The Future of Our Forests Workshop: How Do We Fix It?
Part 2 on the consensus-building workshop organised by CSEI and the Biodiversity Collaborative focuses on the multiple factors related to lantana removal and ecological restoration.
The first part of the workshop outlined the problem — the scale of lantana invasion and how diverse the impacts of lantana are on different landscapes — and helped us definitively state that removing the weed is a core part of ecological restoration.
In Part 2, we summarise some of the key points that came up for discussions around important questions of removal methods, approaches to restoration and scale of action. We also debated how future programmes can be funded, what safeguards need to be in place to guarantee least harm to natural landscapes and the resident as well as migrant human communities.
Read | Part 1: The Problem and Part 3: Next Steps
These wide-ranging discussions clarified the need to follow a ‘living labs’ model that enables us to create robust plans based on the most up-to-date data but is flexible enough for course corrections. We learn as we do.
Session 3: Is It Even Possible To Restore Lantana-Invaded Forests, And If So, How?
Given the wide-ranging scope of this session, we structured the group discussions around three sets of questions:
Is lantana removal an essential component of the restoration process?
The group as a whole concluded after reviewing the available scientific research available that the removal of lantana is a necessary first step towards the ecological restoration of forests, grasslands and other terrestrial ecosystems in India.
What would be the ideal method for lantana removal and what should be the approach to ecological restoration?
- The lantana invasion looks different in different places. In the high rainfall protected areas of the Western Ghats, it forms dense thickets with biomass as high as 50 tons/hectare.
- Semi-mechanised means are necessary here. In the semi-arid and dry deciduous central highlands, lantana occurs as scattered bushes, where manual removal may work.
- The forest department may not prioritise lantana removal over other issues like human-wildlife conflict. What has worked is focusing on restoration benefits — framing ‘lantana removal’ as a positive outcome under ‘grassland restoration’ or ‘fodder provisioning’ programmes.
If lantana has to be managed, then how do we set targets/goals, and what other considerations need to be taken into account? How do we restore native vegetation?
- When setting restoration targets, we need to take into consideration goals of all stakeholders and establish a long-term monitoring and evaluation (M&E) protocol. We need to interview local community elders and senior/retired foresters to understand what the forests once looked like and what the stakeholders want from it now.
- Where the seed bank of native grasses is long gone, active restoration will be needed. Subsequent maintenance will include 3–4 deweedings of the land to ensure that native species are able to establish themselves.
- It is also necessary to ensure that the restoration process is inclusive, actively engaging and involving the local communities.
Read | Lantana Removal: Missing the Wood for the Trees
Session 4: What Urgency And Scale Of Action Should We Take And How Should It Be Funded?
There are multiple aspects that fall under this question, so we broke up the discussion into six key themes.
Scale: What should be the scale at which lantana is removed?
- We should start small, but not less than 10 ha, and figure out the most suited methods for each site and ecological setting from these pilot interventions.
- Directly starting at scales above 100 ha especially in protected areas should be discouraged.
- The key will be to adopt a ‘living labs’ approach. Create a strong data plan, correct mistakes, learn, and scale.
- A restoration ‘living lab’ will need a lot of preparation including baseline data collection, committee formation and prioritisation of landscape
Service-level benchmark: What SLBs for removal and ecological restoration contracts will ensure that ecosystems are not unduly harmed?
- There should be Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs) defined for lantana removal and ecological restoration.
- In slopes and areas with low density lantana, we could cut below the ground (cut root stock method).
- In slopes, removal should be incremental and in distributed patches, native species of grass are the best option for restoration after removal.
- For the mechanical method, there should be site-specific service-level benchmarks that evolve as experiments progress. An M&E protocol must be set-up at the sites to study long-term impacts of the removal and restoration.
Time frame: What is a reasonable timeframe to target for removal?
- 50–100 years is not a timeframe that will work from a political or financing perspective. Any lantana removal ‘project’ must have no more than a 10-year timeframe.
- We should be able to develop an ecological restoration framework for any landscape and typology in 3–5 years.
- In 5 years, we should be able to offer guidelines for scaling up to 500 ha or more.
Finance: How should lantana removal and ecological restoration be financed?
- We should have finance as an important parameter in the framework for ecological restoration.
- There should be a blended financing model with ‘multi capital returns’.
- Financial support from sources other than government departments for empanelled institutions undertaking ecological restoration should be explored.
Read | Twist in the Lantana Tale
Methods: What ecological restoration methods match the scale that needs to be achieved?
- Lantana is being removed at scale in many places both by CSOs and forest departments. Most methods are experimental. It’s too early to be prescriptive on the methods of removal.
- What we need to do is involve communities and conduct experiments in areas that will face the least damage (near roads, already disturbed areas), admit and learn from mistakes so that we can get it right.
- What this will require is an active ‘learning by doing’ approach, where baseline and experimental data are being collected and analysed and fed into plans in more or less real time.
Safeguards: What safeguards for the community need to be included? What institutional structures can assure this?
- Protocols to safeguard against unethical business interests:
Empanelment of institutions for tenders or informal Terms of Reference (ToR)
Certify institutions involved with restoration; ToR should be specific
- Safeguard community interests: Ensure communities are involved, bring in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)
- Prioritise based on the principle of ‘least harm’.
Pick sites close to the community, roads and fire-disturbed areas
Avoid high risk areas
Slopes, ecologically sensitive zones must be handled carefully.
In the third and final part of this blog series on The Future of Our Forests Workshop, we lay out the next steps and outline a future research agenda.
This three-part summary collated by CSEI’s Veena Srinivasan, Karishma Shelar, Syamkrishna P. Aryan and Sandeep Hanchanale; and the Biodiversity Collaborative’s Ravi Chellam (Metastring Foundation) is based on discussions held at the workshop.
Other participants were Subhash Gautam, The Real Elephant Collective; Ishan Agarwal, Foundation for Ecological Security; Srinivas Rachakonda, Prakruthi Prerna Foundation; Ruth Defries, Columbia University; Siddappa Setty, ATREE; Jagdish Krishnaswamy (Biodiversity Collaborative), Indian Institute for Human Settlements; Ravikanth G (Biodiversity Collaborative), ATREE; Ravindra (Karnataka Forest Department), Abi Vanak (Biodiversity Collaborative), ATREE; Sheeba Sen, Hasten Ventures; AK Gupta (Biodiversity Collaborative), University of Trans-Disciplinary Health Sciences and Technology; and Aunindo Ghosh (Biodiversity Collaborative).
Edited by Kaavya Kumar
