and monitored trials. Research and development work could also be profitable in determining the cost effectiveness of different establishment methods and the use of fertilizer. Continuing work is also indicated in achieving higher yields through the inoculation of improved strains of nitrogen fixing bacteria such as Rhizobium and Frankia. There is a need to investigate the interaction of crops and fodder plants with trees, and the costs and benefits associated with such agro-forestry or silvi-pastural systems. 4.4 The mission recommends that serious consideration be given to strengthening the provincial and county forestry research institutions in Liaoning, Hunan and Jianxi provinces to enable them to satisfactorily carry out the above-mentioned research topics and other appropriate applied research for the development of fuelwood and poles, and that research activities be initiated as soon as possible. Such research need not be extremely costly, but through a carefully designed program the results could mean an increase in wood production of 50% or more with a decrease in inputs, thus effectively raising the profitability of fuelwood and pole woodlots and plantations and making them more attractive as a private venture. To achieve the maximum effective impact from the research, results must be disseminated to all pertinent field and planning officers and eventually down to individual farmer/planters. The organization and staffing of the forestry research institutes needs to be evaluated and if necessary restructured in order to achieve the optimal management and procedures for the conduct of research activities. Clear responsibility needs to be assigned for overall direction and management of the programs. Meaningful linkages also need to be identified and established between the forestry research institutes and other relevant agencies, such as the Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, provincial and county Agricultural, Livestock, and Soil and Water Conservation Departments and Bureaux, as well as with , . other research organizations. As far as possible information on. sirnl-let trials both inside China and abroad should be reviewed prior to establishment of the trials in the three provinces so that design of the trials may be more effective. 4.5 The trials will need to be site-specific, taking into account the various edaphic and climatic variations within the areas concerned. They should also be designed so that results when analyzed are statistically significant. Provision must be made at the planning and budgetting stage for sufficient maintenance as well as for regular monitoring and subsequent compilation and analysis of the resultant data. Without these activities the research is virtually worthless for future application to the field. Species Trials 4.6 In the three provinces any existing species/provenance trials would be examined and any data from the trials reviewed. Promising species would be selected for future comparative trials. Sites would be selected, seed collected or bought and the trials established. Ideally species elimination trials would be set up first, then species growth trials with selected species, and finally larger scale plantation trials. However, given the need to obtain results as rapidly as possible a compromise may need to be made. Further evaluation of potential species needs to be made in relation to the local soil and climatic conditions. However, on a preliminary basis the following species are suggested for inclusion in the trials: Hunan and Jiangxi Acacia mearnsii - a/ A dealbata A. decurrens Eucalyptus nitens E. meliodora E. grandis E. globulus E. camphora  E. maidenii E. rubida Gleditsia triacanthos Casuarina littoralis C. luehmannii C. stricta Alnus nepalensis A. rubra Sesbania grandiflora S. bispinosa Liaoning Acer negundo Gleditsia triacanthos Alnus rubra Elaegnus angustifolia Celtis occidentalis a/ - Since 1960 about 50 species of acacias have been introduced from Australia but most never got beyond an experimental stage (Pan Zhigang and Yang Minquan 1986). .Plantation Establishment 4.7 At present there appears to be fairly fixed establishment techniques for both fuelwood and timber plantations. This usually involves very close espacement (10,000 and 6,000 seedlings for fuelwood and timber plantations respectively in the southern provinces), the digging of substantial pits, and the planting of bare-root seedlings. Tending regimes have also been prescribed but are less rigorously followed. Fertilizer is often prescribed, but usually only urea or another high nitrogen component is available and applied, often to nitrogen fixing species. These establishment methods are costly from both a labour and materials point of view, and little consideration has been given to cost-benefit analysis of the methods, particularly in the case of the fuelwood plantations that produce a relatively low valued product. 4.8 Thc mission feels it is of critical importance, given the potential need for both fuelwood and timber 141 plantations, that sound establishment techniques be determined on aneconomic basis for various species and site combinations. It is recommended that trials be carried out to evaluate establishment techniques in the three provinces. The 141 Timber refers to both sawlogs and poles. trials should be designed by the forestry research institutes, but, because of the manpower required, collaboration with county forestry bureau could be useful in implementing them. Such hands on research by the more operations oriented bureaus should be to their benefit. The trials should include: (a) Seedling production methods including the use of containers and the period of time seedlings should be kept in the nurseries. The objective of the nurseries should be to raise vigorous seedlings capable of field survival and good early growth on a timely basis for transplanting into the field and at the lowest cost. Size of seedlings is not necessarily a measure of their ability to survive. and grow in the first year on a cest- effective basis. (b) Site preparation methods including the size of pits that need to be dug. (c) Planting espacement. This has already been discussed in . Chapter 3, and it deserves serious consideration given the cost of seedlings and the labour required for pitting and planting. (d) The use of fertilizer and the response of various species to various fertilizer combinations and strengths on a cost-benefit basis. Several trace elements should be tried such as zinc, borou and manganese. Nitrogen Fixation and Nutrient Uptake 4.9 The work initiated by the Institute of Ecology, Academica Sinica, on improved strains of Rhizobium and Frankia for nitrogen fixation with legumes and actinomycetal nitrogen-fixing plants in Liaoning province should be continued over a longer time period and, if possible, expanded to include other provinces. The indications are that significant increases in growth rates occur with the improved nitrogen fixation capability. It may also be beneficial to continue work with mycorrhizal inoculations to improve nutrient and moisture uptake, particularly in Liaoning Province. Agro-Forestry and Silvi Pastural Establishment 4.10 As the models have shown, higher returns can be obtained with combinations of crops or pastures and fuelwood/pole trees. Research is needed, however, to determine the optimum combinations including tree spacing as well as the detrimental and beneficial effects of the intercropping systems. Close attention will need to be given to the economic analysis of variations of the systems with an accurate accounting made of the cost of inputs and the value of benefits.  Farm Families and Fuelwood Development Extension 4.11 As was mentioned in Chapter 1, little attention has been given by the provincial and county governments to the provision of assistance to farm families for the development of trees, crops and pastures on zilioshan or ziliodi, or even the growing of trees around homesteads. The Household Energy Survey indicated that a number of farm families were interested in growing trees, but lacked the technical support. In other cases there was a lack of confidence in obtaining the final benefits including revenue from the products grown or the zilioshans were too far or too infertile to be worth developing. It is felt that farm fawily i?+erest in growing trees - alone or in combination with crops or pastures, should be encouraged. If possible, more quality land needs to be contracted to the families. In particular, technical support needs to be provided by an effective extension system. Such a system would not only deal with private plots, but also provide technical assistance to the farmers managing and harvesting the fuelwood and timber plantations or natural forests as allowed for under the collective uniformly established/individually harvested system. (Refer Chapter I). 4.12 Some degree of extension work is currently carried out in the counties. However, a lack of funds and staff inhibit its effectiveness, and it has not been organized to deal with individual farmers; both to provide technical assistance and t c obtain feedback from the farmers. It is recommended that the extension system for assisting farmers in the growing of trees for fuelwood and timber be evaluated and subsequently strengthened. The evaluation and the need for strengthening should consider the system itself and the effectiveness of its linkages between the farmer and research institutions and vise-versa; the organization, staffing and training of extension staff; and the requirements for vehicles, equipment, materials and office space. In considering the organization of the extension system it is important to recognize linkages that should exist with related agencies such as those dealing with agriculture, livestock, and soil and water conservation. Interagency Cooperation 4.13 As mentioned in Chapter 1, "~lobal ~ssues", there is an urgent need to improve linkages between the forestry agencies and other agencies on a county and provincial basis to foster the effective integrated development of hillsides. Such linkages are not only required for extension work, but more importantly for the initial planning of hillside development schemes where several land use options may apply. It is recommended that consideration be given to formal joint working groups being established, at least on a county basis. These could include the Bureaux of Forestry, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Soil and Water Conservation as required. Priority objectives would need to be established for a given area, and then considering the site conditions and the economic, environmental and social impact of various options on the site, decisions would be made on the development options to be followed. The important thing though is for an ongoing cooperative relationship to be fostered and maintained on a regular and formal basis by the various agencies involved in hillside development. Officers from the relevant agencies should be available to provide technical assistance. Cooperation is necessary to ensure that the various disciplinary elements in the project are given sufficient attention and executed correctly and cost-effectively. Wood Supply Data 4.14 To overcome the dearth of data on sustainable fuelwood supplies it is recommended that comprehensive woody biomass assessments be implemented in the three counties involved in the rural energy assessment. The indications are that fuelwood supply data is inaccurate in many provinces of China, and assessments in Hunan, Jiangxi and Liaoning would serve as pilots for broader assessments at a later date. Such assessments would provide a sounder base for fuelwood resource development planning and management than is currently the case. At the same time i t would be useful to carry out further inventories of the timber resources available, particularly for those areas where such inventories have not been done in the last 8 to 10 years or where the sampling intensity of previous inventories was too low to permit accurate estimates to be made ( /- 15% standard error of total standing volume). 4.15 The timber and woody biomass inventories could be done simultaneously as data is required from the former as regards residues and thinnings to complete the latter. The use of recent satellite imagery could prove a useful tool for stratifying vegetation/biomass resource types with appropriate ground truthing. Aerial photography could assist with biomass subsampling, but particularly with identifying and stratifying the various timber forest classes. Finally field sampling will be necessary on a stratified basis for both the timber and biomass inventories. This will require the development of volume and biomass weight regressions and tables for measurable parameters, or the verification of the accuracy of any existing regressions. The biomass inventory should consider not only forest and plantation stands but also the wood that may be used from brush or scrub, four-point plants 151 and fruit trees. As well as sampling for the standing volume and weight of biomass i t would be important, if possible, to obtain data on the growth rates of the timber and biomass resources in order to assess the sustainable supply. 151 - Refers to trees planted: (a) around houses; (b) around villages; (c) at water holes or pumps; and (dl on roadsides.  Annex 1 Page 1 of 2 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR HENGNAN COUNTY Table 1 : Temperature Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Mean/Av. Temp. 5.4 6.9 11.7 17.6 22.1 26.4 29.7 28.9 24.9 19.0 13.0 8.0 17.8 Absol. Max. Temp. 27.6 31.5 31.9 34.7 36.3 37.9 40.0 39.6 39.7 35.9 31.5 28.2 40.0 Absol. Min. Temp. - -5. 4.4 3.0 6.7 14.7 19.8 19.2 12.8 3.5 -1.5 -3.6 -9.9 - - -- - - - - - - - Note: N o n - f r o s t days average 286, maximum 342 and minimum 233. ( i n mm.) .- - Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Mean r a i n f a l l 53 84 124 179 215 182 84 113 39 76 71 49 1269 Max. r a i n f a l l 118 187 220 297 381 640 215 254 108 224 167 113 1621 Min. r a i n f a l l 5 21 36 81 77 57 5 13 0 1 2 0 992 Table 3: R e l a t i v e Humidity and Evaporation Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Av.R e l a t i v e Hurnd.(X) 81 84 85 86 83 81 73 75 75 77 79 80 80 Evaporation (mrn.) 42 42 66 99 120 136 249 215 169 114 75 521 396  Annex 1 Page 2 o f 2 T a b l e 4: CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR XlUSHUl COUNTY - Months -------Temperature-------- ---------------Temperature------------------- ----R a i n f a l -- Av. Mean Max. Mean Min. Absol.Max. Year Days Absol.Min. Year Days Av. Max. Min. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total  Annex 2 Page 1 o f 3 T a b l e 1: FUELWOOD RESOURCES SITUATION IN HENGNAN (ha) Immature Timber Fuelwood Bush Sparse Bamboo Economic P r o t e c t i v e 4-Around Total Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Trees (10,000) T o t a l F o r e s t Land 62659 Natural Forests 44858 of which: State Forest State Contract Col I e c t i v e 44858 Individual Man-made F o r e s t s 17801 o f which: State forest State Contract Collective 17801 Individual Fuelwood P r o d u c t i o n (kg/ha) g o f Area f o r Fuelwood C o l l e c t i v e Heat Value (Kcal/kg) Theoretical Reserves ( t o n s ) 101753 E x p l o i t a b l e Amount (tonnes) 76865 Source: Bureau o f F o r e s t s , Hengnan County.  Annex 2 Page 2 o f 3 Table 2: FUELWOOD RESOURCES SITUATION I N KEZUO (ha ) Immature Timber Fuelwood Bush Sparse Bamboo Economic P r o t e c t i v e 4-Point Total Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Trees (10,000) T o t a l F o r e s t Land ?!at iona l F o r e s t s o f which: State Forest State Contract CoI I e c t i v e Individual Man-made F o r e s t s o f which: State forest , State Contract CoI I e c t i v e Individual Fue l wood Product ion (kg/ha ) % o f Area f o r FueIwoodCoIIective Heat Value (Kca l /kg ) Theoretical Reserves ( t o n s ) Exploitable Amt. (tonnes) Notes : 4-points: at house at v i l lage ) Greenization at water hole/pump ) at roadside ) Source: Bureau o f F o r e s t s , Kezuo County.  Annex 2 Page 3 o f 3 Table 3: FUELWOOD RESOURCES SITUATION IN XlUSHUl *** (ha) Young Timber Fuelwood Bush Sparse Bamboo Economic P r o t e c t i v e 4-Around Total Stands Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Trees TotalForestLand Nat.Forests o f which State Forest State Contract CoI I e c t i v e Individual Man-made o f which State forest State Contract Col I e c t i v e Individual Fwd. Prod. (kg/ha) g o f Area f o r Fwd. Heat Val ue ( c a l /kg) Theoretical Reserv.(tons) E x p l o i t a b l e Amt. (tonnes) Notes: On l y t a k e 509 o f area as some areas i n a c c e s s i b l e f o r t r a n p o r t f u e l wood. Also r e s e r v o i r s o i l protection. it t Includes a l l biomass. *** I n c l u d e s t r e e s and around household. Source: Bureau o f Forests, Xiushui County.  