evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Community-Led Lantana camara Removal — Kanha Tiger Reserve Buffer, Mandla (India)

India · Mandla · See the India profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since ~2015, FES has worked with 12,000+ women from Mandla villages near Kanha Tiger Reserve to manually clear Lantana camara — up to 75 hectares restored per village — though a 2017-2022 study found only a non-significant 30% drop in crop depredation.

12,000+ women
Women participants (since 2018)
75 hectares
Forest restored at Barkheda
14.6 hectares
Forest reclaimed at Chichari
30 %
Reduction in crop depredation (not statistically significant) (2017-2022)
76 %
Farmers citing reduced crop damage as top perceived benefit (2017-2022)
₹174–₹243
Daily wage range
Community-Led Lantana camara Removal — Kanha Tiger Reserve Buffer, Mandla (India)

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) / Mandla village communities / Madhya Pradesh Forest Department
Period
2012-present (FES buffer-zone programme intensified from 2015)
Keywords
invasive species removal, grassland restoration, community livelihoods, human-wildlife conflict mitigation

Context

Lantana camara, introduced to India as an ornamental shrub in the 19th century, has overrun large areas of central Indian forests, including the buffer zone around Kanha Tiger Reserve in Mandla district, Madhya Pradesh. Dense Lantana thickets crowd out native grasses and browse that herbivores depend on, degrade forest-dependent communities' access to grazing land and non-timber forest produce, and are associated with increased human-wildlife conflict as displaced wildlife moves toward farmland edges.

Activities

Since around 2012, and intensifying from 2015, the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) has worked with village panchayats and the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department to organise manual, labour-based Lantana removal in villages such as Indravan, Chichari, Orai, Muala Saini and Barkheda, paying daily wages that have risen from roughly ₹174 to ₹243. More than 12,000 women have participated since 2018; each site requires three consecutive years of follow-up clearing to prevent regrowth.

Results

Documented village-level results include roughly 75 hectares restored to Palash forest at Barkheda and 14.6 hectares reclaimed at Chichari. A dedicated 2017-2022 study on wildlife activity and human-wildlife interactions found reduced wildlife activity near farmland edges and a 30% reduction in crop depredation — but this difference was not statistically significant, and 76% of surveyed farmers still cited reduced crop damage among the programme's top perceived benefits.

Conclusions

The evidence is presented honestly as directionally positive and community-validated, but not yet a rigorously proven ecological or conflict-reduction outcome at reserve-wide scale.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Daily-wage labour paid to thousands of women across multiple villages over multiple years; wages rose from ~₹174 to ₹243/day.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Ongoing since ~2012, intensified from 2015; each site requires three consecutive years of follow-up clearing.
Staffing & skills
Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) staff, village panchayats, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department

Conditions for success

  • Three consecutive years of follow-up clearing per site to prevent Lantana regrowth
  • Paid daily-wage labour model (₹174-243/day) sustaining community participation
  • Sustained partnership between FES, village panchayats and the Forest Department

Common failure modes

  • Without repeated multi-year follow-up clearing, Lantana regrowth undermines restoration gains
  • Crop-depredation reduction is not yet statistically robust at reserve-wide scale

Where it fits

Governance type
NGO-community-government partnership
Scale
village/buffer-zone
Income level
lower-middle-income

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful