1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1068, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6338, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6338, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6338, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Lantana camara is an invasive species having severe ecological impacts on local biodiversity and economic impact on local communities. Lantana camara has proliferated in central India and occupied many forest lands, commons, and private land. The cut rootstock method provides minimum disturbance to the soil, wherein the plants' roots are cut three inches below the ground. It is followed by lifting the bush and keeping it upside down to prevent it from gaining ground.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Introduced as an ornamental plant to India in the 1800s, Lantana has infested the forests, grazing grounds, and farmlands. It has invaded over 13 million hectares, which is around 4% of the total land area of the country. In the context of Madhya Pradesh, the species has encroached on shared and remote villages’ lands along the fringes of protected areas such as the Kanha Tiger Reserve, impacting wildlife and local communities in multiple ways.

Tribals in the Kanha landscape generally inhabit upper catchments of rivers, usually having large portions of uplands as part of their landholdings. These lands have never attracted investments from land development projects. They used to cultivate millets (particularly Kodo and Kutki) every alternate year. Apart from this crop, the farmers collect tendu leaves (Diospyros Melanoxylon) from these lands every year. Keeping the soil quality in view, they take these crops every alternate year and in some cases, once in three years with a gap of two years. This gap of two years helps Lantana spread on private land.

Traditional practices for controlling lantana camara are chopping the main stem, clipping aerial shoots, burning, and grubbing (total uprooting). These practices however, either led to vigorous regeneration of Lantana or were labor intensive. The cut rootstock method/technology applied under the project provides minimum disturbance to the soil, wherein the plants’ roots are cut three inches below the ground. It is followed by lifting the bush and keeping it upside down to prevent it from gaining ground.

The Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), an NGO located in India, has been working on the eradication of Lantana Camara from the commons land since 2010-11, however from the year 2016-17 onwards, with the support from GIZ, FES also started supporting village institution in eradicating Lantana from private upland. Significant activities are undertaken for the eradication of Lantana and as shown hereunder:

A. Improving community governance mechanism; local communities were engaged by ensuring that the village executive committee took the Gram Sabha (Village Governing Body) into confidence and prepared the by-laws to conserve the lantana-eradicated site. Rules and regulations were framed for the uprooting of the Lantana, its payment process, and usages of the uprooted Lantana for fencing the plot, preparation of biochar, or other usages providing ecological benefits.

B. Adoption of the ‘cut rootstock method’ for the uprooting of Lantana; removing Lantana is tricky because methods such as burning, haphazard uprooting, or cutting result in the recurrence of the species.

C. Appropriate measures were taken to minimize the recurrence of Lantana seeds through regular monitoring and plantation of grass seeds and other plants.

D. Grass seed sowing; with the active support of the village institution, the collection of indigenous grass species was done. Before the advent of the monsoon, the community prepared the grass seed ball and sowed it in the plot. A seed ball helps the seed to protect it from insects, birds, and runoff. In the rainy season, these grass seeds germinate and grow. With the grasses coming, the lantana seeds do not get a suitable environment to germinate and grow.

Eradication of Lantana from the private lands helps the communities access their lands. This has resulted in the cultivation of millets on the same land, which was otherwise left fallow for so many years.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2015

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

FES has done extensive research and studies to find out the appropriate technologies and approaches to remove the lantana

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

INR

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

80.0

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

No establishment cost is involved in this activity.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No maintenance cost. Only one-time cost in the case of private land.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Removal of lantana	ha	1.0	7229.0	7229.0	16.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					7229.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					90.36

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The remaning cost is being covered by the project funds routed through community participation.

Comments:

The cost varies based on the density of lantana in the field. Depending on density, it varies from Rs 7729 per ha to Rs 2808 per ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The density of lantana in the field is categorized into 3: more than 1500 bushes are considered high density, and between 500-1500 are considered moderately dense, while less than 500 is known as lowly dense.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The topography of the project area consists of undulated terrain, hilly areas and forest areas

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

The locations have a river flowing close to the area; however, access to the surface and sub-surface water is a primary concern.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The area is surrounded by Kasha National Park and Phen Wildlife Sanctuary, with a good presence of forest area. Thus biodiversity is outstanding.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

The concerned authorities have issued landowners the land certificates.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Measurement of quantities required a very detailed study, which is not available at this point of time. Hence, many ratings given above are based on estimates.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Short- and long-term benefits are pretty high compared to the cost involved.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

1000 hectares

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 11-50%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Availability of additional land for cultivation of other crops such as Millets on upland
2. Improved land for fodder cultivation
3. Reduced losses due to animal attacks on the standing crops as animals are now not finding the space to hide

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduced human-animal conflict will lead to productivity gains for both forest dwellers and wild animals
Available land will be used for millet cultivation, which is rich in nutrition and well-suited to the local ecological conditions. The requirement for water is also very minimal for these crops.
This will also improve local biodiversity as farmers will now grow more plant varieties suitable for climatic conditions.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Cultivation of crops using chemical pesticides and fertilizers may have a negative impact on both soil and the environment	Training and handholding of the farmers around the natural and sustainable farming practices

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

FES internal documents prepared during the year 2021-22

Available from where? Costs?

Internal documents