HILLS1 OE OEVELOPIIENT HENGNRN COUNTY 8/23/88 Hodel 1.1 : Hoderato 51te; fuoluooJ t r e e s 6 c r o p s ot Cost R s ~ l ~ r Ii p ns ECONOHIC EVALUATION Species: locust units/ yuan/ yuan/ Labor costs, yuan/uorkday Harvesting. kgiud Year hectare uni t hectare ---------- ---- - --- .-------- - -------------- Peak ( r i c e harvest) 5 F I J uood ~ ~ 600 1 seedl irigs 2500 0.09 225 O f ' f -peak 4 1 f o r t i 1 i r e r <C9) CI 0.21 0 1 tools 6 Fueluood t r e e s leaves fodder v a l u e 1 estab. 1 abor cud) : yuan/ton 40 1 1and prep. < p i t t i n g ) 32 4 129 1 planting 15 4 60 t e n d i rag 15 4 60 Uheat fertilizer 175 D i scount Rate: 10.0% seed Ckg) 42 0.32 13-44 pesticides 21 NPV p e r hec t a r e : 1156 l a b o r Cud) 42 4 169 Fueluood Val UQ E s t i n a t e Benefit/cost r a t i o 1.13 Suee t p o t a t o e s ----- - ----- fertilizer 2 10 Sub c o a l PV o f f u e l u o o d cost: seed (kg) 350 0.42 147 YuaniTCE 140 Cost p e r tonne: 19.3 pesticides 21 k c a l /kg 7000 c o s t p e r TCE: 39.7 l a b o r Cud) 173.5 4 694 e f f i ciemy-cook 29.0% Cost p e r e r d - u s e Rapeseed Fuel uood ICE. conk i rlg : 397.3 fertil izer 175 b:cel /kg 3400 seed Ckg) 10.5 0.6 6.3 o f f ic i ency-cook 10.0% pestic:ides 21 l a b o r Cud) 49 4 196 IRR: 140.2% Soybeans fertilizer 70 seed Ckg) 49 1 49 p e s t ic i d e s 21 l a b o r Cud) 100 4 400 - B e n e f i t Rssumptions mi t/ yuan/ yuara/ hectare unit hectare F u e l uood < tonnos) Fodder <tonnos) Cneat Ckg) 1134 0.32 362.90 Sueet P o t a t o <kg) 3 150 0.42 1323 Rapeseed (kg) 707.5 0.6 472.5 Soybeans <kg) 1050 1 1050  COS~S rota1 rota1 rota1 Establ . Haint. H a r v e s t Fuoluood Fuoluood Crop Total C o s t PV Hatorial Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost Cost = Qi YR Roforonco yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan yuan 10.0: 1 Flud E s t . / U h u a t / S u o v t P o t a t 231 62 1-5 0.0 254.0 485.0 1449.4 1934.4 1934-4 2 raposood/soytesn 1.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 938.3 944.3 058.5 3 uheat/suoot p o t a t o 1.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 1449.4 1455.4 1202-0 4 raposood/soyboan 1.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 938.3 944.3 709.5 5 F i r s t harvost/no crops 1.0 11.1 40.4 40.4 0.0 40.4 33.1 6 uhoat/suoet p o t a t o 1.0 11.1 40.4 40.4 1449.4 1497.9 930.1 7 raposoed/soyboan 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 938.3 981.7 555.9 8 uhoat/suoot p o t a t o 0-5 11.1 46.4 46.4 1449.4 1495.9 767.6 9 raposeod/soybean 0.5 11.1 46.4 46q : 938.3 984.7 459.4 10 no c r o p s 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 0.0 46.4 19.7 11 uheat/suoot p o t a t o 0.5 11.1 46.4 46-.q 1449.4 1495.9 576.7 12 raposood/soytoan 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 938.3 9134.7 345.1 13 no c r o p s 0-5 11.1 46.4 46.4 0.0 46.4 14.0 14 raposood/soyboan 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 930.3 904.7 205-2 15 no c r o p s 0.5 11.1 46.4 46-4 0.0 46.4 12.2 16 no c r o p s 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 0.0 16.4 11-1 17 raposood/soybean 0-5 11.1 46.4 46.4 938.3 9134.7 214.3 18 no c r o p s 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 0.0 46.4 9.2 19 raposood/soyboan 0.5 11.1 46.4 4b.4 938.3 984.7 177.1 20 no c r o p s 0-5 11.1 46.4 46.4 0.0 l6.4 7-6 ------------------------------------.---- Total 3 23 1 62 IS 178 10 19 12513 14754 16004 9 124 BENEFI rS Crop Crop F u e l uood F u o l uood Fuolu w d V a l uo V a l uo Y1old +'i e l d Crop F u e l uood Fodmjer rota1 Ben. PV OutpuC Fuoluood Not Uh/Rp SP/S F.sc t o r F a c t o r Bonof I t Fuoluood B o n d i t Fodder Bunof it Beroof i t = @i Not Cost <torenus) IRR Bonot'it 2 yuan yuar1 n a ~SP a s Yuan tonnos yuan tonnos yuan yuan 10-02 B o n o f i t HPV PV C'V - - -- --- - - . - - - - - -- - - -.- - - - - - - - - - -.-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - 362.9 1323.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1685.9 1685.9 -248.6 -248.6 485.0 0.0 14.26% -485 472.5 1050.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1522.5 1304.1 570.2 525.6 5-5 0.0 -6 362.9 1323.0 0.9 0.B 0.0 0-CI 1385.0 1144.6 -70.4 -58.2 5.0 0.0 -6 472.5 1050.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 11 13.0 836.2 168.7 126.7 4.5 0.0 -6 362.9 1323.0 0.0 0.0 0-7 26.7 167.4 114.3 118.9 81.2 14.9 3.7 118.9118 362.9 1323.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 26.7 1684.6 1046.0 106.0 116.0 13.5 3.4 118.9118 472.5 1050.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 26.7 1385.4 702.0 400.6 226.1 11-2 3.1 120 - 9 118 362 - 9 1323.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 26.7 1347.5 691.5 -148.4 -76.2 10.1 2.8 120.91 10 472.5 1050.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 26.7 1000.9 504.2 36.1 44.8 9.2 2.5 120.9118 422.5 1050.0 0.0 0.0 0- 7 26.7 167.4 71.0 1.10.9 51-3 8.4 2.3 120.9119 362.9 1323.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 26.7 1604.6 649.5 108.0 72.0 7-6 2.1 120.9118 472.5 1050.0 0.9 0.B 0.7 26.7 1432.6 502.1 447.9 157.0 6.9 1.9 120.9110 362.9 1323.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 26.7 167.4 53.3 120.9 30.5 6.3 1.7 120.9118 472.5 1050.0 0 -6 0.5 0.7 26.7 975.9 282.7 -8.9 -2.6 5.7 1.6 120.9118 362.9 1323.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 26.7 167.4 44.1 120.9 31.8 5.2 1.4 120.9118 362.9 1323.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 26.7 161.4 40.1 120.9 20.9 4.7 1.3 120.9118 472.5 1050.0 0.6 0.5 0.7 26.7 975.9 212.4 -0.9 -1.9 4.3 1.2 120.9118 362.9 1323.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 26.7 167.4 33.1 120.9 23.9 3.9 1.1 120.9118 472 - 5 1050.0 0.6 0.5 0.7 26 -7 975.9 175.5 -0.9 -1.6 3.6 1.0 120.91 18 472.5 1050.0 0.0 0-0 0.7 26.7 167.4 27.4 120.9 19.8 3.2 0.9 120.9119 --- - - -- - - -- - -- ------.- - - -- - - - - - - --- - - . .- - -- - - - .- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - 0354 23730 11 427 1842 1 10280 2417 1156 6 19 32 1427.590  HILLS1DL DEVELOPMENr H ENGNRN OUNTY 8/ 15/88 Model 1.2 : Hodorate S i to: f ~ ~ e l u o ot d rees Cost Ai:sumptions ECONOHlC: E V W U A T I O N Spoc~os: 1ocust I . units/ yuan/ yuan/ Vvar hectare unit hvc t o r e Labor c o r t s . yuan/uorkday ---------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -, Harvesting. kg/ud -----------------.--------------------.---------------------------- Peak < r i c e t a a r v e ~ t ) 5 Fuel uocd 600 1 soedl i ngs SO00 0.09 450 Of f -peak 4 1 f e r t i l i z e r <k9) 0 0.21 0 1 tools 6 Ftmluood t r e e s leaves fodder value 1 estab. l a b o r Cud): yuan/ton 10 1 l a n d prep. < p i t t i n g ) 64 4 256 , 1 planting 30 4 12U tendirtg 15 4 60 NPV per hec tare: -24 Benef ii s Assumptions Fueluood Value E s t i n a t e -----------. ---- --- B e r ~ e f i t / ' c o s tr a t i o 0.98 ----------------------------------- unx t/ yuan/ yuard Sub coal PV o f fueluor8d cost: hectare unit hectare Yusn/rCE Cost per. tonr~o: 24.0 ----------------------------------------------- L c s l /kg c o s t per WE: 49.5 Fueluood < t o n n e ~ ) 23 uCCi c i ency-cook Cor:t per. end-use Fodder <tonnos) 40.00 Fuel uood TCE.. cooking: 495.0 C:cal/kg u f f i c i ency-cook IRR: 9-72  - -3 ANNEX P a g e 4 of 48 I v n 0 4n ; 9 0 0 , 0 ? ? 0 , ? ? 9 ~ ~ ~ , I0va , ~ 0 3 0 I O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N - - - - - 2 as3 1 -4 S O 1 I 0 3 0 I I 3 0 I I LL. ! b L ~ ~ ;???000?????050??????i2 i OI 3 ~ O O O O O G G O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O ~ :CzC; I I I L L d I I I Ln W l L o n 1 II o b l h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h ! = LL !  HILLS1DE DEVELOPHENT HENGNHN allJNrY 8/ 15/88 Hodel 1.3 : Hoderato S i t e : f t ~ o l u o o dand t i n b e r f o r e s t Cost f t ~ ~ l J n p t i 0 n S ECONOHlC EVfKUATIO N Species: Chinese f i r & R o b i n i a ----------------------------------------------------------------- E u c a l y p t s on coppice u i t h standards unii s / yuan./ yuan/ yt.ar Labor c o s t s . yuar~/uorC-d.,y ---------------------------------- H a r v e s t i ng. u n i t / u d ........................... Yrar -------- - hectare unit hectare Peak ( r i c e h a r v e s t ' l 5 Fueluood (kq> 600 1 seed1 i nqs 3330 O f f-peak 4 T i rtber (n3) 1 1 too1 s 1 f e r t i l i z e r Ckg) Fuelrood t r e e s l e a v e s f*>ddur v a l u e 1 estab. l a b o r Cud): yt~an/ton 40 1 1end prep. < p i t t i n g ) 1 p l a n t i nq 1 tending 1 protection 2 tendi ng Dir;count Rate: 10.0% 2 protection 3 tending HPb8 per hectare: E.773 3 protection Fuel uood Value E s t i n a t e Beraefi t / c o s t r a t i o E--01 ................................. Sub coal PV o f f u o l u o o d cost: Yuan/lCE Cost p e r tonne: 8.6 C O S ~p e r TCE: 17.7 h e f it s Assumptions k c a l /kg _------.----------_--------------------------- o f f iciency-cook Cost p e r end-use Fuel uood TCE. cooking: 177.1 unit/ yuan/ yuan/ kc.,] /kg bctare unit hectare effi c i oncy-cook F u e l uocmd Ctonnos) 23 IRR: 27.52 Fodder < tonnos) r i nber p o l e s C13 m3 C 12 m3 C l l m3  ANNEX 3 Page 6 of 48 I I W I O O O O O ~ P ~ b ~ Q ~ 0 N P ~ Q N O ~ a oOc l ' I ?9????1???7Y?1Y???TT7?h.I 0 Z- a n b U > on. I I o o o o a ~ ~ ~ ~ r = ~ m a ~ ~ I I J I m r- - m LL I I l A I ~ o ~ ~ ~ w m ~ a m ~ m ~ - . . - L I 4 J O E I t ...,. =====----n:.s.s.+t=mnmmm~==== $ P T P P b7 I . . . . . . e r ) !T, 07,rO li7 OR ----aadaambbbbNNNNNI- R? ~7 ; ..,.#......Im P Ji Ji Ji #r)i.7 mi in il7 I I 3 3 Y) 8%; 29Et 0 3 0 3 0 : IdddddddddddLiAdeooo~!~~ l 1 I I ,I L Pe 9a I l m ~ & o b d ----CI I LL I L L d 31 I I I w O d ~ 1 L I ? ? o ? ? y m y ~ y y ~ y q q q y y 7 ~ ~ 7 ~ j g C O O I O O O O C N N N N b b ~ b b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ @ ~ @ I 2 tSP I b 9 A 1 I I a I I LL I I u L 1 ?oooooyyyyyb~yyqyyyyqqyyq;~ b b 0 l------000000000000000000~ O d O O 1 L O 4 1 1 C L d ; I I I I I  IIILLSI DE OEVELOPHENT H E NG NR14 UJUNTY 8/15/88 Hodel 1.4 : Hoderato S i t e ; fuoluood t r e s s 8 foddel- p l a n t Cost A:.sunpt i o n s ECONOHIL EVALMTION Species: locust -_--_--- --------- units/ yuan/ yuan/ year Lab.,r cost,. yuarduorkd.ay Harvesting. kg/ud Year hectare unit hec t a r e --------------------------- P r e k ( r i c e harvest J 5 Fue 1uond COO 1 seedl i nqs 2500 0.09 225 Of f -peak 4 1 tools 6 1 f o r t i1i x e r <kg3 0 0.21 0 Fueluood t r e e s l e a v e s fodder v a l u o I estab. 1abor Cud) : y,~an/tnn 40 I 1end prep. ( p i t t i n g : ] 32 4 128 1 planti n? 15 4 60 t e n d i rtg 15 4 60 1 Pasture grass 2 fertilizer 96 D i scount Rate: 10.02 fertilizer 160 0.24 38.4 soed (kg) 8 8 64 NPV p e r hectare: 852 i nnocul a t i on 10 Fuel uood Value E s t i n a t e Benef i t / c o s t r a t i o 1-38 establ I . &or Cud> 40 4 192 2 nanag. l a b o r Cud) Sub coal PV o f f u e l u o o d c o s t : 2 rfodder conservatron 12 4 40 Yuan/TCE Cost p e r tonne: 19.3 1 f e r t i l i z e r application 4 4 16 b c a l /kg c o s t per TLE: 39.7 2 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e 8 4 32 efficiency-cook Cost per end-use 3 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e 17 4 60 Fuel wood TCE. cooking: 397.3 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e 27 4 100 b c a l /kg efficiency-cook IRR: 20.6% Benef11 s Assumptions _ -------__- _ unit/ yuan/ yusrd hectare unit hectuo Fueluood ( t o n n e ~ ) 23 Fodder (tonnes) 40.00 Pasture <tomes) 57  LOS~S Fuel uood Fuel uood Fuel uood Total Total Non-L Pasture Total Fuvluood Establ. N a ~ n t . Harvest Fueluood Fueluuod Pasture Pasture Labor Pasture Total Cost PV Haterla1 labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost Labor Cost Cost Cost PI = YR Ref el-once 14uan ud u.4 ud yuan yuan yuan uJ yuan yuan yuen 10.0% -------- ------------ 1 Furluood and Pasture Establ 23 1 62 1.5 0.0 254.0 485.0 170 56 224 394 879.0 879.0 2 1.5 0.0 6.0 6.11 38.4 33 132 170.4 176.4 160.4 3 1.5 0.0 6.0 6-11 38.4 43 172 210.4 216.4 178.8 4 1.5 0.0 6.0 6.0 38.4 16 64 102.4 108.1 81.4 5 1.0 11.1 40.4 48:I 38.4 16 64 102.4 150.8 103.0 6 1.0 11.1 18.4 48.1 38.4 16 64 102.4 150.8 93.7 7 0-5 11.1 46.4 46.l 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 04.0 8 0.5 11.1 46.4 46:l 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 76.4 9 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 69.4 10 0.5 11.1 46.4 46:I 38.4 12 48 86.4 132.8 56.3 1 I pasture r e n o v e i l on 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.l 128 4H 192 320 366.4 141.3 12 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.1 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 52.2 13 0.5 11.1 46.4 4€.:1 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 47.4 14 0.5 11.1 46.4 4L.l 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 43.1 15 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 39.2 16 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.1 30.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 35.6 17 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.1 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 32.4 18 0.5 11.1 46.4 46:I 38.4 I6 64 102.4 148.8 29.4 19 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.4 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 26.8 20 0.5 11.1 46.4 46.1 38.4 16 64 102.4 148.8 24.3 - -- - - - ---- -- - ------ rota~ 23 1 62 15 178 9 12511 989.2 432 1728 2717.2 3967.3 2254 Fuel uood Pasture Shad~rtg Pasta~r a Fuel uorad Fodder rota1 Ben. PV nut Net Out~.ui Pas t a ~ r uFuel uoud Pasture Fuel u ~ o d Vi e l d Reducti or, Bencf i t Fuel uood B e n e f ~ t Fodder Bermf i t Benefit Pi= He t PV Cost (tonrmes> IRF: IRR net net tons Factor yuan tonnes yuan - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - -. tanner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- -. -- yuan yuan 10.0% Benefi t . PV PV Beneti t Benefi t I.6CI 1 95-76 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.9 179.55 0.0 0.0 11.0 5.6 0.8 255.36 0.0 0.0 11.0 5.6 0.8 255.36 0.0 0 -0 0.0 5 -6 0.8 255.36 6.11 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6-11 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.0 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.11 140.7 0.7 26.7 3.5 0.8 159.6 :'.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 253.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 , 6.0 140.7 0 26.7 5.6 0.0 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0 26.7 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 140.7 0.7 26.7 ---------------------------------------------- -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- 103.88 4776.113 96 2251 11 1 27  HI L1.51 DF DEVEl OPHENT HENGNRN COJNrY 0.1 15/08 Model 1.5: Moderate Site: partur es or, red/purple s o i l s Cost flssunptions FCONOHIC EVA1UAlION units/ yuan/ yuan) yoor L a b w costs. yuaduorkday Year hectare unit hectare -.--------------- ----------------- Peak ( r i c e herwort) 5 1 Pasture grass ; Of f -peak 4 1 fertilizer 120 1 fertilizer 200 0.21 48 1 seed t:kg> 10 B 80 1 innocul a t i on 10 1 establ. labor Cud) 60 1 24) nanag. labor Cud> 1 Mfodder conservation 15 4 60 2 f e r t i 1i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n 5 1 20 Oi scount Rate: 10.0% I 15 crd/ha r e q u i r e d f o r fcsdder conservati on uhen bereefits a r e >= 300 yuan. 10 ud/ha NPll per hertar-e: 1651 r e q u i r e d f o r fodder conservation h e n b e n e t ~ t s €:enefi t/coz.C r a t lo 2.03 are < 3 CO yuan/ha. l F'V o f f~>eluood cost: Cost per tonne: ERR cost per W E : ERR c 0 3 t Fler etld-use TCE. cookirag: ER : R uni t/ yuan/ yuard unit hect e r e huc t a r < # - -- - - - - - - - --- -- - - - -- - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - --- Fodder (tonnos) 40 Pasture ~ l o t ~ l e s ? 57  EENEFI r-; Non-L Pasture rota1 P.ssture f'asture Labor Pasture Cost PU P a s t u r e Pasture b n . PV Cost Labor Cost Cost i Output Benefit = @i Net YR Reference yuan ud yuan yuan 10.0% t o n s yuan 10.02 B o n e f i t NPV - -. - - -. - - - .. - - .- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - . - - -. .- - - - - - - - - - - . - - - -- - - - 1 Paslur-o E r t a t l i shnont 2 10 119.7 -330.3 -330.3 2 48 226.7 141.4 128.5 3 48 329.8 271.0 224.0 4 49 239.8 271.0 203.6 5 48 272.5 271.0 185.1 6 .ta 217.7 271.0 168.3 7 48 225.2 271.0 153 - 0 8 48 204.8 271.0 139.1 9 49 186.1 271.0 126.4 10 r e s e e d l r q / r e n o v s t i on 128 105.8 -118.6 -50.3 1I 48 153.8 271.0 104.5 12 48 139.8 271.0 95.0 13 4R 127.1 271.0 86.3 14 48 115.6 271.0 78 - 5 15 48 105.1 271.0 71.4 16 40 95.5 271.0 64.9 17 49 R6.8 271.0 59.0 18 49 78.9 271.0 53.6 19 48 71.8 271.0 48.7 20 48 65.2 271.0 44.3 - - - - - - - --- - - . --- -- . .-- 1202 1654  ~ I I L L S I O E LIEVELOPHEIIT HE IGNfW WUHTY 8/15/'88 Hodel 2.1 : Serr ousl y Eroded 51te; dyrnam~ te. terr.sce ons Cost R~:sumpti ECONQIIl( EVHLUflrICIN f w l u o o d 8 crops Labor c o l t s. ~jusn/uorbdny - - - ----- -------------- ------------ Harvesting. k g / u d --------------------------- Yual- units/ -- -- - - - -.- - - - - -- --.- -- - - - - - - - - - - h ectare yuan/ mi t yuan/ hectare --- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - t ~ a r v e s1 Prak < r ~ c e t C Fuel uood 600 1 s eedl i nqs 143U 0.09 128-7 Of f -peak 4 1 Tools 0 0 6 1 estab. l a b o - Cud): F~~eluoc- tdr r o s 1raves fodder val UP 1 1and prep. ( p i t t i n q ) 40 4 192 y~~an/ton 40 1 plantiny El 4 32 1 t e n d i rsq 12 4 18 Uheat fertilize r 175 seed (:kg> 42 0.32 13.14 Discount Rate: 10.0% pesticides 21 1abor Cud) 42 4 168 NPV p e r hectare: -2067 Suoet patatuos Fuoluood Value E s t l n a t o Benefit/cort r a t i o 0.68 fertilizer 2 10 --------------------------.------ seed (kg) 350 0.42 14f Sub coal PU o f f*~elb400d colt: pest1c i d e s 21 t1u.sn/rCE 140 Co5t per tcsnne: 123 .O l a b o r Cud) 113.5 4 694 L c a l /kg 7000 c o s t per WE: 253.2 Rapeseed r ff i c i ency-cook 29.0% Cost per end-use fertilizer 175 Fuel rood ICE. c o o t i tlq: 2532 - 2 seed Ckg) 10.5 0.6 6.3 Lcal/Lq 3400 pesticides 21 efficiency-cook 10.0~ l a b o r cud) 49 1 196 Soybeans fertilizer 70 seed Ckg) 49 1 49 pest1c i d e r 21 l a b o r Cud) 100 4 400 rerrecirnq Cud) 340 4 1360 r w r e c v maint. Cud> 5 4 20 Organic f e r t . <tons) 27 40 1OHO Benef it Assunpti on5 u n i t/ yumn/ yuan/ hectare unit hectare ----------------------------------------------- Fueluood Ctonnes) 23 Fodder (tonnes2 10.00 Uheat Ckg) 1050 0.32 336 Sueet P o t a t o <kg) 3150 0.42 1323 Rapeseed <kg) 787.5 0.6 172.5 Soybeans Ckg) 1050 1 1050  COSTS Restore Terrace r o t a 1 Fuel uood Fueluc.od Fueluood rota1 rota1 lotal Fuuluood Soi 1 Est/Hairtt ler-race E s t a b l . Haint.. Harvest Fuvluood Fuel uood Crop rota1 Cost PV Material Cost Labor Cost Labor Labor Lebor Labor Cost Cost Cost = Qi R Y Reference yuan yuan ud yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan yuan 10.0% 1 Establish rerrnces 1090 340 2440 2440 2440.0 2 Fueluood u s t a b l i s h n e n t 134.7 5 20 68 1.11 0.0 276.0 410.7 0.0 296 269.1 3 r-apeseed/~oytaean 5 20 1.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 938.3 962.3 795.3 4 no crops 5 20 1.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 24 18.0 5 ra~~eseed/soybean 5 20 1-11 0.0 4.0 4.0 938.3 962.3 657.3 6 no crops 5 20 1.1) 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 24 14.9 7 F i r s i fueluor,d harvest. suoet p o t a t o 5 20 1.1 1 5.6 26.2 26.2 898.3 944.5 533.2 8 r.apeseed/soyt.e*n 5 20 (1.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 938.3 982.5 504.2 9 no crop:. 5 20 0.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 0-0 44-2 20.6 10 soybean 5 20 Cl.!i 5.6 24.2 24.2 4+0.0 484.2 205.4 11 no crop= 5 20 (1-5 5.6 24.2 24.2 0.0 44.2 17.0 12 suvet pcntato 5 20 Cl.'j 5.6 24.2 24.2 898.5 942.7 330.4 13 I-ar.ereed/soqt~ean 5 20 Cl. !j 5.6 24.2 24.2 938.3 982.5 313.1 14 no crops 5 20 Cl.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 0.0 44.2 12.8 15 soybean 5 20 0.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 440.0 484.2 127.5 16 no crop:. 5 20 0.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 0.0 44.2 10.6 17 no crop:. 5 20 0.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 0.0 44.2 9.6 18 soyhean 5 20 0.5 5.6 24.2 24.2 440.0 484.2 95.8 19 no crop?. 5 20 (1-5 5.6 24.2 24.2 0.0 44.2 8.0 20 soybean 5 20 0. !j 5.6 24.2 24.2 440.0 484.2 79.2 i'l no crops 5 20 O.!j 5.6 24.2 24.2 0.0 44.2 6.6 --------------------_---_---_.---_------.-----------__-_-_-_--_-__-__-__._---__-__-_---___L___--------__-__-_ lo1 a1 s 135 lotto 440 2840 68 13 83 657 792 7310 lOBO7 6468 BENEFI I:. Crop Value Uh/Rp y11an Crop Vallle SF'/S ya1an Yiold Factor U 6 R .- Yield Factor SP 6 5 Ooqradod Soil YI e l d Factor Crop Benef it Fuel uood Benef i t Yuan toren~s Fue 1uood yuan Fodder tonnes Fodder Benefit yuan Iota1 8enef it yuan Qi - Berl. PV 10.0% He t. Benef i t NPV - ------------------------------------------ ---- Fueluond Fueluood Cost PV Output <tonnos) PI) Fueluood Fueluood Net Benefit IRR ------- -------.-- 0.0 r~.o 0.0 0.0 o -2440.0 -LI~O.O 1220.0 O.CI -1220.0 -6.09% 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 (I.n 0.0 0.0 0.0 -296.0 -269.1 382.5 O.CI -420.7 1.0 0.7 1065.8 0.0 c1.0 0.0 1065.8 BBI1.8 103.5 85.5 11- 6 0.CI -14.0 0.e 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -24.0 -18.0 10.5 0.CI -14.0 0.7 0.9 1001.7 0.0 01 . ) 0.0 10111.7 E.84.2 39.4 26.3 9.6 0.0 -14.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 810 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -24.0 -14.3 8.7 0.0 -14.0 0.9 0.9 1071.6 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 1155.3 6.52.1 210.8 119.0 12.9 1.7 47.5 0.9 0.9 1036.2 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 1179.9 E005.5 197.4 101.3 10.7 1.5 49.5 0-7 0.9 0.0 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 93.7 3'3.0 39.5 18.4 9.7 1.4 49.5 0.6 0.9 567.0 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 650.7 376.0 166.5 70.6 8.9 1.3 49.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 83.7 32.3 39.5 15.2 0.1 1.2 49.5 0.3 0.9 1071.6 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 1155.3 d10-4.9 212.6 74.5 7.3 1.1 49.5 0.8 0.9 1138.7 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 1222.4 309.5 239.9 76.4 6.7 1.0 49.5 0.6 0.9 . 0 Ct 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 Y3.7 24.2 39.5 11.4 6.1 0.9 49.5 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.9 472.5 0.0 3.0 3 0 70.3 70.3 0. :3 0.3 13.3 13.3 556.2 83.7 146.5 20.0 72.0 39.5 18.3 9.4 5.5 5.0 0.B 0.P 49.5 49.5 w P, z * 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 93.7 10.2 39.5 B.6 4.5 0.7 49.5 m z 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.9 472.5 0.0 3.0 3-0 70.3 70.3 0.3 0.3 13.3 13.3 556.2 93.7 110.0 15.1 72.0 39.5 14.2 7.1 4.1 3.8 0 0.5 49.5 49.5 ='E! P 0.5 0.9 472.5 3.0 70.3 3.3 13.3 556.2 90.9 72.0 11.8 3.4 0.5 49.5 NW 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.0 70.3 0.3 13.3 Y3.7 1i?.4 59.5 5.3 3.1 0.4 49.5 ~ - 0 l H 84 30 45 1055 5 200 3685 4402 -1122 -2067 1743 14 -957 C 00  HIL.LSI OE DEVELOPHE N T HENGNRN CCUNrY 8/15/88 Hodel 2 .2: Suriou!.l y Eroded: sqmose p i t s ; fueluood t r e e and fodder plantrr Cost Rssunptions EC0Nl)HlL F URL UHl ICIN Species: lo.rust ................................................................. units/ yuan./ yuerd year costs. 1h b ~ r yuar~/uor-L d.3~ L glud Har-vesCinq. Year hectare unit hectare ------------------------. ----- - -. . --- --- ----- - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - - Prak < r i c e h a r v e z t ) 5 Fueluood 600 1 P i t c o n s t r u c t i o n Cud) 80 4 320 Of f -peak 4 4.7.10. G u l l y s t r u c t u r e s Cud) 45 4 180 13.17 F~~eluoo tdr u e s leaves fv>ddur value I tools 6 yuan/tun 40 1 seedl ings 800 0.09 72 1 f e r t i l ~ r e r(kg) 0 0.21 0 1 estab. l a b o r Cud): 1 l a n d prep. < p i t t i n g ) 8 4 32 1 planting 5 4 20 Diz.cotmt Rate: 10.0% 1 t e n d i reg 12 4 ?a Pasture grass NPL' per hectare: -940 1 fertilizer 0 58.8 Value F~~eluoo d Estinate Bertefit/cost r a t i o 0.55 2-8 fertilizer 98 0.24 23.52 - .- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 - 20 fertilizer 196 0.24 47.04 S I I ~coal PV o f fueluorsd cost: 1.8.17 seedCkg) 1.9 8 33.2 \'u~n/lCE 14rl C o d per tonne: 138.3 1.8.17 innoculation 0 1.9 L c.31 /L g 700CI c o s t per TCE: 284.7 establ. labor Cud) 29.4 4 117.6 c f f I c i ency - cook 29. (1% Co:;t per end-use nanaq. labor Cud) Fn ,el uood TCE:. cooking: 2847.1 2 rfodder conservat~on 14.7 4 58.8 b csl/Lg 3400 2 fert.ilizer application 4-9 4 19.6 ~ e f f i c ency-cook 10.0% 3 cut and c a r r y pesture grass 7 4 28 IRR: -2.9% Benef it s Assumptions ---_--_--------_-------------------------------- unit/ yum/ yuan/ hectare unit hectare -------------_--------------------------------- Fuel uood ( t o n n e ~ ) 23 Fodder < tonnes) 40.00 Pasture <tortnusi 57  Illll '<I DE DEVELOPMEN1 HENGNAN COUNrY 8 / 15/88 Model 2.3: 5. 0 1- I O I J S ~y Eroded S ~ t e : p a s t u r e s on r e d / p u r p l Cost Rz.sunpl ion:$ ECONIIHIC EVALURrIOH units/ yuan/ yuan/ year l ~ a b o rc o s t s . yuar~/uorL day Harvesting. kg/ud Year hectare uni t hvct a r e -.- - - - -------- --------------------------- Peak (r ~ c tlarve%t:l e 5 Fuel uood 600 1 Pasture grass O f f -peak 4 1 fertilizer 120 1 fertilizer 200 0.24 48 Falo1uood t r u e s 1uaves fodder v a l ue 1 seed #:kg) 10 8 80 yuan/t on 40 1 innocul a t i o n 10 1 e s t a b l . l a b o r Cud) 60 4 240 nanag. l a b o r ' ud) 1 sf odder c o n z e r v a t i o n 15 4 60 2 f e r t i l i z e r application 5 4 20 Oi s c o r ~ n tRate: 10.0% s 15 ud/ha r e q u i r e d f o r fodder c o n s e r v a t i o n uhen b e r ~ e ft i s a r e >= 300 yuan. 10 ud/taa NPll p e r hec tare: -164 r e q u i r e d f o r f o d d e r c o n s o r v a t i o n uhen b e n e f i t s Benefit/co:.t r a t i o 0.87 a r e < 300 yuan/ha. PV o f f u e l u o o d c o s t : Cost p e r trnnne: ERR c o s t p e r WE: ERR Cost p e r end-use TCE. cookirtg: ERR IRR: 6.7% Pasture ormn+?r S?  BENEFITS COSTS Non-L Pasture Total Pasture Pasture Labor Past~~reCost. PV Pasture Pasture Total B m . PV Cost Labor. Cost Cust Pi= Output Benefit Benefit li= Net YR Roferonco yuan ud yuan yuan . 10.0% Tons yuan wan 10. OX Benef i t NPV 1 Pasture Est ahlishnent 2 10 60 240 450 450.0 r) 0.00 0.0 0.0 -450.0 -450.0 2 48 5 20 68 61.8 rJ 0.00 0.0 0.0 -68.0 -61.8 3 48 5 20 68 56.2 1.575 89.78 89.8 74.2 21.8 18.0 4 48 10 40 88 66.1 1.575 89.78 89.8 67.4 1.8 1.3 5 48 10 40 80 60.1 1.575 89.78 89.8 61.3 1.8 1.2 6 48 10 40 88 54.6 1.575 89.78 89.8 55.7 1.8 1.1 7 48 10 40 88 49.7 2.45 139.65 139.7 78.8 51.7 29.2 8 48 15 60 108 55.4 2.45 139.65 139.7 71-7 31.7 16.2 9 48 15 60 108 50.4 2.45 139.65 139.7 65.1 31.7 14.8 oa 10 r e s o u d i r ~ g / r e v ~ o ~ nl i 128 15 60 188 79.7 3.15 179.55 179.6 76- 1 -8.5 -3.6 11 48 15 60 108 41.6 1 179.55 179.6 69.2 71.5 27.6 12 48 15 60 108 37.9 3.15 179.55 179.6 62.9 71.5 25.1 13 48 20 80 128 40.8 3.85 219.45 219.5 69.9 91.5 29.1 14 48 20 80 128 37.1 3.85 219.45 219.5 63.6 91.5 26.5 15 48 20 80 128 33.7 3.85 219.45 219.5 57.8 91.5 24.1 16 48 20 80 128 30.6 4.55 259.35 259.4 62.1 131.3 31.4 17 48 20 80 128 27.9 4.5'5 259.35 259.4 56.4 131.3 28.6 18 48 20 80 128 25.3 4.5!5 259.35 259.4 51.3 131.3 26.0 19 48 20 80 128 23.0 4.5'5 259.35 259.4 46.6 131.3 23.6 20 4H 20 80 128 20.9 5.25 299.25 239.3 48.9 171.3 28.0 --------------- Totals 1202 345 1380 2582 1303 Sf:. 1 3311.7 3312 1139 730 -163.6  HILLSIDE DEELOPMNr X I USHUI COJNrV 9/3/88 Model 1.1: Poor Uostern Sites; p i t s . grass. IOU density t r e e s Cost Assumptions ECOWOHIC EVRLURTIOH Species: 1ocust ................................................................. units/ yuad yuan/ Lebor costs. yum/uortday Harvesting. kg/ud Year hectare unit hectare .................................. --------------------------- ................................................................. Pea& < r i c e harvest) 5 Fuel uood 600 1 P i t construction < ~ d l 80 3 2W Off -peak 3 Fueluood t r e e s 1 s e e d l i nqs 1670 0-04 66.8 Fuel wood trees 1eaves fodder val ue 1 Tool s 6 yuan/ton W 1 estab. labor Cud>: 1 l a n d prop. Cpittinq) 56 3 168 1 planting 10 3 30 1 tending 5 3 15 P a s t w e grass Oi scount Rate: 10 .OY I fertilizer 475 0.24 114 2-20 fertilizer 190 0.24 e.6 MPU per hoctare: -366 1.10 seed Ckg) 9.5 8 76 Fwluood Value E s t i n a t e Benefi t/cost ratio 0.84 1.10 innoculation 0 9.5 ................................. establ. l a b o r Cud) 57 3 17 1 Sub coal PV of fuoluood cost: nanag. l a b o r Cud> Vuan/tome 131 cost PPT ~ O M O : 74 - 7 2-20 f e r t i l i z e r apply c a t i o n 4.75 3 14.25 t c a l /kg 4200 cost per TCE: 153.8 c u t t i n g pasture e f ficiency-cook 35.0% Cost per end-use 2-4 22.8 3 a.4 Fwluood TCE. c o d i n g : 1530.0 5-0 34.2 3 102.6 b cal /kg 3400 9- 12 45.6 3 136.0 e f f i ciency-cook 10.0% 13- 16 50.9 3 lMn.7 17-20 72.2 3 216.6 IRR: 3.4% P i t s a r e for the b e n e f i t of fuelrood t r e e s and foddrr p l a n t s P i t construction cost s p l i t 50:50 b e t w e n t r e e s and pasture Benefi t s Assunptions ------------------------------------------------ mi t / yuan/ yuan/ hectare unit hectre ............................................... Fuoluood < t o n n e ~ ) 30 Fodder <tonne,> 40.00 Pasture <tonnos) 100  C O Ss ~ Fueluood Fueluood Fueluood Total rota1 Hon-L pasture rota1 Fuel uood Establ .Uaint . Harvest Fueluood Fuel uood Pasture Pasture Labor Pasture Pits Total cost PU Haterial Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost Labor cost cost Cost Cost el= YR Reference yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan ud yuan 10.02 - - -- - - -- - - Y-"' 9 - YUa" -- * ---- 1 Pits.Flud.Pasture Establish 72.0 71 1.0 0.0 216.0 208.R 57 80 739.3 739.3 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 5 63.6 57.0 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 5 63.6 52.6 4 1.0 0.0 3 -0 3.0 27.55 131.3 98.6 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3-13 38-95 165.5 113.0 6 F i r s t herve3t 1.0 1.9 8.6 8.6 38.95 171.0 106.2 7 0.5 1.9 7.1 7.1 m.95 169.5 95.7 8 0 -5 1.9 7.1 7.1 38.95 169.5 87.0 9 0.5 1.9 7.1 7 J 50.35 203.7 95.0 10 0.5 1.9 7.1 7. 1 107.35 450.7 191.1 11 pasture renovation 0.5 1-9 7.1 7.1 50.35 203.7 78.5 12 0.5 1.9 7.1 7. I 50.35 203.7 71.4 13 0.5 1.9 7.1 , 7.1 63.65 243.6 77.6 14 0 -5 1.9 7.1 7.1 63.65 243.6 70.6 15 0.5 1.9 7.1 7.1 63.65 243.6 64.1 16 0.5 1.9 7.1 7.1 63.65 243.6 58.3 17 0.5 1.9 7- 1 7.1 76.95 283.5 61.7 18 0.5 1.9 7.1 7.1 76.95 283.5 56.1 19 0.5 1.9 7.1 7.1 76-95 283.5 51.0 20 0.5 1.9 7.1 7.1 76.95 283.5 46.4 BEMEFI T S Fuel uood Pasture Shading Pestl~re Fuel uood Fodder Total Ben. PV Fueluood Output P a s t v e Fusluood Pasture Fueluood Out put Reduction Benef i t Fueluood Benef I t Fodder Benof it Benefi t ei = Net Cost <tannos> IRR IRR Net hi tons Factor yuan tonnes yuan tonnes yuan yuan 10.0% Benefi t NPV PU PV Bonerit Benefit 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -739.3 -739.3 328.8 0.0 4.542 1.662 -410.5 -320.80 1.425 1 142.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 142.5 129.5 78.9 71.7 2.7 0.0 81.9 -3.00 1.425 0.9 128.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.3 106.0 64.7 53.4 2.5 0.0 67.65 -3.00 1.425 0.8 114 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.0 85.6 -17.2 -13.0 2.3 0.0 -14.25 -3.00 2.1375 0.8 171 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 171.0 116.8 5.6 3.8 2.0 0.0 8.55 -3.00 2.1375 0.8 171 1.0 30-3 0.1 4.4 205.7 127.8 34.7 21.6 2.6 0.6 8.55 26.19 2.1375 0-8 171 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 205.7 116.1 36.2 20.5 1.5 0.5 8.55 27.69 2.1375 0.8 17 1 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 205.7 105.6 36.2 10.6 1.3 0.5 8.55 27.69 2.85 0.8 22R 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 262.7 122.6 59.0 27.5 1.2 0.4 31.35 27.69 2.05 0 .8 22R 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 262.7 111.4 -108.0 --79.7 1.1 0.4 -215.65 27-69 2.85 0 .8 228 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 262.7 101.3 59.0 22.8 1.0 0.4 31.35 27.69 2.85 0.8 220 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 262.7 92.1 59.0 20.7 0.9 0.3 31.35 27.69 3.8 0.0 304 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 338.7 107.9 95.1 30-3 0.8 0.3 67.45 27.69 3.8 0 .8 304 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 330.7 98.1 95.1 27.6 0.8 0.3 67.45 27.69 3.8 0.8 304 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 330.7 89.2 95.1 25.1 0.7 0.2 67.45 27.69 3.8 0.0 304 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 338.7 81:l 95.1 22.8 0.6 0.2 67.45 27.69 4.75 0.8 300 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 414.7 90.3 131.2 28.6 0.6 0.2 103.55 27.69 4.75 0.0 300 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 414.7 82.1 131.2 26.0 0.5 0.2 103.55 27-69 4.75 0.0 380 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 414.7 74.6 131.2 23.6 0.5 0.2 103.55 27.69 4.75 0.0 3Ql 1.0 30.3 0.1 4.4 414.7 67.8 131.2 21.5 0.4 0.1 103.55 27.69 58.425 4716.75 15 454 2 67 5238 1906 394 -366 353 5 321.4 73.02  HILLS1DE OEUELOPMNT XIUSHUI COUN T Y 9/3/80 nodel 1.2: Pow Uestern Sites; p i t s . grass. & h i g h density t r e e s Cost lssumptions ECONOHIC EVALURTIOW Species: 1ocust ----------------------------------------------------------------- units/ yuan/ yuan/ Labor cost 3. yuan/uorkday Harvesting. kg/ud Ver hectare unit hoctar -----------------------+--- Peak < r i m harvest) 5 Fueluood 600 P i t c o n s t r u c t i o n Cud) O f f -peak 3 Fuluood trees seedl i n g s Fuoluood trees leaves fodder value Tools yuan/ton 10 estab. labor Cud): land prep. ( p i t t i n g ) planting tend.ng Pasture grass Oiscount Rate: 10.02 fertilizer fertilizer HPV per hectare: - 1636 seed Ckp) Fwluood Value Estimate 8enefi t / c o s t r a t i o 0.53 innocul atiom establ 1.. b a Cud) Sub coal PU o f f w l u o o d cost: maneg. l a b Cud) Yuan/tome Cost per tonne: 120 -6 f e r t i l i z e r applicmtion kcal/kq c o s t per T C E: 2W.4 cutting postwe off icierry-cook Cost per end-use Fuoluood TCE. cooking: 2483.6 b c a l /kg o f f icie~ry-cook IRR: -4.5X P i t s are f a the b e n e f i t o f t r w s and p a s t w e P i t construction c o s t s p l i t %:SO betueen t r e e s and p a s t u e Benefi t s l s s v p t i o n s mi t / yuan/ yuan/ hectare unit hoctre ----------------------------------------------- Fwluood <tonne~) 30 Fodder <tonnos) 40.00 Pasture 100  COSTS Fueluood Fueluood Fueluood Total Total Won-L Pasture Total Fueluood Establ. Haint. Harvest Fwluood Fueluood Pasture Pasture Labor Pasture Pits Total tost PV Hatorial Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost L&r Cost Cost Cost cost li= YR Reference yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan d wan yuar yum guan 10.W , 1 Pits.Flud.Pasture Establish 406 408 1.0 0.0 1227.0 1633.0 147 42 126 273 60 1986.0 1986.0 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 33.6 5 15 9.6 51.6 46.9 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 33.6 5 15 l8.6 51.6 42.6 4 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 33.6 27.55 62.65 116.25 0 119.3 89.6 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 33.6 38-95 116-85 150-6 153-5 104.6 6 F i r s t Harvest 1.0 5.6 19.7 19.7 3 6 38.95 116.85 150.45 170.1 105.6 7 0 -5 5.6 18.2 16.2 3 6 38.95 116.85 150.6 0 168.6 95.2 ti 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 38.95 116.85 150.6 168.6 86.5 9 0.5 5.6 18.2 18.2 3 6 50.35 151.05 184.65 202.8 94.6 10 0.5 5.6 18.2 18.2 89.6 92.35 277.05 3a.65 0 384.8 163.2 11 pasture renovat~on 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 50.35 151.05 184.65 202.8 78.2 12 0.5 5.6 18.2 18.2 33.6 50.35 151.05 184.65 202.8 71.1 13 0.5 5.6 18.2 18.2 3 6 63.65 190.95 224.55 0 242.7 77-3 14 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 63.65 190.95 224.55 242.7 70.3 15 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 63.65 190.95 224.55 242.7 63.9 16 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 3 6 63.65 11R.95 224.55 242.7 58.1 17 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 76.95 230.85 264.45 0 282.6 61.5 ' 18 0.5 5.6 18.2 18.2 3 6 76.95 2m.85 261.6 282.6 55.9 19 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 76.95 230.85 264.6 282.6 50-6 20 0.5 5.6 18.2 16.2 33.6 76.95 230.85 264.45 282.6 46.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals $06 08 13 83 1513 1919 W1.4 1CH1.15 3123.45 3964.65 BO 5963.6 3448 BEWFlTS Fuel vood Pasture Shading P a s t v e Fueluood Fodder Total Ben. W ; Fwluood Output Pasture Fwlvood Pasture Fwluood Output Reduction Benefi t Fueluood Benefit Fodder Benof i t Bonef it li= Wet Cost <tonnor) IRR IRR Met Ibt tons Factor yuan tonnes yuan tames yuan M yuan PV 10.OX Benef i t W PV Bonef it Benef i t ___________________-----__------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1986.0 -1986.0 1673.0 0.0 -18.19X -2.1B;r -313 -1673.00 1.05 1 105 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.0 95.5 53.4 40.5 2.7 0.0 5b.4 -3.00 1.05 0.9 94.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.5 78.1 42.9 35.5 2.5 0.0 45.9 -3.00 1.05 0.8 84 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 6 3 -35.3 -26.5 2.3 0.0 -32.25 -3.00 1.575 0.8 126 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.0 86.1 -27.4 -18.7 2.0 0.0 -24.45 -3.00 1.575 0.8 126 3.0 90.9 0.3 13.2 230.1 142.9 60.0 37.3 4.0 1.7 -24.45 84.b 1.575 0.8 126 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 230.1 129.9 61.5 34.7 2.8 1.5 -24.6 85.95 1.575 0.8 126 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 230.1 118.1 61.5 3b-6 2.5 1-1 -r24.45 85.95 2.1 0.9 168 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 272.1 126.9 69.3 32.3 2.3 1.3 -16.65 85.95 2.1 0.8 168 3.0 90.9 0.3 13.2 272.1 115.4 -112.7 -.41.8 2.1 1.2 -198.65 85.95 2.1 0.8 168 3.0 90.9 0.3 13.2 272.1 104.9 69.3 26.7 1.9 1.1 -16.65 85.95 2.1 0.8 168 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 272.1 95.1 69.3 21.3 1.7 1.0 -16.65 85.95 2.8 0.8 224 3.0 90.9 0.3 13.2 326.1 104.5 85.4 27.2 1.6 0.9 -0.55 85.95 2.8 0.8 224 3.0 90.9 0.3 13.2 326.1 95.0 85.4 24.7 1.4 0.8 -0.55 85.95 2.8 0.8 224 3.0 90.9 0.3 13.2 328.1 86.4 65.4 28.5 1.3 0.7 -0.55 85.95 2.8 0.8 224 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 326.1 78.5 85.4 20.4 1.2 0.7 -0.55 85.95 3.5 0.8 280 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 8 83.6 101.5 28.1 1.1 0.6 15.55 85.95 3.5 0.8 280 3.0 90.9 0.3 3 2 384.1 76.0 101.5 211.1 1.0 0.5 15.55 85.95 3.5 0.8 280 3.0 90.9 0.3 132 384.1 69.1 101.5 113.3 0.9 0.5 15.55 85.95 3-5 0.9 280 3.0 90.9 0.3 132 384.1 62.8 101.5 16.6 0.8 0.4 15.55 85-95 43.05 3475.50 45 1363 5 198 5037 1812 -927 - 1636 1709 14 -523.35 -397.28  HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT XIUSHUI COJNlY 9/3/00 Hodel 1.3: P o w Uestern Sites; p i t s grass Cost Assunptions ECONOMIC EVRLUAllON units/ gum/ yum/ Labor costs. yusn/uorkday Vear hectare unit hectare ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peak < r i c e harvest) 5 1 Contour F u r r o u Cud) 00 3 240 O f f -peak 3 Pasture grass 1 fertilizer 500 0.24 120 2-20 fertilizer 200 0.24 48 1.10 seed (kg) 10 8 80 1.10 innocula t i - I 0 10 1.10 e s t a b l . l a b t r Cud) 60 3 180 nanag. l a b o r Cud) 2-20 fertilizer. application 5 3 15 Oi scount Rate: 10.W% cutting pastue 2-4 24 3 72 WV p e r hectare: -97 5-8 36 3 108 Benef i t / c o s t r a t i o 0.96 9- 12 48 3 144 13- 16 62 3 186 PU o f f u e l u o o d cost: 17-20 76 3 228 Cost p e r tonne: ERR c o s t p e r 1CE: ERR Cost per end-use 1CE. cooki ng: ERR IRR: 0 .S% BPnef it s A s s u r p t i ons ................................................ unf. t/ yuan/ yum/ hectare unit hectare Pasture <tonnos) 100  BENEFI rs cosrs Non-L Pasture rota1 Pasture Pasture Labor Pasture rota1 Cost PI) Pasture Pasture Ben, PV Cost Labw Cost Cost Cost ei= Output Benefit Qi= Net YR Reference yuan ud yuan yuan yuan 10.r)dtons l ~ u a 10.OX B e n o f i t NPV 1 Pasture E s t a b l i s h m e n t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 p a s t w o r e n o v a t i o n 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ----------------------------------- r o t a 1s  HILLS1OE DEVELOPHENr XI USHUl COUMrV 9/3/BE Hod01 2.1 : Uestern moderate sites; fueluood trees and crops Cost Ass~~nptions ECONOHIC EVfUlATION Species: locust ------------------------------------------------------- wits/ yuan/ yuan/ Labor costs. yuan/uorkday Harvesti ng. kg/ud Vear hectare unit bctare --------------------------- ........................................................ Peak ( r i c e harvest) 5 Fueluood 600 1 seedl ings 2500 0-04 100 Off -peak 3 1 TOOI s 6 1 estab. labor <ud)r Fuel uood trees leaves fodder val ue 1 land prop. ( p i t t i n g ) 62 3 IS yuan/ton 40 1 planting 15 3 45 1 tending 15 3 d Uheat fertilizer 175 seed (kg) 42 0.32 13.44 Discount Rate: 10.OX p e s t i c i des 21 labor <4d> 42 3 126 NPV per hectare: 2469 Sweat pat,toes Fueluood Value Estimate Benefi t/cost r a t i o 1.33 f e r t i l i rer 2 10 --------------------------------- seed (kg) 350 0.42 147 Sub coal W o f fueluood cost: pesticides 21 Yusn/tonne 131 Cost per tonne: 22.6 labor <rdd> 173.5 3 520.5 kcal /kg 4200 cost per rCE: %.5 Rapeseed e f f i c i ency-cook 35 .a Cost per end-use fertilizer 175 Fuel uood TCE. cooking : 4E.q.6 seed Ckp) 10.5 0.6 6.3 kcal /kg 3400 p e s t i c i jes 21 o f f i c i ency-cook 10. Oi! Iabor <.4d) l9 3 147 Swans IRR: ERR fertilixer 70 seed Ckg) psticides * 1 49 21 1abor .'ud> 100 3 J00 Benefit Assurptions unit/ yuan/ yuan/ hectare uni t hect a r e .............................. ----------------- Fwluood < t o n n e ~ > 30 Fodder < t o m s ) 40.00 h a t <kg) 1134 0.32 362.88 Sueet Potato (kg) 3 150 0.42 1323 Rapeseed <kg) 787.5 0.6 472.5 Soybeans ikg) 1050 1 1050  COS~S rota] rotai rotsl Establ . Maint. Harvest Fueluood Fueluood Crop rota1 Cost PV Material Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost Cost @i= YR Reference yuan ud ud ud yuan yuara yuan yuan 10.0;. I Flud Est./Uhoal/Sueet Potat 106 32 1.0 0.0 279.0 30S.U 1233.9 1610.9 1610.9 2 rapeseed/soybean 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 709.3 792.3 720.3 3 ~hoet/~ueo pto t a t o 1.0 . 0.0 3.0 3.0 1233.9 1236.9 1022.3 4 rapeseed/soybean 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 709.3 792.3 595.3 5 F i r s t harvest/no crops 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 6 uhest/sueet potato 1.0 7.4 25.2 25.2 1233.9 1259.2 701.0 7 rapeseed/soybean 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 709.3 013.0 450.9 0 sueet potato 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.1 098.5 922.2 473.2 9 rapesesd/soybesn 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 709.3 013.0 379.3 10 no crops 0.5 7.4 23.7 23:? 0.0 23.7 10.1 11 uheat/sueot p o t a t o 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.'? 1233.9 1257.7 404.9 12 rapeseed/soybean 0.5 7.4 2 7 25.7 '709.3 013.0 205.0 13 no crops 0.5 7.4 237 25--? 0.0 23.7 7.6 14 rapeseod/soybean 0.5 7.4 23.7 2 709.3 013.0 235.5 15 no crops 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.'? 0.0 23.7 6.2 16 no crops 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.1 0.0 23.7 5.7 17 rapeseed/soybean 0.5 7 23.7 23,'t 709.3 013.0 176.9 10 no crops 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 0.0 23.7 4.7 19 raposeed/soylman 0 -5 7.4 23.7 23-7 709.3 013.0 146.2 20 no crops 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 0.0 23.7 3.9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------- r o t a ~ ~ 106 92 13 111 6 40 754 121l9 12903 7419 BEHEFI rs Crop Crop Fuel uood Fuel uood Val w Value Y~eld Yiold Crop Fuel m o d Fodder rota1 Ben. PU Net Output Fuel uood Fuel uood Uh/Rp SP/S Factor Factor Benef I t Fuoluood Benef'i t Fodder Bonefit Benefit @i= net Cost Ctonnss) Not IRR ! yuan YU- U L R SP L S Yuan tonnes yuan tonnes yuan yuan 10.OX Benefi t NPV PV PV Benefit - - -- - .- - - -. -- -- - - - - - . 362.9 0.0 0.0 1605.9 1685.9 66.9 66.9 305.0 0.0 -305.00 12.75% 472.5 0.0 0.0 1522.5 1384.1 730.2 663.0 2.7 0-0 -3.00 362.9 0.0 0.0 1385.0 1114.6 1SB.1 122.4 2.5 0.0 -3.00 472.5 0.0 0.0 1113.0 036.2 320.7 240.9 2.3 0.0 -3.00 362.9 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 -3.0 -2.0 2-0 0.0 -3.00 362.9 0-4 17.8 1656.3 1020.4 397.1 246.6 4.5 2.3 95.98 472.5 0.4 17.8 1357.0 766.0 541.0 307.0 3-1 2.1 97.40 362.9 0.4 178 1065.1 546.6 142.9 73.3 3.1 1.9 97.40 472.5 0.4 17.8 1052-5 491.0 239.5 111.7 2-8 1 97.40 472.5 0-4 1 7 139.0 58.9 115.3 40.9 2.5 1.5 97.40 362.9 0.4 17.8 1656.3 630.6 338.6 153.7 2.3 1.4 97.40 472.5 0.4 17.8 1901.2 492.2 591.2 207.2 2.1 1.3 97.48 362.9 0.4 1 7 139.0 44.3 115.3 36.7 1.9 1.2 97.40 472.5 0.4 17.8 9l7-5 274.4 134.5 115.3 30.9 30.3 1-7 1.6 1.1 1.0 97-40 97.40 2% z 00 362 - 9 0.4 17.8 139.0 36.6 362 - 9 472.5 0.4 0.4 17.8 17.8 139.0 9l7.5 33.3 206.2 115.3 134.5 27.6 29.3 1-1 1.3 0.9 0.0 97.40 97.40 m N L2 362 - 9 0.4 1 7 139.0 27.5 115.3 22-8 1.2 0.7 97.40 F- W 472.5 0.4 178 947.5 170.4 134.5 24.2 1.1 0.7 97.40 0 472.5 0.4 17.8 139.0 22.1 115.3 10.0 1.0 0.6 97.40 - - - - - - -- - - - --- - -- - -- H-I F- 8354 7 267 17574 9880 lb71 2469 426 19 03  HILLSIDE OEVELOPtIEWT XIUSUUI OUIITY 9/3/88 Hodel 2 . 2 : k s t e r n Moderate S i b ; fuoluood t r e e s e fodder p l a n t Cost Az.sumpti ons ECOnO8IIC EUALURlION Species: locust ................................................................. units/ qua/ yuan/ Labor costs. yuan/uorkdag Harvesting, kg/ud Year hectare unit hectare ---------------------------------- --------------------------- Peak ( r i c e harvest) 5 Fuel uood 600 I seedl i nqs O f F-peak 3 1 Tools 1 estab. l a b o r ( ud): Fuel uood t r e e s 1uaves f o d d w value 1 l a n d prep. ( p i t t i n g ) yuan/ton I0 1 p l a n t i np 1 tending Pasture grass 1 fertilizer 2 fertilizer Discount Rate: 10.0'x sood <kg> innoculatiol NPV per hectare: 1213 . establ l a b x ( 4 ) Fueluood Value EstinaLe Bonefit/cost r a t i o 1.68 nanag. 1 abar Cud> 2 S f odder c o n s o r v a t i o n Sub coal PV o f f u e l r o o d cost: 2 f e r t i l i z w application Yuan/torme Cost p e r t o m e : 22.6 1 c u t and c a r r y pasture k c a l /kg c o s t p e r TCE: 46.5 2 c u t and c a r r y pasture o f ficiencg-cook Cost per end-use 3 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e Fueluood TCE. cooking: 464.6 k c a l /kg efficiency-cook IRR: 28.62 Benef it s Assunptions ............................................ mit / yuw/ yuan/ lectare unit hectare F w l u o o d (tonnos) Fodder ( t o m e s ) Pasture (tonne%>  COSrS Fwluood Fueluood Fuel uood TcCal Total Non-L Pasture Total Fueluood Establ. h i n t . Harvest FwluoodFuellroorj Pasture Pasture Labor Pastwo Total Cost PU Material Labw Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost Labor Cost Cost Cost = @i R Y Roforenco yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan ud yuan yuan yum 10.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----_-----____---_----------------------------------------------- I Fuoluood and Pasture Establ 106 92 1.0 0.0 279.0 385.0 178.5 60 180 358.5 713.5 713.5 2 1-0 0.0 3.0 3-11 10.8 23.25 69.75 110.55 113.6 103.2 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 34.25 102.75 113.55 1S.6 121.1 1 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.9 lO.8 17 51 91.8 8 71.2 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 10.8 17 51 91.8 94.8 61.7 6 1.0 7.1 25.2 25.2 10.8 17 51 91.8 117.0 72.7 7 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.0 17 51 91.8 115.5 65.2 8 0 -5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.0 17 51 91.8 115-5 59.3 9 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.8 17 51 91.8 115.5 53.9 10 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.'? 40.8 15 15 05.8 109.5 16.1 I I pasttxe ronovati on 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 128 60 180 308 331.7 127.9 12 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.8 20 60 100.8 121.5 13.6 13 0 -5 7.1 23.7 23.7' 40.8 20 60 100.8 124.5 39.7 14 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.8 15 15 85.8 109.5 31.7 15 0.5 7.1 23.7 2 3 10.8 15 15 H.8 109.5 28.8 16 0-5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.0 20 ' 60 100.8 121.5 29.8 17 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 40.8 20 60 100.8 124.5 27-1 10 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.8 20 60 100.8 121.5 21.6 19 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.8 15 15 85.8 109.5 19.7 20 0.5 7.1 23.7 23.7 10.8 15 15 85.8 109.5 17.9 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ rotals 106 92 13 111 648 751 1010.9 454.5 1363.5 24M.l 3158.7 1792 Fuel uood Fuel wood Pasture Shsdinq Pasture Fuel uood Fodder Total Ben. PV Output P a s t w e Fwlwood Pasture Fueluood Output Reduction Benef I t Fuel uood Benef i t Fodder Bonefi t Benefit Ri= Net Cost Ctonnes) IRR IRR Net Net tons Factor yuan tonnos yuan tonnos yuan Y - 10.01 B e n e f i t (IPU W PU Bonef i t Bmef i t --------------------------------------------------------------- 1.785 1 101.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.7 101.7 -611.8 -611.0 385.0 0.0 53.712 12.75X -256.76 -385.00 3.71075 0.9 190.77 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.8 173.1 77.2 70.2 2.7 0.0 80.22 -3.00 5.95 0.9 305.21 0.0 0.0 0-0 305.2 252.3 158.7 131.1 2.5 0.0 161.69 -3.00 5.95 0.8 271.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 271.3 203.8 176.5 132.6 2.3 0.0 179.52 -3.00 5.95 0.8 271.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 271.3 185.3 176.5 120.6 2.0 0.0 179.52 -3.00 5-95 0.0 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 254-8 293.3 182.1 4.6 2.3 179.52 95.98 5.95 0.0 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 231.6 291.8 166.4 3.1 2.1 179.52 97.18 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 210.5 291.8 151.3 3.1 1.9 179.52 97.18 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 191.4 291.8 137.5 2.8 1.7 179.52 97.18 3.71875 0.8 169.58 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 308.6 130.9 199.0 04-4 2.5 1.5 83.78 97.18 5.95 0.0 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 158.2 78.6 30.3 2.3 1.4 -36.68 97.18 ' 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 113.8 285.0 100.2 2.1 I.3 170-52 97.18 110.3 130.7 285.8 91.1 1.2 170.52 97.18 5.95 5.95 5.95 0.0 0.8 0.8 271.32 271.32 271.32 4.0 4.0 4.0 121.2 121.2 121.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 17.8 17.8 17.8 110.3 110.3 118.8 108.0 300.8 300.8 07.1 79-2 1:; 1.6 1.1 1.0 185.52 185.52 97.18 97.18 w > 5.95 0.0 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 410.3 98.2 285.8 68.4 1.1 0.9 170.52 97.18 P1 Z 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110.3 89.3 205.8 62.2 1.3 0.8 170.52 97.48 2 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 1 0 81.2 285.8 56.5 1.2 0.7 170.52 97.18 fD 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 410.3 73.8 300.8 51.1 1.1 0.7 185.52 97.18 h, 5.95 0.8 271.32 4.0 121.2 0.4 17.8 110-3 67.1 300.8 19.2 1.0 0.6 185.52 97.18 0 110.37 5100.116 60 1810 7 267 7193 3005 4031 12 13 426 19 2701.016 1063.63 rn & w  HILLSIDE DEVELOP~EN~ XIUSHU~ m n r v q/s/ee Hodel 2.3: Uostern Hodorate Sib: fueluood trees Cost Assumptions ECONOI~IL ~URLM~ION Species: 1ocust -----_----------------------------------------------------------- unit s f yuan/ yu-f Per Year hec t a e Labor costs. yuar~/uorl.day Harvesting. kgfud ........................... - -----------_------------------------------------------- h u t r e unit .--------- Peak < r i c e hervest) 5 Fueluood 600 1 seed1ings 5a)O 0.04 200 O f f -peak 3 I ~OOIs , 6 , 1 esteb. l a b o r Cud): Fueluood t r e e s leaves foddvr value 1 lard prop. < p i t t i n g > 6 i 3 yuan/ton 40 I p l a n t i ng 30 3 I tmdirq 15 3 Discount Rate: 10.0% NPll per hectare: 204 Bonef it s Assunptions Fueluood Value Estimate Benefit/cost r e t i o 1.29 ----------------------------------- mi t f gum/ yuan/ PV of fueluood cost: hectare unit hectwe Sub coal Yuan/tome Cost p e r ,tonne: 24.7 ----------------------------------------------- c o s t per WE: 50.8 Fueluood < t c m s > 30 kcalf k g Cost p e r end-use Fodder <totuws> 40.00 o f f i c i ency-cook Fuolumd f CE. cook i reg: 508.4 kcalfkg o f ficiency-cook IRR: 13.6X  BEEFITS COSIS Fueluood Fuelwood Fueluood Total Total Fwluood Fwluood Fuelvood Eztabl. H a ~ n t . Harvest Fwluood Fueluuo-j Total Cost PV Fueluood Fodder Total em. PV Met Output Haterla1 Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost ax= Fu.luood Benef I t Fodder 8erwf1 t Bonrf~t hi Cost Ctarrd ( Relrrenco yum ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan 10.07: tomes yum tonnos ywn yuan 10.0Zbrwfrt IPV PU W 1 Fuoluood Establ I s h ~ o n t 206 109 1.0 0.0 330.0 536.0 536.0 536.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -536.0 -536.0 536.0 0.0 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3-13 3.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.7 2.7 0.0 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.5 2.5 0.0 1 1.o 0.0 3.0 3.n 3.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.3 2.3 0.0 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0 -2.0 2.0 0.0 6 Far51 Harvest 1.0 9.3 30.8 30.H 30.8 19.1 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 107.9 ll2.9 08.8 5.3 2 -8 7 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 16.5 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 98.1 lW.l 01.5 1.0 2.6 8 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 15.0 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 3 7 89.1 141.4 74.1 3.6 2.3 9 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 13.1 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.1 81.0 111.1 67.4 3.3 2.1 10 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.S 29.3 12.4 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 7 3 7 73.7 144.4 61.3 3.0 1.9 II 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 11.3 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 67.0 lW.l 55.7 2.7 1.8 12 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 10.3 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 1 . 7 60.9 111.1 50.6 2.5 1.6 13 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 9.3 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 55.4 144.4 S.O 2.2 1-1 11 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 8.5 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 50.3 111.1 41.8 2.0 1.3 15 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 7.1 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 45.7 111.1 38.0 1.9 1.2 16 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 1.0 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 4 6 1 1 31.6 1.7 1.1 17 0 -5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 6.1 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 37.0 111.1 31.1 1.5 1.0 18 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.3 29.3 5.8 5.0 151.1 0.6 22.2 173.7 34.1 1 . 1 28.6 1.4 0.9 19 0.5 9.3 29.3 29.1 29.3 5.3 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 31.2 1111 26.0 1.3 0.8 20 0.5 9-3 29.3 29.3 29.3 4.8 5.0 151.5 0.6 22.2 173.7 28.1 111.1 23.6 1.2 0.7 lolals 206 In9 13 139 8 983 908.7 699 75 2272 8 333 26s 902 1617 204 583 21 ID PI-  HILLSIDE D E V E L D P ~ M ~XIUSWI mwrv 9/3/ee Nodel 3.1: Nodorate Eastern S i b : f u e l w o d trees Cost Rssunptions ECOWONIC EVRURTIOM Species: locust ----------------------------------------------------------------- units/ yua/ \lu-/ y.r Labor costs. yuan/uork:day Harvesting. kg/ud Yur h u t r o unit hoc t a e -.-------------------------------- ........................... ........................................................ ---- ----- Peak ( r i c e harvest) 5 Fuel uood 600 1 seedl inqs 5410 0.04 200 Of t-peak 3 1 roo1 s 6 1 ost.b. l a b o r Cud>% Fuel uood t r e e s leaves fodder value I I m d prop. ( p i t t i n g ) 64 3 yuan/tpn 40 1 planting 30 3 1.2 tondin) 15 3 Oi scount Rate: 10.0Z Benefits flssuptions NPV per hectare: 863 Fueluood Value E s t i n a t e Benefit/cost r a t i o 2.12 Sub c o a l PV o f f w l u o o d cost: Yuan/tonne 131 Cost por tonne: 15.7 b:cal /kg 4200 c o s t p e r TCE: 32.2 of ficiency-cook 35.0% Cost por orad-use Fueluood TCE. cooking: 322.3 k c a l /kg 3400 o f f i ciency-cook 10.0% IRR: 23.82  BEHEFI 1s Fueluood Fwluood Fuel uood l o t a1 lotal Fwlwood F w l v o o d Furluood Establ. tlaint. Harvest Fuoluood Fue1uoo.j Total Cost PV Fuel uood Foddu Total Ben. PV net k t p t Haterla1 Labw tabor Labor Labor Cost Cost i Fueluood Benefit FoddPr Benefit 0enefiC *I= Ilet Coat <tonrwa) R Reference yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan 10.0% tonne, yuan ton-r yuan yuan 10.0zBenefit W W PV W - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - . -. - - - - ..---.-------------..------.--.-------------.------------------------ I Fueluood €.tab1 I shnont 206 94 1.O 0.0 285.0 491.0 491.0 491.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -l91.0 -491.0 -1.0 0.0 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.7 3.0 0.0 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.5 3.0 0.0 4 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.1) 3.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.3 3.0 0.0 5 r1r.t l~arvest 1.0 1 47.4 47.4 47.4 32.4 0.0 242.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 109.0 230.5 157.4 11.9 5-0 6 1.0 14.8 47.4 47.4 4 7 29.5 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 172.6 230.5 143.1 11.9 4.5 7 0.5 1 0 45.9 l5.p 45.9 25.9 0.0 242.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 156.9 232.0 131.0 10.4 4.1 8 0.5 0 45.9 l5.9 45.9 23.6 0.0 242.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 142.6 232.0 119.1 10.4 3.7 9 0.5 1 45.9 45.9 45.9 21.4 0.0 2l2.4 0.9 35.6 278.0 129.7 232.0 100.2 10.4 3.4 10 0.5 1 0 45.9 9 45.9 19.5 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 278.0 117.9 232.0 98.4 10.4 3.1 11 0.5 1 lS.9 l5.9 45.9 17.7 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 278.0 107.2 232.0 09.4 10.4 2.8 0.5 1 45.9 3 45.9 16.1 0.0 2l2.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 97.4 232.0 01.3 10.4 2.5 0.5 0 e.9 4 . 45.9 14.6 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 00.6 232.0 73.9 10.4 2.3 0.5 110 S.9 3 45.9 13.3 0.0 2l2.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 00.5 232.0 67.2 10-4 2.1 0.5 14.0 45.9 45.9 45.9 12.1 0.0 242.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 73.2 232.0 61.1 10.4 1.9 0.5 14.8 45.9 45.3 45.9 11.0 8.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 66.5 232.0 55.5 10-4 1.7 0.5 1 15.9 45.9 45.9 10.0 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 278.0 60.5 232.0 50.5 10.4 1.6 0.5 1 0 15.9 4 3 45.9 9.1 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 55.0 232.0 6.9 10-4 1.1 0.5 1 45.9 3 C : 45.9 0.3 0.0 242.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 50.0 232.0 41.7 10-4 1.3 , 0.5 1 15.9 453 : 45.9 7.5 0.0 212.4 0.9 35.6 270.0 45.4 232.0 37.9 10.4 1.2 --..------.--.---.----.-..-------.------------------------------------------------------------------ 206 94 13 237 1032 12311 1230.1 770 120 3070 14 9 4447 1634 3209 863 669 43  HILLSIOE DEUELOPMNT XIUSHUI ~NJNTY s / ~ e e Hodel 3.2: Eastern Site: fueluood and tilrbor f o r e r t Cost Rssunptions ECOWIY~IL EVfLWrION Species: Chirare fir 8 Robinia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eucalypts on coppice u i t h standards units/ yuan/ yum/ year Labor coats. yum/wrkdey Harwestinq. mi t/ud Yea hutue unit hoctue .................................. ........................... Peak <race harvest) 5 F u e l w o d (kg) 6Cm seedlings Off - p o d 3 Timber Cn32 I f e r t i 1i z e r (kg> 1001s Fueluood troea loaves fodder value estab. labor Cud): yuanlton 40 land prep. C p i t t i n q ) planting C e d i n9 protection tending D i s c w n t Rate: 10.0% p r o t e c t i on tendirq W V per h o c t u e : 7134 protection Fueluood Value Estinate Benefit/cost r a t i o 7.52 --------------------------------- S c b coal PU of fueluood cost: Cost p r tonne: 5.9 Benefits R s u r g t i m s Yurn/tonne 131 L ca1/kg 4200 cost per 1CE: 12.1 35.0% Cost per end -use mit/ yum/ y u d of f i c i ency- cook TCE. cooking: 120.7 hectare unit hctue Fueluood kc41h q 3400 ef f i ciency-cook 10.0% IRR: 29.02: Fudder C tomcs) r i nber poles C13 n3 CI2 n3 c l l n3  COlilS rroe Tree f ~ ~ o l u o o dlimber rota1 Total rree Establ . p r o t e c t Harve5t Harvert Tree Tree rota1 Cost PV Hatorial Laba Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Coat . @I= \'R Ref e1 on<o yt~an ud ud ud ud yuan yuan wan 10-OX ---.. -.--.--.-....-.-.----.---2------------.---.------------------.-------------------------- -- I I r r e E,t abl I shmeni 320.1 144 1.0 0.0 0 .135.1) 755.1 755.1 755.4 2 40 1.0 0.0 0 123.0 123.0 123.0 111.0 3 15 1.0 0.0, 0 18.0 18.0 l0.0 39.7 4 1.0 0.0 0 3-11 3.0 3.0 2.3 5 1.0 0.0 0 3-11 3.0 3.0 2.0 6 f l r s t Ilarvost 1.0 2.8 0 11.3 11.3 11.3 7.0 7 0.5 2.0 0 9.8 9.0 9.0 5.6 0 0.5 ' 2.0 0 9.13 9.0 9.0 5.0 9 0.5 2.0 0 9-13 9.0 9.0 1.6 10 0.5 7.4 0 17.7 I ? 1 7 20.2 II 0.5 7.1 0 I?.? 47.7 17.7 10.4 I2 0.5 7-1 0 4 I?.? 47.7 16-7 13 0.5 7.1 0 17.7 47.7 I 15.2 14 0.5 7.1 0 I 17.7 17.7 13.0 15 0.5 6.5 0 113 : 11.9 41.9 11.8 16 0-5 6.5 13 59.9 59.9 59.9 11.4 I7 0.5 6.5 13 59.9 59.9 59.9 13.0 10 0.5 6.5 13 59.9 59.9 59.9 11.9 19 0 -5 6.5 13 59.9 59.9 59.9 10.0 20 0.5 9-3 21 92.3 92.3 92.3 15.1 21 0-5 9.3 21 92.3 92.3 92.3 13.7 22 0-5 9.3 21 92.3 92.3 92.3 12.5 23 0.5 9.3 21 92.3 92.3 92.3 11.3 24 0.5 9.3 21 92.3 92.3 92.3 10.3 r0t.1, 320 199 13 90 205.0 12613 1589 1588.0 1095 BEHEFI r s Fueluwd Fuel uvod Fodder r i mbor Timber Total 8en.PV Output Fuel mod Fuel uood Benef I t Fodder Bonef i i Output Bonefi t Benefit @I: Net (tomes) Cost tonne, yuan tonnea yuan n3 yuan yuan 10.0% B e n e f i t NPV PV PV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 -155.1 -755.4 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 -123.0 -111.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 -18.0 -39.7 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.0 0.0 0.00 1.5 45.4 6.7 0 52.1 32.1 W.8 25.3 0.0 1.23 1.5 45.1 6.7 0 52.1 29.1 12.3 23.9 0.0 3-05 1.5 45.1 6.7 0 52.1 , 26.7 12.3 21-7 0.7 3.50 1.5 *.I 6.7 0 52.1 21.3 12.3 19.7 0.6 3.10 4.0 121.2 17.8 I680 1819.0 771.4 1771.3 751.2 1.5 7.71 4.0 121.2 17-8 1680 1019.0 701.3 1771.3 602.9 I 7-01 4.0 121.2 17.8 1680 1019.0 631.5 1771.3 620.0 1.3 6.37 1.0 121.2 17.8 1680 1019.0 579.6 1771.3 564.4 1.2 5.79 4.0 121.2 17.8 1680 1819.0 526.9 1771.3 513.1 1.1 5.27 3.5 106.0 15.6 1680 1001.6 471.4 1756.7 162.6 0.0 4.19 3.5 IUL.0 15.6 3705 3026.6 916.1 3766.7 901.7 0.0 3.01 3.5 1w.o 15.6 3705 3026.6 032.0 3766.7 819.7 0.7 3.16 3.5 106.0 15.6 3705 3026.6 757.1 3766.7 715.2 0.6 3.15 3.5 106.0 15.6 3705 3026.6 600.2 3766.7 677.5 0.6 2.06 5.0 151.5 22.2 7350 7523.7 1230.2 7431.4 1215.1 0.7 3.72 5.0 151.5 22.2 7350 7523.7 1110.1 7131.1 1104.6 0.7 3.30 5.0 151.5 22.2 7350 7523.7 1016.7 7131.4 1004.2 0.6 3.07 5.0 151.5 22.2 7350 7523.7 924.3 7431.4 912.9 0.6 2.79 5.0 151.5 22.2 7350 7523.7 040.2 7431.4 029.9 0.5 2.54 ..--- ..- -- .- - - - - -- .- - - - - - -- 49 1170 2 16 61650 33935 0220 32316 7131 11 79.80  HILLSIDE DEMLOPIIENT KIUSHUI c w r Y 9/3/80 Hodel 3.3: Eastern S i t e ; f u e l u m d t r e e s fodder p l m t Cost flssunpt i o n s ECONOHIC EVALURTION Spocios: locust units/ y yum/ Labor costs. yua/uorkday Harvesting. kg/ud Vow hutare unit hectare .................................. ........................... Peak < r i c e harvest) 5 Fuelvood b00 seedlings O f f -peak 3 Tools estab. l a b o r <ud): Fueluood trees loewes fodder value I m d prop. < p i t t i n g ) yuan/ton 40 planting tending Pasture g r a s s fertilizer fertilizer D i s c a n t Rate: 10. OX seed Ckg) inmculatim NPV por hectare: Benefit/cort r a t i o 1491 1-61 . e s t a b l 1.bar Cud) Fueluood Value Estimate nulag. l a b o r Cud) ................................. 2 l fodder conservation Sub coal PV o f f u o l w o d cost: 2 f e r t i l i z e r application Yuan/tomo Cost p e r tonne: 11.9 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e kcal/kg c o s t p e r TCE: 30.7 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e e f ficiency-cook C:ost p e r end-use c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e Fueluood WE. cooking: 306.6 kcal/kg o f ficiency-cook 0enof it.. Assamptions ................................... mi t / ym/ y u W hectare mit hectare ............................................... Fueluood <tomes) Fodder <to.rrs> Pasture C t a n o s )  ~051s F u e l u w d Fueluood Fueluood rota1 Total Mon-L Pastur. r0t.1 Fuoluood Establ. Haint. Harvest Fueluood Fuoluood pastw. Pssturo Labor Pasture Total Cost w Hatvrial Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost cost Labor cost cost cost oi= YR Refvrence Yuan ud ud d yuan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ yuan .-. yuan --- - --- - ud Yuan - ----------- ------ ----- -- ---------.--9- YU* 1o.oz 1 Fueluood and Pasture Establ 231 62 1.0 0.0 169.0 120.0 168 56 166 3 36 756.0 756.0 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 10.6 21 63 103.6 1S.6 97.1 I 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 10.6 31 93 133.8 136.6 113.1 1 1.0 0.0 3.0 3-0 10.6 17 51 91.6 W.6 71.2 5 F i r s t Fueluood Harvest 1.0 11.1 36.3 36.3 10.6 li' 51 91.6 128.1 67.5 6 1.0 11.1 36.3 36.3 10.8 n 51 91.8 128.1 79.6 7 0.5 11.1 34.8 31.8 10.6 17 51 91.6 126.6 71.5 6 0.5 11.1 34.6 31.8 10.6 17 51 91.6 126-6 65.0 9 0.5 11.1 34.8 31-13 40.6 17 51 91.6 im.6 59.1 10 0.5 11.1 34.6 31.8 10.6 17 51 91.8 126.6 53.7 I 1 pasture renovation 0.5 11.1 34.6 31.13 128 le 144 272 3a.6 116.3 12 0.5 11.1 34.6 31.H 10.8 IT 51 91.8 126.6 11 .1 13 0.5 11.1 34.8 34.9 10.8 17 51 91.8 126.6 40.3 14 0.5 11.1 34.8 34.8 10.6 17 51 91.6 rm.6 36.7 15 0.5 11.1 34.8 34.8 40.8 17 51 91.8 126.6 33.3 16 0.5 11.1 34.6 31.8 10.8 li' 51 91.6 126.6 30.3 17 0.5 11.1 34.6 31.9 40.6 17 51 91.8 126.6 27.6 16 0.5 11.1 34.8 31.8 10.6 17 51 91.6 126.6 25.1 19 0.5 11.1 34.6 34.8 10.0 17 51 91.6 126.6 22.8 20 0.5 11.1 31.6 31.8 10.8 17 51 91.8 126.6 20.7 ' Fuoluood Pasture Shading Pasture Fwluood Fodder rota1 Ben. PV Fueluood Output Pastwe Fuluaod P a s t w e Fuelubod Output Reductim Benefit Fwluood B e n e f i t Fodder Benefit Benof it 01= Het Cost <tom.s) IRF: IRR Net Hot : tons Factor yuan tonnes yuan tonnes yuan Benefit WV W W Bonof it Benef it --------------------------------------------------------------- -- - ------ 1.68 I 95-76 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.6 95.6 -660.2 -660.2 420.0 0.0 50.722 21.60X-240.21 -QO.OO 3.5 0.9 179.55 0.0 0.0 0.0 179.6 163.2 72.6 66-1 2.7 0.0 75.75 -3.00 5.6 0.6 255.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 255.1 211.0 110.6 96.0 2.5 0.0 121.56 -3.00 5.6 0.0 255.S 0.0 0.0 0.0 255.1 191.9 160.6 120.6 2.3 0.0 163.56 -3.00 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 163.6 316.8 335.7 229.3 6.6 3.7 163.56 172.13 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26-7 163.6 288.0 335.7 206.1 6.0 3-1 163.56 172.13 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 163.8 261.8 337.2 190.3 1.6 3.1 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 63.6 238.0 337.2 173.0 1.2 2.8 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 101.8 0.7 26.7 l63-6 216.4 337.2 157.3 3.8 2.5 163.56 173.63 3.5 0.6 159.6 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 366.1 156.1 211-1 102.1 3.5 2.3 67.0 173.63 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 161.8 0.7 26.7 lb3.8 176.8 157.0 60-5 3.1 2.1 -16.61 173.63 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 101.6 0.7 26.7 C3.6 162.6 337.2 116.2 2.9 1.9 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 181.8 0.7 26.7 lb3.8 117.6 337.2 107.1 . 2.6 1.7 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 181.8 0.7 26.7 63.8 131.1 337.2 97.7 2.1 1.6 163.56 173.63 5-6 0.6 255.36 6.0 181.6 0.7 26.7 lb3.8 122.1 357.2 68 - 6 2.2 1.1 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 463.8 111.0 337.2 80.7 2.0 1.3 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.8 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 S3.6 100.9 337.2 73.4 1.6 1.2 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 181.6 0.7 26.7 lb3.8 91.8 337.2 66.7 1.6 1.1 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 181.8 0.7 26.7 lb3.6 83.1 331.2 60.6 1.5 1.0 163.56 173.63 5.6 0.6 255.36 6.0 161.6 0.7 26.7 S3.6 75.0 337.2 55.1 1.3 0.9 163.56 173.63 - - - -- - -- - --------------------------------------------- 103.08 1776.03 96 2909 I1 l27  HILL.SIDE' DEVFLOPHE'NT KFIZUO C OUNTY 07/:Sept /88 Model 1. 1: Poor Hi 11t o p s i to; fodder. f / r d trees Cost f i s s l ~ m p t i ons ECONOMIC EVA1UHTI (It4 5pecies: locust - ----------- ---- - - - - . - ---- -- units/ yuan/ yuan/ hectare unit hec t w o ------ --- ---___--__ - - .- - - - - - - oak <harvor.t 1 5 Fuel uood P i t c o n s t r u c t i o n Cud) 80 240 f f -peak 3 F u e l uood t r e e s seedl ings 2200 n 1elunoJ t r c - e s 1eaves fodder v a l IQ r 001 3 o t y l ~ a l l /on 4C I eslab. l a b o r Cud): 1atad prop. Cpl t t i rag) 138 r ea P l a n t e d t o 1111s 5.t:wriarrr~ p la n t iny 12 cc tar os 1.endirag 4 Pasture grass Oi .;count Rate: 10.0% fertilizer 435 fertilizer 87 NPL1 p e r h e c t a r e : -229 seed ck-3) 8.7 ~ ~ e l u o ~ ue Val d Est~nate Bereef it / c n s t r a t i o CI-B3 innocul 9 t i on 0 - - - - - - - - - ... - .-- --- --- - - - - ....- -. - e s t a b l . l a b o r Cud) 26.1 ub c o a l P V o f fueluocad c o s t : nanag. l a b o r Cud) ;'r~an/lonlie Cor.1. p e r tonrne: 89.0 f e r t i l i z e r application 4.35 L c a t /kg cor:I per- TCE: 173.0 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e 3 r fficie~~~.y-c~ok 1 el uood k c a l /kg . Cor:t p e r end-use r C F cooking: 1729.6 c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e c u t and c a r r y p a s t u r e P i t s are f o r f ~ ~ e l u o o de e s b o n e f i t tr 7 7 r f ficiency-cook P i t s a r e i n c l u d e d i n c o s t of' f u e l u n o d rn3tai 6-37: F u e l uood 0.22 Pas t u r o 20. 3;:. B e n e f i t s Rssunptions u n i t/ yuan/ yuara/ hectare uni t hectare ---- - -------- ---------- _ __-- F u e l uood C tonnos) 37 Fodder C tonnes) 46.00 P a s t u r e (tonnos) 77  LOSTS Fueluood Fuel u o ~ r dFl~euood l Total Total Non-L Pasture Total ~ u o l u o o d Establ. Haint. Harvest Fnmluood FueIu60d Pasture Pasture Labor Pasture Pit3 rot01 Material Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost Labor Cost Cost Cost Colt '#R Refer once yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan yuan uJ yuan yuam ~juert yuan . . . . .. - . - .. ~ ______. .. _. ._ ______________--__ ____-- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----- _-_-_-_ IP I ts.FIud.Pasture Est at~l1s11 94 154 1.0 0.0 465.0 559.0 182.7 29.1 87.3 2 70 80 909.0 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 20.88 11.35 34.05 54.93 57.9 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 20.88 11.35 34.05 54.93 57.9 4 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 0 36.9 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 36.9 6 F r r s t Harvest f'~reluood 1.0 1.9 8 -6 0.6 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 42.5 7 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 0 43.8 8 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 9 0.5 2.8 9.8 9-13 ZO.@8 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 10 pastur~ore no vat^ on 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.8 90.48 26.1 78.3 16e.78 0 178.6 11 0 -5 2.8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 12 0.5 2-13 9.8 9.13 2o.ee 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 13 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.9 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 0 43.8 14 0.5 2.8 9.8 '3.3 ZO.H8 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 IS 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.3 20.H8 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 16 0-5 2.8 9.8 9 8 . 3 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 17 0.5 2-8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 0 43.8 18 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 19 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 20 0.5 2.8 9.8 9.8 20.88 4.35 13.05 33.93 43.8 _---_. - ------------------ rota1 s 94 154 13 41 623 717 649.02 47.5 442.5 1091.52 80 1B88.7 BENEF lt S F ue luood Cc*st PC' Pasture shadrng Pastur-e F u r l uood Fodder Total Ben. PV t Fuel uood O ~ ~ t p u Fueluood Pasture Pi1 Output r e d u c t i o n Benef'~t Fueluood Benef i t F oddvr Bonuf it Bonofi t = @i Net Cost Ctonnesl Net Net 10.0% tuns factor yuart tonne3 9u.m tonnos yuan yuan 10.0% Benefi t NPV PC ' P V Benefi t Benefit ------------- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------- - 9119.CI U.57 1 43.95 0.Ct 0.0 0.0 43.9 43.9 -865.1 -065.1 639.0 0.0 -639.00 -226.05 52.7 1.43 1 109.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.9 99.9 51.9 47.2 2.7 0.0 -3.00 54.93 47.9 1.43 0.9 98.88 0.D 0.0 0.0 98.9 8 40.9 33.8 2.5 0.0 -3.00 43.95 27.7 1.43 0.8 87.89 0. Cl 11.0 0.0 87.9 66.0 51.0 38.3 2.3 0.0 -3.00 53.96 25.2 1.43 0.8 87.89 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 87.9 60.0 51.0 34.8 2.0 0.0 -3.00 53.96 26.4 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.0 36. F1 11. 1 4.4 129.2 80.2 86.7 53.8 2.6 0.6 28.27 53.96 24.7 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.3 11.2 6.7 149.8 84.6 106.0 59.9 1.8 U.l3 45.41 53-96 22.5 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 76.9 106.0 54.4 1.6 0-83 45.41 53.96 20.4 1.43 0.8 87.07 1.5 55.2 11.2 6.7 149.8 69.9 106.0 4'3.5 1.5 0.7 45.41 53.95 75.7 1.43 U.8 87.87 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 63.5 -28.8 -12.2 1.3 0.6 45.41 -80.89 16.9 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 57.8 106.0 40.9 1.2 0.6 45.41 53.96 15- 3 1.43 0.8 87.83 1.5 55.;' 0.2 6.7 149.8 52.5 106.0 37.2 1.1 0.5 45.41 53-96 13.9 1.43 0.0 87.89 1.5 55.2: 0.2 6.7 149.8 47.7 106.0 33.8 1.0 0.5 45.41 53.9F. 12. i 1.43 0.8 87.87 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 43.4 106.0 30.7 0.9 0.4 45.41 53-96 11.5 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 39.4 11)6.0 27.9 0.8 0.4 45.41 53.9E. 10.5 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 35.9 106.0 25.4 0.8 0.4 45.41 53.96 9.5 1.43 0.8 87.87 1.5 55.2 11.2 6.7 149.0 32.6 106.0 23. 1 0.7 0.3 45.41 53.96 8.7 1.43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 29.6 106.0 21.0 0.6 0.3 45.41 53.96 7.9 1-43 0.8 87.89 1.5 55.2 11.2 6.7 149.8 26.9 106.0 1.3. I 0.6 (1.3 45-41 53-96 7.2 1.43 0.0 87.89 1.5 55.2 0.2 6.7 149.8 24.5 106.0 17.3 0.5 0.2 45.41 53.9E. -- 1341. 28 1746.fi31 22 81 C 1 2 98 2655 1117 766 -229 666 ? 655.31 12  HILLS1 DE UEVCLnPUEN T 1:AZIIO ( OIJWT'l 07/5ept/88 Uodel 1.2: H l l l t o p Fodder P l a n t s n p t i Coat R ~ s ~ ~ ons ECONOUIC EVA1 U A r l C I N -- ----------------- ------ ---- ------- units/ yuan/ yuan/ lLab-,r cort 5. Jatj ~juan/uork l l a r v e s t ing. L-g.bd Year hectare unit hectare -- - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..- -. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. ------ ------------ - ----------- Peak Ctter ve:.t. ) 5 F u e l uood 600 114 f -peak 3 Pa:.tui e g r a 5 s 1 fertilizer 500 0.24 I20 f ~ r ouood l t r ous l u a v e s f.>dder v a l u e 2- 20 fertil~zer 200 0.24 49 on t~llall/t 40 1.10 seed akg) 10 8 I30 1.10 innocc11-3t. io n 0 10 1.10 e s t a b l . l a b o r Cud) 30 3 90 manag. labor Cud) 2-20 f e r t i l i z e r applicat.ion 5 3 15 NPC1 p p r h e c t a r e : 97 Ber~efit/costr e t i c * 1. I 1 IRR: 20. fJ% B e n e f i t s Rssumpt~ons ------------------------------- ------------ uni t / yum/ yuan/ hectare unit hectare ----------------------------------- -- ---- Fodder ( t o n n e ~ ) Pasture  Notr-L Pasture rota1 Pasture Labnr P a ~ t u r e rota1 Cost PV Pasture Pasture rota1 Ben. PV T. 051. c.05t Crrs t Cost Qi= Output Brnvfit PerleCi t %I = Net 'VK Rel oren,: u quan YU.3" yuan yuan 1c1.n~ yuan yuan 10.0;: Benet I t ----- - ~ . - - - - - - .-- . -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -. .- - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - 1 Pastur o E j l ~ a tI~ l shnent 2I0 105 315 315.0 315.11 0.656 50.512 50.5 2 48 15 63 63.0 5P. 3 1.E.4 126.28 126.3 3 48 15 63 63.0 52.1 I .64 121:. .2R 126.3 4 48 15 63 t.3.0 47..3 1.E.4 126.28 126.3 5 48 15 63 63.0 43.0 1-64 126.28 126.3 6 48 15 63 63.0 39.1 1.E.4 126.28 126.3 7 48 15 63 63.0 35.6 1-64 326.28 126.3 8 48 15 63 63.0 32.3 1.E.4 126.28 126.3 9 48 15 63 63.0 29.4 l.f.4 126.28 126.3 10 p a : : t ~ ~ r er o n o v a t i or, 128 10s 233 293 - 0 98.H 1.E.4 126.28 126-3 11 48 IS 63 63.0 24.3 1.E.4 126.2R 126.3 12 48 IS 63 63.0 22.1 1.C.4 126.28 126.3 13 48 15 63 63.0 20.1 1-64 126.28 126.3 14 48 15 63 63.0 18.2 l.f.4 126.28 126.3 15 48 15 63 63.0 lfs.6 1.f-4 126.28 126.3 16 48 15 63 63.0 15. 1 1-64 126.28 126.3 17 48 15 63 E.3.O 13.7 I.€-4 126.28 126.3 18 48 I5 63 63.0 12.5 1.E.4 126.28 126.3 19 48 15 63 63.0 11-3 1.E.4 126.28 126.3 20 48 15 63 63.0 1CI. 3 1.F.4 126.28 126.3 . .- -- -- .-.. - - - ---- - - - - -- -- - -- . . .- - - - -.- - -. - - ---- - ----- - --- - - - -. - .. - - - -- - - - ----- --- --.--.-----.-A- - -- -- -- - -- --- - - - - - - -. rotat 1202 480 1682 1682 - 0 914 31.81.6 2449.832 2450  ttILL5I D€ 0EVt LOPtiENr KRLUO COUHlY OT/Sept/BB Hodel 2.1: H~d.Jlouet-slope; p ~ t s . f / u d t r e e s o n l y ECCINOHIf. El'flL URTlrlN Spec1Q :I units/ yuan/ yuan/ year I.al~~>cro3t s. y t ~ a r ~ / u o d.3y rL Harvestinq. kg/ud Year hectare trni t hectare - .,. .- - --- - - .- ..- - -. - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - .- - - .- - .- - - - - - - --. - - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - - . . - - - - - -..- - - - - -..- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Frak (harver-t.) 1 seedl i nqs 4400 O f f -peak 1 ~ O O Is o 1 estab. l a b o r Cud): i 1 and prop. (pi ttireg:, 275 1 p la n t iny 26 I tendir ug 6 nr 4 . 3 P I anted t o t h i s Scunar i o Hrc Carrs D i s c o u n t Rate: 10.0% NPV per hectare: -568 Frteluood Val uv €311 n a t e H e n e f i t/cor.t r a t i o 0.53 B o n e f i t s Assumptions ---- ---- - ----- ---- - - - - - - S ~ r b coal T'V o f f u e l u o o d c o s t : u n it/ yum/ yuan/ . Yu.,n/tonne Lost p e r tonne: 73.2 hectare uni t hectare kc.31 / k g cost p e r TCE: 142.,4 --------------------------------- r f f i c i ency-cook Cost p e r er~d-use Fueluood ( t o n n e ~ ) 37 Ft~eluood ICE. cookir~g: 1424.2 Fodder Ctonnosl 40.00 L c.31 /kg r ff~ c~ency-cook IRR: 3.0%  I ~ wuorod l Ftrol uood F uelu.w~d r r l l a 1 lot.51 Fuel uood F18elur m o. 1 t stab1 . M a ~ n t . He, v * r t t o~eluoodFuelus..osi rota1 Fodder Total Ben. PV Fueluotbd Output Halerla1 Laloor Labor Lohw Labor Cc>,l Cost Fodder 8enef1 t Benoftt @I= Met Cost (tonnos) ~- ~ aptan 182 ud XI? ~ ud 1-11 ud . qunn ~).#ar< - - - - .- - - .- - - - - . 0.0 921.0 .. .- . ll0C.ll . yuan .- - ..- - -- 1106.0 - tonnrr ...- - - -- - -- - - - . 0.0 yuan 0.0 yusn -- - - . -10.0d 8enef r t -- - - - - - . -- - - - - - - - - . 0.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - .- - . - - - - - . -11cm.o -11ua.o NPV PV 11os.o -PV --- -- - - n.o 1.0 0.0 3.0 3. 1 1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.7 2.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.n 3.n 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.5 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3 . I1 3.0 II.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.3 2.3 0.0 1.fl 0.0 3.0 3.13 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.0 2.0 0 . (1 1.U 5.6 19.7 19.7 19.7 0.3 13.3 123.8 76.9 1111.2 64.7 3.9 1.9 0.5 5.6 10.2 IH..? 18.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 69.9 105.7 59.6 2.7 1.7 0.5 5.6 18.2 1h.2 18.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 63.5 1C15.7 54.2 2.5 1.5 0.5 5.6 18.2 1 . 10.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 57.8 105.7 49.3 2.3 1-4 0.5 5.6 10.2 IH..? 18.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 52.5 105.7 11.8 2.0 1.3 0.5 5.6 18.2 1 18.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 17. 105.7 40.7 1.9 1.2 0.5 5.6 10.2 I*..? 10.2 6.3 13.3 123.8 43.1 105.7 37-11 1.7 1.1 0.5 5.6 10.2 1e.Z 18.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 39.5 105.7 33.7 1.5 1.0 0.5 5.6 10.2 In..? 18.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 35.9 1US.7 X1.6 1.4 0.9 0.5 5.6 18.2 In..? 10.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 32.6 105.7 27.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 5.6 18.2 la..? 10.2 0.3 13.3 123.8 29.6 105.7 2'.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 5.6 18.2 In..? 10.; 0.3 13.3 123.8 26.9 1C15.7 2il.11 1. I 0.7 0.3 13.3 123.8 21.5 105.7 20.9 1.0 0.E. 0.3 13.3 123.8 22.3 105.7 19.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 13.3 ----------.- 123.8 20.2 - l(15.7 ----------------------- I?. 3 - - - - - - - - - - -- .--- 0.8 .---- 0.5 ----- 5 200 1857 613 165 -56R 1112 16  HII.151 D€ DEVELOPMENT KA7UO COllNTV Oi'/';ept /80 Model 2.2: Mld-lnuer slopes; fueluood t r e s s & fodder p l a n t Cost A s s ~ ~ m p t ~ o n s ECO NOM C € V A L UATI (IN I Spe.:~es: 10,-us1 - -.- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - -. - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u n i tr/ yuan./ yuan/ Labor c o s t yuart/uork day Veer hect.rre unl t huc t a r * - -. - - - . 5. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -Harvesti ng. kg./ud - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -------- -- Prak (tmrvest) c Fuel uood 600 1 seedl I ngs 2200 0.04 89 Uf f -peak : I 1 To ~ s l 0 0 6 1 estab. 1aho1- Cud): f u e l uood Irues leaves fodder val uo 1 1a r ~ d prep. < p i t t i n g ) 138 3 414 yuan/t on 40 1 planting 12 3 36 1 t e n d i rag 5 3 15 A r 0.3 PI anted t o t h i s Scenario Pasture grass H6.c t ares 1.9.17 fertilizer 435 120 2- 20 fertilizer 174 0.24 41.75 Discount Rate: 10.0% 1.9. 17 seed #.kg) 8.7 2.2 19.14 innocul a t i o n 0 NPL' per hectare: 830 1.9.17 . e s t a b l l a b o r Cudi 1.74 3 5.22 Fclel uood Value Estimate Benefi t / c o s t r s t i o 1-25 manag. l a b o r cud) 1 c u t t i n g fodder grass 10.875 3 32 -625 Sub coal PV o f Cueluood cost: 2-20 c u t t i n g fodder grass 39.15 3 117.45 t'u.rn/tonne 80 Cost per tonrte: 47.6 2-20 f e r t i l i z e r application 4.35 3 13-05 k.c.rl /kq 4600 cost per TCE: 92.6 1 . e s t e b l h i r e nu1e u/plou 33.06 20 661-2 cf f i ciency-cook 17. ( 1 2 Cost per end-use Fue Iuood 1CE. cooking: 926.5 k c.rl /kg 3600 ef ficiency-cook . 10 -0% I IRR: Tot-a1 20.8i: Fuvluood 7-22 Bunef it s Assumpti ons Pas t u r e 40. 6 : ; -- ------------------ mi t / yuan/ yuan/ hoctare uni t hect.are - ---- F a~ euo~~nd l <tonne~) 37 Fodder < tonnos) 40.00 Pasture Ct-0nn-s) 1OCl  C 051S Fuel u0c.d Fuoluood Fuel uood Total Total Non-L Pasture Total Fuel uood Establ . t l a ~nt. Har.vosl F ~ ~ e l u o oFuoluood d Past~~re Pasture Labor Pasture Total Halerlal Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost Cost labor Cost Cost Cost Reloronce quan ud 14.4 ud yuan yuar~ yuan ud yuan yuan IJU"I - __-_ ___-_____--_ - - - - - .- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - . 1 f u r l v o o d srrJ P3sluro E3labl 94 155 1.0 0.0 468.0 562.0 800.34 12.6 15 37.845 1338.185 1400.2 2 1.0 11.0 3.0 3.0 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 175.3 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4 7 6 43.5 130.5 172.26 175.3 4 1 .(I 0.0 3.0 3.11 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 175.3 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 41-76 43.5 130.5 172.26 175.3 6 1- 0 4.4 16.3 I€.. 3 41.76 43.5 13Il.5 172.26 18U.6 7 0 -5 4.4 14.8 14.R 41-76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 8 0.5 4.4 14.8 14-13 41-76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 9 Paclt~rorunovnlion 0 -5 4.4 14.0 14-13 000.34 1.74 5.22 805.56 820.4 10 0.5 4.4 14.8 14.8 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187. 1 11 0-5 4.4 14.8 14.9 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 I2 0.5 4- 4 14.8 14.Y 41.76 q3.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 13 0.5 4.4 14.8 14.0 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 14 0-5 4.4 14.8 14.9 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 I5 0.5 4.4 14.8 14.:3 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 16 0.5 4.4 14.8 14.R 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 17 Pa-lure renova'.ioo 0.5 4- 4 14.8 14.9 800.34 1.74 5.22 805.56 820.4 18 0 -5 4-4 14.8 14.8 41-76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 19 0 -5 4.4 14.8 14.8 41.76 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 20 0.5 4-4 14.8 14.9 41.i6 43.5 130.5 172.26 187.1 - - ------ - - ------------------------------------ . .- - -. - - - Tnt sls 94 155 13 67 704 799 3110.94 755.595 ??6E.. ?05 5377.725 6175.7 Fuel uood Cost PU r ~ P a s l ~ ~ shading Pasture Fuel uood Fodder rot a l Ben. PV Fuel rood Output Pasture Fuel uood b2i 1 Olltpul roductioro B o n r f l ? f u e l uood Elonefi 1 Fodder Ber~efit Ber 6.f i t PI = Net Cost Ctonnes) Met net 10.0% factor yuan torrnr.~ yuan tonne s yuan yuan 10.0% Benefit NPV F'V PV Benefit Benefit - --------- .- - - - - - - -- -------- 1.rno.2 2.5 I 250 0.0 0.0 -1150.2 562.0 0.0 -588.19 -562.0 159.3 5.25 0.9 472.5 0.0 0. (1 270.2 2.7 0.0 300.24 -3.0 144.8 5.25 0.8 420 0.0 0.0 202.3 2.5 0.0 247.74 -3.0 131.7 5.25 0.8 420 0.0 0.0 183.9 2.3 0.0 247.74 -3.0 119.7 5.25 0.8 420 11.0 0.0 0.0 167.2 2.0 0.0 247.74 -3.0 117.1 5.25 0.8 420 2.4 88.4 0.3 205.2 3.5 1.5 297.74 82.7 105.6 5.25 0.8 420 21.4 88.4 0.3 187.4 2.4 1.4 247.74 84.2 96.0 5.25 0.8 420 2 4 88.4 0.3 170.3 2.1 1.2 247.74 84.2 302.7 2.73 0.8 218.4 2.4 88.4 0.3 -234.6 1.9 1.1 -587.16 84.2 79.3 5.25 0.8 4.20 4 80.4 0.3 140.8 1.8 1.0 247.74 84.2 72.1 5.25 0.8 420 4 88.4 . 0 .3 128.0 1.6 0.9 297.74 84.2 65.6 5.25 0.8 420 4 88.4 0.3 116.4 1.5 0.8 247.74 84.2 59.6 5.25 0.8 420 4 88.4 0-3 105.8 1.3 0.8 247.74 84.2 54.2 5.25 0.8 420 2 4 88.4 0.3 96.2 1.2 0.7 247.74 84.2 49.3 5.25 0.8 420 4 88.4 0.3 87.4 1.1 0.6 247.74 84.2 44.8 5.25 0. 8 420 4 88.4 0.3 79.5 1.0 0.6 247.74 84.2 178.5 2.95 0.8 2 36 2.4 88.4 0.3 - 105.6 0.9 0.5 -569.56 84.2 37.0 5.25 0.8 420 4 88.4 0.3 65.7 0.8 0.5 247.74 84.2 33.7 5.25 0. 8 420 4 88.4 0.9 59.7 0.7 0.4 247.74 84.2 30.6 5.25 0.8 420 2.4 88.4 0.3 54.3 11-7 0.4 247.74 84.2 ~ --.-.- - - - - - - ..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - . - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- .- 3362 78'16 . 9 36 1326 4 8 30 594 I 2 2519.175  HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT K AZUO COUNlY 0?/Sep1/80 Model 2.3 : Hid/louer slope; f ~ ~ e l u o ot d r e e s and crops Cost A s s ~ ~ m p t i o n s .----.-------------------------------------------- ECOWOHIC EVBLUR~IEIN Speci 9s: units/ yuan/ yuan/ )r costs, yuar~/uorl:day H a r v o s t i ng. kq/ud Year hoctare unit hectare --------------------------- ----- ------------- ---------------- '< Charvest) c Fuel uood 600 1 seed1 i ngs 2200 0.04 80 PO& 3 1 rocmls 0 0 6 1 estab. l a b o r Cud): luood t r e e s leaves fodder value 1 1a r ~ dprop. ( p i t t i n g ) 138 3 414 ani it on 40 1 p l a n t i ng 12 3 36 1 t.endi ng C J 3 15 Y Planted t o t h i s Scenar~o ASSESSMNT Corm 1 ares chemic:al f v r t (kg) 500 1.4 700 cargani c f o r t (totr) 4 16 64 Discount Rate: 10.0% seed (:kg) IS 0.6 9 pesticides 21 NPV per hectare: 17'36 l a b o r Cud) 100 3 300 luood Value E s t i n a t e B ~ r ~ e f i t / c o s t r a t i o 1.25 Sorghum c h e n i c a l f e r t <kg> 400 1.4 560 coal PV o f fueluood cost: o r g a n i c f o r t Cton) 4 16 64 >n/t onne 8c1 Cost p e r tonne : 29 - 0 sood (:kg) El 0.5 4 d/Lg 4600 c o s t per TCE: 56.5 pesticides 21 riciency-cook 17.0% C 0 r . t per end-use l a b o r Cud) 100 3 300 l uoc~d TCE. cooking: 5E.4 - 5 Millet ~1/Lg 3600 c h e n i c a l f e r t Ckq) 20rJ 1.4 280 f~ ciency-cook 1O. C Z l organi c f e r t (ton) 4 16 54 IRR: seed Ckg) IS 0.32 4.8 rotai 43.32 ~*esticides 21 Fueluood 12.8X l a b o r Cud) 100 3 300 Crops NON E Soqbeans chemical f e r t Ckqj 200 1.4 200 clrqarric f o r t Ctotr) 2 16 32 zeed Ckg) 50 0.7 35 pesticides 21 l a b o r Cud) 110 3 330 Elenef it Assunpti ons u n i t/ yuan/ yuan/ year hectare ur~ti hectare -- Fuel uood Ctonnes) 3? Fodder Ctonr~es) 40.00 Erlvirorlmental Cha.) 0 Corn CL:g:l 3225 0.35 1128.75 Sorghum (kg) 3500 0.34 1190 M i l l e t (kg) 2200 0.32 704 Saybear~s Ckg) 2000 0.7 1400  HILLSIDE DEbELOPHENr K AZUO COUNrY 07/Sept/80 Hod01 3.1: 6 u l l y ; fuelvood trees and grass Cost flssl~npti ons ECOnOllIC EVALUArION Species: 1ocust ................................................................. units/ qua/ gu m / Labor costs. yum/uorkday Harvesting. kg/ud Year hec t a r e uni t hec t a r e ---------------------------------- --------------------------- -----_--_-_------------------------------------------------------ Peak Charvest) 5 Fue1uood 600 Off -peak 3 Fuoluood trees seedl i ngs fuelvood trees leaves fodder value Tool s yuan/t<n 40 estab. l a b o r Cud): 1and p r q . ( p i t t i n g ) Area Planted t o t h i s Scenario planting Hectares tending Pasture grass Oiscount Rate: 10.OX t o r ti 1i zer fertilizer NPV per hectare: 577 seed Ckg) Fueluood Value Estinat.e Benefi t/cost r a t i o 1.50 innoculation establ. labor Cud) Sub coal PV o f fueluood cost: nanag. labor Cud> Yuan/tonne 80 Cost p w tonne: 7.5 f e r t i l i z e r application kcal /kg 4600 cost p w TCE: 14.6 c u t and c w r y pasture grass u f ficiency-cook 17.0% Cost per end-use c u t ard c w r y pasture grass Fueluood TCE. cooking: 145.5 kcal /kg 3600 e f f i cioncy-cook 10.0% IRR: Total 22.9X Fuel uood 35.OX Benefits Rssunpti ons Pasture 8.W ................................................ mi t/ yuan/ yuan/ hectare unl t hectare ............................................... Fueluood ( t o n n e ~ ) 37 Fodder Ctonnes) 40.00 Pasture Ctonnes) 77  COSTS Fueluood Fueluood Fueluood Total Total )(on-L Pasture Total Fueluood Establ. naint. Harvest Fwluood Fuelvvod Pasture Pasture Labor Pasture rota1 Cost W tlaterial Labor Labor Labor Labor Cost cost Labor Cost cost Cost ei= YR Reference yuan ud ud ud yuan yuan ud yuan ---------.-- - ----- -- yuan Yuan YU-' 10.OX 1 Flud.Pasture L s t a b l ~ s t m o n t 39.2 24 1.0 0.0 75.0 114.2 95.4 297 411.2 411.2 2 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 38.4 84.48 87.5 79.5 3 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 38.4 84.48 87.5 72.3 4 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 14.1 60.le 63.5 47.7 5 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 14.4 60.48 63.5 43.4 6 F~rst harvest fueluood 1.0 7.4 25.2 25.2 14.4 60.48 85.7 53.2 7 0.5 7.4 23.7 23-7 11.4 60.48 84.2 47.5 0 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.1 60.48 8.c.2 43.2 9 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.4 60.a 84.2 39.3 10 pasture renovati on 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 100.8 223.68 247.4 104.9 11 0.5 7.4 2 3 23.7 14.4 60.48 84.2 32.5 I2 0.5 7.4 2 7 23.7 14.1 60.48 84.2 29.5 13 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.4 60.18 84.2 26.8 I4 0.5 7.4 237 23.7 14.1 60.48 84.2 24.4 15 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.4 60.28 84.2 22.2 16 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.4 60.a 84.2 20.2 17 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.1 60.a 84.2 18.3 18 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.4 60.g 84.2 16.7 19 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.1 60.48 84.2 15.1 20 0.5 7.4 23.7 23.7 14.4 60 .a 84.2 13.8 Totals 39 24 13 111 444 484 1153.92 167.8 503.4 1657.32 21lO.9 1162 mt Fueluood . shading Pasture Fuel uood Fodder Total Pen. PV Fueluoocr Output Fueluood Pasture Pasture reduction Benefit Fuel wood Benef it Fodder Bor~efit Benofi t e i= Net Cost <tonnos) Net Net Output factor yuan tonnes yuan tonnes yuan yuan 10.0% Benefit NPV PV PV Benefit G n e f i t ----------------+---------------------------- 0.63 1 48.49 0.0 1.57 0.9 109.11 0.0 1.57 0.9 109.11 0.0 1.57 0.0 96.98 0.0 1.57 0.8 96.90 0.0 0.0 1.57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96-90 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.90 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 95.30 4.0 147.3 1-57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.38 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1-57 0.8 96-90 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.38 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.98 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 91.38 4.0 147.3 1.57 0.8 96.90 4.0 147.3  HILLSIDE DEVELOPMNr KflNO COUNTY 7/Sept/88 nodel 1.1: R i v e r F l a t s ; F/ud h rimber Cost f l s s u n p t i m s --------------------------------------------------------------L-- ECOHOHIC EVRLUflrION Species: units/ yuan/ yuud year Labor costs. yuan/uorkday Harvesting. uni t / u d Year hataro uni t hec t a r e .................................. ........................... __--------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Charvest) 5 Fueluood (kg) 600 1 seedlings Ctinber) 630 0.25 157.5 O f f -peak 3 r i n b e r Cn3) 1 1 seedlings C f w l wood) 5620 0.01 224+8 1 p l o w i n g C75hp) Chrs) 3.5 19 66.5 fueluood t r e e s 1eaves fodder v a l ue 1 1ovol i nq Chrs) 1 19 19 yuan/ton 10 1 TOOIS 6 6 1 ostab. l a b o r Cud): flrea Planted t o t h i s Scenario RSSESSMNT 1 b u i 1d i n g r idgos 90 3 270 Hectares 1 marking and p i t t i n g 29 3 b7 1 planting 38 3 114 Discount Rate: 10.OX 1 t e n d i ng 22 3 66 2 irrigation 1 3 3 I P V per hectare: 8745 2 tending a f o r t 15 3 45 Fueluood Value Estimate Benefi t / c o s t r a t i o 7.73 2 f w - t i l i z i n g Ckg) 75 0.6 45 3 tending a f o r t . 8 3 P4 Sub coal PV o f f w l u o o d cost: 3 f e r t i l i z e r CkgS 150 0.6 90 Yusn/tonne Cost per tonne: 5.2 k c a l /kg c o s t per TCE: 10.2 o f fi ciency-cook Cost per end-use Fueluood TCE. cooking: 101.9 B e n e f i t s Rssunptions k c e l /kg o f f ici-y-cook _-------------------------------------------- u n i t/ wan/ yuan/ hectare unit hectare IRR: 35-62 -__-------------------------------------------- F w l u o o d Ctonnos) 37 Fodder Ctonnes) 40.00 Timber p o l e s C13 Cyears 8-12) n 3 200 C12 Cyesrs 13-26) n 3 275  COSlS I Timber/ Tree Tree Fueluood Total Total Fuelvood Establ. p r o t e c t Harvest Timber Tree Tree Total Cost PV Material Labw Labor Labor Hervest Labor Cost Cost Qi= I YR ReCerence YUm ud ud ud ud YUM yuan yuan 10.0~ 1 r r e e EsCabl15hnont 473.8 180 1.0 0.0 0.00 543.0 1016.8 1016.8 1016.8 2 15 1 .O 0.0 0.00 l6.0 48.0 48.0 43.6 3 8 1. 0 0.0 0.00 27.0 27.0 27.0 22.3 4 1.0 0.0 0.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 5 1.0 0.0 0.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 6 F i r s t Harvest F/ud 1.0 14.8 0.00 47.1 47.4 17.4 29.5 7 0.5 14.8 0.00 45.9 45.9 45.9 25.9 0 F i r s t Harvest Timber 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 20.2 9 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 18.3 10 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 16.7 1I 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 15.1 12 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 13.8 13 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 12.5 14 0 -5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 11.4 15 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 ,10.3 16 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 9.4 17 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 8.5 18 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 7.8 19 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 7.1 20 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 6.4 21 0 -5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 5.8 22 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 5.3 23 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 4.8 24 0.5 2.6 10.00 39.3 39.3 39.3 4.4 roteis 474 203 13 63 170 12213 17CV 1701.8 1300 Fuel mod Fodder Timber Ti nber Total Ben. PV Output C u e l v w d Foddw Benef iC Output Benef it Benof i C Ri = Net (tornos) cost tonnes n3 yuan yuan 10.0x Bonof i C w w PV wan - - -- - - --- ------------------ ........................... 0.0 0.0 -1016.8 -1016.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 -48.0 -43.6 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 -27.0 -22.3 0.0 0. 00 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -2.0 0.0 0.00 35.6 205.0 282.7 175.6 5.0 24.84 35.6 186.4 284.2 160.4 4.5 22-58 6.2 1056.0 2018.5 1035.8 0.7 3. 59 6.2 960.0 2018.5 941.6 0.7 3. 27 6.2 872.7 2018.5 856.0 0.6 2.97 6.2 793.4 2018.5 778.2 0.5 2.70 6.2 721.2 2018.5 707.5 0.5 2. 45 6.2 894.6 2768.5 882.1 0 .: 2. 23 6.2 813.3 2768.5 801.9 0. 4 2. 03 6.2 739.4 2768.5 729.0 0.4 1 .81 6.2 672.2 2768.5 662.8 0.3 1 .68 6.2 611.1 2768.5 602.5 0. 3 1.5 2 6.2 555.5 2768.5 547.7 0. 3 1.38 6.2 505.0 2768.5 497.9 0. 3 1.26 6.2 459.1 2768.5 452.7 0.2 1.14 6.2 417.4 2768.5 411.5 0.2 1.04 6.2 379.4 2768.5 371.1 0.2 0.95 6.2 344.9 2768.5 340.1 0.2 0. 86 6.2 313.6 2768.5 309.2 0.2 0. 78 ------------------ ........................... 10045 31710 8745 15 79.11  Annex 4 Page 1 of 5 The Cost-Effectiveness of Seedling Espacement 1. The literature on espacement and tree growth is mainly concerned with coniferous industrial plantations with rotations of 15 years or more. The few data available confirm much the same trends for broadleaved species over similar rotations. However, there is little in the literature on the cost-benefit analysis of different espacements for short rotation, coppicing fuelwood. The basic premise though is that the initial seedling spacing is set out with a management objective in mind for a particular end product(s). The aim is to achieve the management objective in the most cost efficient manner. If the management objective is t h e production of low valued fuelwood, then the aim is to maximise production, as early as possible, of wood that is of the desired size and density, and to continue to do this for as long as possible for the least cost. Thus short rotations with coppicing are preferred. 2. In the cost-benefit analysis of espacement the cost of planting additional seedlings and their maintenance has to be considered against the incremental output, while at the same time considering the interaction of denser plantings. Most of the research investigations reported in the literature concur that the total volume of wood produced decreased with increasing initial espacement (Sjolte-~orgensen 1967, Evert 1971, Hamilton and Christie 1974). Total wood production is rna~ill;i:~c!ct the highest stand density that does not cause diminition of height growth of the leading trees. If the stand density is lower there will be some loss in potential total production during the period before the trees fully occupy the site. After full occupancy is achieved the rate of production is generally the same. The maximum initial density (closest espacement) varies with site quality. Generally, the better the site quality the greater the number of trees that can be grown on the site. The crucial variable seems to be the amount of foliage that can be supported by the soil moisture supply (Smith 1986). Thus in drier areas with long drought periods wider initial spacing will suffice to achieve maximum volume or weight production, whereas under irrigated conditions very close spacing will support maximum production. 3. The difference in productivity for varying espacements is illustrated in the theoretical model shown in Table 1. With 10,000 s edlings per ha (1 x lm.) it assumed that with an average MA1 of 10-12 5 M /haIyear (6.5 - 7.5 tons/ha/year) full site occupancy would occur after two years. At 5,000 seedlings per ha (1.4 x 1.4m.) full site occupancy is assumed to be after three years growth and for 2,500 seedlings per ha (2 x 2m.) the assumption is after four years. As can be seen, up to the point of full site occupancy the current annual increment (CAI) is lower the wider the spacing and remains so for a longer period. However, once ' full site occupancy occurs, the annual increment is similar for each case  Annex 4 Page 2 o f 5 T a b l e 1: MEORETICAL PRODUCTION MODEL FOR DIFFERENT ESPACEMENTS a/ --------------------- I n i t i a l seedl i n g Density----------------------- Year From Model 1-10,000/ha Model 2-5,000/ha Model 3-2,50O/ha Planting CAI Cum. Prod. CAI Cum. Prod. CAI Cum. Prod. Mean Annual I n c r e m e n t : (MA!) 7.5 ** Cut a t end o f year. Assumes a m o r t a l i t y no g r e a t e r t h a n 15% o v e r 20 years. Source: Mission.  Annex 4 Page 3 of 5 even after coppicing in the fifth, ninth, thirteenth and seventeenth years. This is because although the stem and branches may be cut back the root systems fully occupy the site. In fact production may be a little lower on the more densely planted sites because of mortality, particularly if light demanding species are present. 4. At the end of the first four-year rotation the denser stand, model 1 has a theoretical cumulative productivity of 25.5 tonnes while the less densely planted stands have 19.5 and 13 tonnes respectively, a decrease of 24 and 49%. However, after this, production is similar between the models and the early advantage of the densely planted stand is diluted; so much so that by the twentith year the difference is only 4 2nd 8?. The MA1 over the 20 year period only varies by the same percentages from 7.5 t~nnes/ha/~ear for the densely planted model 1 to 6.9 tonnes/ha/year for model 3 (2,500 seedlings per ha). 5. The model used is theoretical and growth rates will vary with the species and site. Liang-pin Hung (1969) reports on a study of Chinese fir which shows that after 14 years the spacing of 2x2 m gave the highest basal area, volume and revenue per hectare compared to three other treatments at 1.5x1.5m, 2x1.5m and 2.5x2m. 6. When considering the costs for establishing the three models over the initial years it can be seen from Table 2 that the costs are almost di:o,.-tly proportional to the seedling density. These costs are estimated on the basis of methods and inputs currently used in Hunan, Jiangxi and Kezuo. There is very little in the way of fixed direct costs unless the overall area requires clearing and plowing.l/ Each seedling or group of seedlings require pits and individual However, weeding costs may decline with closer spacing due to greater shading and mutual area coverage. The difference in establishment costs are 49 and 47%, which even allowing for the difference in productivity at the end of the first rotation is disproportionate to the difference in yields. 7. Table 3 shows the results of economic analysis on various espacement models in Hengnan county. The average yields over a 20 year period were varied to show the sensitivity to the rate of return. Bearing out the discussion above the lower cost of 2,500 seedlings per ha gives a much higher rate of return (16.4%) with only a 5 t~nqe/ha/~ear yield than 10,000 seedlings/ha giving 8 t~nnes/ha/~ear. 1/ - Fixed costs dominate when an area is cleared, plowed overall, then broadcast sown or mechanically planted and mechanically weeded.  Annex 4 Page 4 of 5 Table 2: COST OF ESTABLISHING PLANTATIONS WITH VARYING ESPACEMENTS (Yuan/ha) Year l tems Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Year 1 Seed1 i n g Cost Pitting a/ PI a n t i ng Tending Protection Year 2 Tending Protection Total a/ - Assuming a wage r a t e o f Y3/work day. - Source Mission. Table 3: SEEDLING DENSITY'S AFFECT ON RATE OF RETURN Seedling D e n s i t y Av. Annual Y i e l d Rate o f Return a/ - a/ Assumes a wage r a t e o f Y3/work day. Source: Annex 3  Annex 4 Paee 5 of 5 8. With more densely planted trees there is greater interaction between the trees. This is particularly the case with light demanding species such as Robinia -pseudoacaciaand most eucalypts. Due to genetic variations and/or variations in the quality of the seedlings some young trees grow faster, whereas some may lag behind. As the larger trees-tend to dominate and occupy the site the poorer specimens lag even further behind and eventually many die, often without producing any significant quantity of woody biomass. The closer the espacement the greater is the tendency for this to happen. There is no point really in planting seedlings that will die at an early stage due to competition. This is a wasted establishment cost. 9. If nn the other hand the plantation or woodlot manager is concerned about overall .survival of seedlings, it is better to improve the seedling quality, as well as planting and tending techniques rather than plant additional seedlings. The latter method may result of areas of uneven survival and deaths due to intense competition could still occur. If necessary it may be worthwhile refilling blank areas with seedlings the following season. Another point to be considered is that overcrowded stands run a higher risk of disease 10. The quality and ~ i z eof the final product is also important to consider. Although a greater quantity of wood would be available from the more densely planted stands in the early years, because of the espacemen; :he s: and branches would be smaller in diameter than more widely spaced trees. This increases the labour per unit weight required for harvesting and, up to a point, gives a fuel that burns more rapidly because of the increased surface area compared to thicker stems and branches. The end result may be decreased end-use efficiency at greater cost per unit of fuel. 11. For timber plantations the management objective is the production of good quality poles and sawlogs by the most cost efficient method. In order to obtain straighter trees with small branches closer espacement may be indicated initially. However, depending on the espacement, early and regular thinning should be carried out to produce the largest possible stems in the shortest time. If possible the espacement should be such that thinning, when it occurs, is commercial, or at least useful for subsistence fuelwood. 12. At present there is a lack of data in China on the effect of espacement on wood production over time for various species on different sites. In fact there is a lack of data on growth and yield of species under different site conditions. In order to be able to make sound silvicultural and management decisions it is important to have such data and to subject it to cost-benefit analysis.  Annex 5 Page 1 of 3 FODDER PRODUCTION FROM PASTURES Hengnan 0.1 Use of perennial fodder plants is one option for profitably rehabilitating some of the problem areas in the three counties. However for a county to benefit there must be a program, possibly by linkage with a Chinese research institution, with training of county personnel, and local evaluation, to gain an understanding of the following: (a) The Ecology of Local Native Pastures. Pasture development can proceed not only through introduction but also by enhancement of native species. A knowledge of the native leguri~esand iilrir response to fertilizers is one example; another relates to the treatment of less valuable species, (such as the grass Imperata cylindrica in Hengnan) which can dominate introduced species and result in a generally low-value forage. (b) Appropriate Forage Species. A systematic pasture species evaluation program . involves access to a range of germplasm. This should include collections held by USDA - united states, - CSIRO - Australia, and CIAT - Colombia. Communication with scientists in other provinces and also with model farms is essential for a regional evaluation network. For example, Hengnan development can learn from the CAAS Red Soil Research Station in Lingling prefecture, as well as model farms such as the Qian Jiang model cattle farm in Guizhou, and Shaoguan model cattle farm in Northern Guangdong. The difficulty of isolating suitable cultivars for an environment can be shown by outlining some of the characteristics which a pasture legume should have to suit Hengnan: (i) Adapted to acid and infertile soils with high levels of aluminum and manganese; (ii) Summer growing but with ability to withstand periods of moisture stress, frost tolerant, and some cool-temperature growth to reduce the winter feed deficit; (iii) Easy to establish, aggressive and persistent; (iv) Not too palatable; able to withstand periods of overgrazing; and (v) Compatible with grass species; protein content should be high enough to stimulate the intake of lower quality grasses.  5 Annex . - - Page 2 of 3 (c) Establishment/~aintenance Systems. It is essential to identify low-cost and effective establishment methods. Pasture species present particular difficulties due to small-seeded or dormant- seeded characteristics which give germination or seedling growth problems. Other constraints include specific rhizobium needs, and essential fertilizer and trace element requirements. (dl Management for Animal Production. To maintain a productive grass-legume pasture, management inputs are vital. These include an ongoing fertilizer program, rigid grazing control which includes both timing and amount of grazing, and fodder conservation strategies to meet winter requirements and as a tool for manipulation of pasture balance. (e) The importance of management is demonstrated by problems faced by model livestock farms in Hunan and Guangxi; pastures which established successfully lost productivity after a few years due to uncontrolled grazing and lack of fertilizer input. Xiushui 0.2 Pasture considerations in Xiushui are basically similar to those in Hengnan. The need to evaluate a wide range of germplasm, including species already in Jiangxi, is accentuated by the possibility of lower tempeTatures snd the suitability of summer-growing cold tolerant temperate species. Specific soil-binding characteristics, stoloniferous or rhizomatous, should be considered for degraded granite-based soils in western Xiushui. The need for controlled evaluation of species within Xiushui county by trained technicians with knowledge of pasture cannot be emphasized too highly. Kezuo 0.3 Three different types of perennial forage species have a role in Kezuo for control of hillside kosion and as a forage resource: (a) Pasture species which are adapted to heavy grazing for use on hillslopes of collectively grazed 'meadow' land. This type of species has had little opportunity to be tested in this environment due to past preference for erect-growing 'hay' species for cut/carry purposes. The classic species for this purpose is White Clover, which has perhaps the highest nutritive value and protein levels of any pasture species grown worldwide. It is able to fix large amounts of nitrogen, is long-lived, prostrats in habit, cold-tolerant, and is available in a number of different cultivars. Testing of these plus a range of legumes and grasses, under grazing conditions should be possible through linkages with provincial ' research institutions.  Annex 5 Page 3 of 3 (b) Perennial fodder species which are suitable for cut and carry or hay production. Local lucerne varieties are well-adapted, also other lower-quality species such as erect milk uetch - Astralagus adsurgens. However there is scope for evaluating other highly productive exotic lucerne varieties, other legume species, and grass-legume mixtures which may give higher production and also better ground cover for erosion control. It is also necessary through fertilizer trials to quantify the responses which result. (c) Short lived perennial fodder species which can be used as the by-component in hillside cropping rotations. There is ample scope for introduction of species which can be zsed t e rzstorc , declining yields and soil organic matter by planting for one to four years as part of a rotation. This concept, which depends on profits from livestock during the key period being comparable to returns from a crop, needs evaluation, particularly in areas where yields are obviously falling. A research and demonstration farm managed by county technicians to evaluate and demonstrate these possibilities would be an important step forward for Kezuo. Farmer interest is already there, as shown by the presence of 1600 ha. of lucerne in the county; but evaluation of further options is needed.  Annex 6 Pane 1 of 2 RUMINANT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION Henenan and Xiushui 0.1 As current livestock production in Hengnan is based on maintenance of draught animals, expansion for meat, milk or fibre requires initially a survey of market conditions and projections of future needs, for example possibilities for export of meat through Guangdong to Hongkong. This survey should also take into account opportunities for sheep and goats, which have presently very low numbers, but considerable potential. Expansion will then involve a number of interacting constraints, which include: - Nutrition. Current production is limited by availability and quality of spring to autumn growth (without taking into account the depletion of hillside organic matter), and by the quality of supplements fed in the winter with the normal staple of rice straw. A pasture development program (Annex 5 ) should provide the base for higher livestock production but only if the seasonal variation in quantity and quality of pastures is matched with production requirements, and adequate winter supplementation is available. - Health. Whereas low levels of growth of 'yellow' cattle or buffalo are presently tolerated, in a system requiring higher rates of gain and reproductive efficiency, health problems such as internal parasites or infertility tend to appear. Animal health programs are an essential aspect of utilizing improved pastures. - Reproduction. Beef cattle turnoff depends on age at first calving, and calving interval. Improved nutrition can reduce these indices but controlled mating is essential to match nutritional demand (e.g. gestation and lactation) with seasonal fluctuation in feed supply. - Management. Labour requirements to cut and carry fodder or herd livestock at the present level of development have a zero opportunity cost. However, expansion would change this, particularly if improved pastures, interplanted trees etc. need protection and control; fencing is one option. - Genotype. Present cattle breeds are well adapted to the seasonality and low quality of the feed supply, but are genetically limited for high growth rates on good quality  Annex 6 Page 2 of 2 pastures, and desirable attributes such as milk production, and ability to rebreed while lactating and so reduce calving interval. Introduction of exotic breeds to upgrade the local breeds is not a simple issue particularly in regard to long- term breeding policy. - Training. An effective extension system is basic to successful adoption of unfamiliar technology. County technicians who can guide households in ruminant livestock production may only be obtained through training, either in other parts of China or overseas. Kezuo 0.2 Ruminant livestock production in Kezuo is more advanced than in Hengnan or Xiushui. With a less humid climate positively affecting livestock health and nutritional value of pastures, a general familiarity with livestock management, strong injections of exotic sheep and ,cattle genes, and generally encouraging prices for livestock products, there appears to be good prospects for the industry. 0.3 There is a need for caution in regard to exploitation of the pastoral resource.. Disregarding other livestock t-he sheeplgoat population of approximately 90,000 plus 45,000 cattle is dependent on 150,000 ha of collective grazing areas. Apart from some grazing control of over-used areas there is no requirement by the livestock owners to pay for this use or return anything to the grazing area. This can only result in over expansion of the livestock industries and a gradual rundown in productivity of the grazing areas.  Annex 7 Page 1 of 3 SOIL EROSION - HENGNAN AND XIUSHUI 0.1 The soils of Hengnan and Xiushui counties are representative of the eastern humid subregion of southern China's red-soil area. Based on a range of parent materials, including granite, shale, sandstone and metamorphic rocks, some of these soils are highly susceptible to erosion. Measurement of the degree of erosion is undertaken by Soil and Water Conservation Bureaux in each county, and is based on use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Five classes of soil erosion are recognized, as tabulated by Shi (1986), for red soils based on granite. Thickness o f Annual S o i l Removal o f Remaining Eros i o n Loss Prof il e A + 6 Horizons Class ( tonnes/km2) Hor izons (cm) No apparent e r o s i o n (500 n o t apparent 75- 100 SI i g h t 500-3000 (50% A h o r i z o n 50-75 Moderate 3000-8000 50- 100% A hor izon 25-50 Severe 8000- 1 3500 A o r part B h o r i z o n <25 Very severe > 13500 Complete A + B h o r i z o n s 0 0.2 In Hengnan for example, where the annual loss is monitored at 300 different points , the worst erosion areas register values such as 8600 tonnes/km . In the western Xiushui areas on granite soil the average annual soil loss ranged around 7500 tonnes/km2 , according to Soil and Water Conservation Bureau estimates. Variation in Xiushui of erosion development is partly related to soil differences, as shown by Shi (1986). Index o f Water- Degree o f Index o f Wash Stable E r o s i o n Wash Soi I Hor i zon Resistivity Aggregate Resistivity Red S o i l developed A 0.7-0.5 High On metamorphic B >0.7 High Rock C >0.7 High Red S o i l developed A <0.5 Low On g r a n i t e B 0.7-0.5 Low C (0.5 Low  Annex 7 Page 2 of 3 0.3 The sequence of erosion in the red soils is considered to develop in three stages: - Sheet erosion, mainly by rain splash, followed by formation of rills; - Development of deep bifurcating gullies; and - Complete removal of the solum and exposure of soil parent material. 0.4 Although the water-holding capacity and physical environment for p l a n t s varies between soils with development of the second and third stages, e.g. purple soils are more favourable than red soils on granite, there is a general decline in nutrients (based on Shi, 1986). Red Soi l Erosion Organ i c Total Total C l ass Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus ..................... (*/ha)----------------------- No Apparent 'ir.o>;i on 172 10.9 4.5 Slight Erosion 114 3.9 1.5 Moderate 63 3.1 1 .8 Severe 41 2.8 1.0 Very Severe 9 0.3 0.3 0.5 Measured and recorded effects of these erosion processes are available e.g. for both Hengnan and Xiushui land categorized by erosion class has been mapped and areas measured. Some records are also available on indirect effects such as sediment loads. Xiushui county statistics demonstrate general effects on cropping areas such as 490 ha of irrigated land lost through silting, reduction of two rice crops to one per year through less available irrigation water, 300% increase in 11 drought disasters" over two decades, and silting up of 24% of fish ponds .  Annex 7 Page 3 of 3 References Shi De Ming 1986. Degradation of Eroded Soil and its Control in Red Soil Region of China. In "Current Progress in Soil Research in P.R.C." Shi De Ming 1983. Soil Erosion and Its Control in Red Soil Region of China. Proceedings of International S ~ - p o s i c z39 R=d e - d . Institute of Soil Science, Academia Sinica.