|

This case highlights a community-led, nature-based approach to restoring degraded common lands in Rajasthan, India. Through secure tenure, local institutions, and public–private investments under NREGA, villages like Dheemri and Jorhamahua achieved a 2.5× biomass increase, 10× economic returns, and improved water recharge and livelihoods. The model combines ecological restoration with inclusive governance and is scalable across diverse landscapes. Key lessons include securing community tenure for sustainability and designing context-specific Nature-Based Solutions that use native species and respect local ecological integrity.

 

Background

India’s Commons: Context, Challenges, and Restoration Pathways

In rural India, commons refer to community-managed natural resources—pastures, forests, wastelands, ponds, and rivers—where members share access rights with defined responsibilities (Jodha, 1986). These shared landscapes are central to rural life, supporting food, fodder, timber, and groundwater recharge. Commons contribute 20–40% of household income and sustain livestock systems that form 40–70% of agricultural GDP in semi-arid regions (Beck, 2000). About 66.5 million hectares (25.6%) of India’s land qualifies as commons, providing ecosystem services worth US$90.5 billion annually (Chopra & Gulati, 2001; Sandhu et al., 2023).

Over the last five decades, common lands have declined by 31–35% (Jodha, 1995), with 30 million hectares diverted for non-agricultural use (Indiastats, 2003). This degradation affects over 350 million rural poor, reducing ecosystem service value to an estimated US$68 billion by 2050.

In Rajasthan, India’s largest and driest state, these pressures are compounded by erratic rainfall, high temperatures, and recurrent droughts. Weak local institutions and fragmented governance further erode collective management. Commons—covering 30.7% of the state’s area—are vital for fodder, fuelwood, and water, especially for small farmers. Jodha (1986) found that poor households rely on the commons for up to 100% of their fuel and fodder needs, compared to 10–19% for wealthier families.

To address this, community-led restoration initiatives emphasize secure tenure, inclusive institutions, and nature-based solutions (NbS) for regeneration. The Secured Tenure–Restoration Nexus approach enables communities to formalize rights, access public schemes, and implement soil-water conservation, afforestation, and pasture development.

Case studies from Jorhamahua and Dheemri illustrate this. In Jorhamahua (Pratapgarh district), fifty hectares of pasture had become eroded wastelands due to overgrazing and deforestation, sharply reducing fodder and water. Since 2009, collective efforts have restored vegetative cover and improved groundwater recharge. In Dheemri (Udaipur district), the Dudhimata forest—once rich in biodiversity—was devastated by felling in the 1960s–70s. Through the Gayani Bawsi Village Forest Protection Committee (2002), villagers revived the forest’s ecological and cultural value, proving that empowered communities can sustainably regenerate degraded commons.

Photo by Anthony Into

Actions taken

Commons Restoration: Process and Implementation Framework

Step 1: Establishing Local Stewardship
The restoration of common lands begins with strengthening local stewardship and building community institutions with universal adult membership at the village level. These institutions plan, implement, and govern restoration work, ensuring collective decision-making and equitable benefit sharing.

The first activity involves identification and demarcation of common lands—such as shamlat deh, orans, unassessed wastelands, C & D lands, and revenue forests—used for grazing, firewood, food, and Non-Timber Forest Produce (NTFP). This is achieved through a community-driven mapping process where villagers define boundaries, rights, and responsibilities.

Subsequently, a long-term action plan (5–7 years) is developed through participatory planning. The plan integrates public funding (MGNREGS) and private investments for ecological restoration using nature-based solutions such as live fencing, trenches, afforestation, and soil moisture conservation. The approach follows watershed principles to promote ecosystem and habitat diversity. Annual work plans are derived from these long-term strategies to ensure continuity.

Institutional development is integral to this process. The management and protection of commons are overseen by village-level subcommittees or Gram Panchayats, ensuring localized governance. The project emphasizes natural regeneration, native species plantation, and improved survival techniques, laying the foundation for sustainable restoration.

 

Step 2: Leveraging Nature-Based Solutions for Restoration
Restoration implementation begins with site selection and preparation led by habitation-level institutions. Selected sites undergo weed removal, soil and water conservation, grass seeding, and bio-fencing with thorny, non-browsable native species. Protection is community-managed to prevent open grazing and ensure the growth of planted saplings.

Site selection criteria include:

  • Common land patches of 10–250 acres with less than 40% canopy cover.
  • Moderate to high degradation levels.
  • Protection and management by a recognized village institution.
  • Prior soil and water conservation measures.
  • Formal village resolution supporting restoration.

Pit digging and planting: Standard pits (0.45×0.45×0.45 m) are prepared before monsoon for planting native, endemic species suited to the habitat and community needs. Exotic or monoculture species are avoided. Saplings (1.5–2.5 ft height) are procured from local or SHG-managed nurseries, promoting local livelihoods. Around each sapling, a small basin (thawla) is made to retain moisture and enhance survival during dry spells.

Aftercare (intercultural operations): Communities conduct weeding, basin repair, hoeing, and two to three critical irrigations during early growth to improve plant survival rates.

Soil and Moisture Conservation (SMC): Complementary interventions such as continuous contour trenches (CCTs), staggered trenches, gabions, and gully plugs help enhance infiltration and stabilize soils.

Invasive species eradication: Sites infested with lantana or other invasive species are cleared to promote regeneration and the survival of native vegetation.

Each site is geo-tagged using the Common Land Mapping (CLM) application developed by FES. The digital mapping system generates KML files to enable remote tracking of restoration progress. Annual survival audits, conducted during February–May of the 2nd and 3rd years, assess plantation success and inform mortality replacement plans. Random quadrats (10×10 m) are laid to evaluate survival rates.

Based on the audits, dead saplings are replaced in the following monsoon season. This cyclical monitoring and replanting ensure that restored commons achieve stable vegetation cover and ecological resilience over time.

Outcomes

Monitoring across 80 FES sites covering 4,133 ha in four States—using the IFRI, Natural Resource Accounting System (NRAS), and Ecological Health Monitoring (EHM) frameworks—confirms that secure tenure and strong community institutions, supported by public and private investments, have delivered measurable ecological and livelihood gains. 

Under the NRAS framework (developed with IGIDR & IRMA), ecosystem-service valuation integrates both economic outputs (fodder, NTFP, biomass, employment) and ecological parameters (soil health, carbon sequestration, biodiversity). Though some social outcomes—like trust and collective governance—remain hard to quantify, the evidence points to significant material and institutional benefits.

Jorhamahua (50 ha, Pratapgarh District)

  • The total investment was $16,900 over five years, and the total returns were about $188,000 — almost eleven times higher.
  • Soil nutrients improved: nitrogen increased by 26% and potash by 11%, with a replacement value of $1,675.
  • Floral diversity rose from 16 to 19 species, and plant density grew from 661 to 1,015 individuals per hectare.
  • Standing biomass increased from 4.5 to 46.4 metric tons per hectare, worth about $144,000.
  • Carbon sequestration grew from 1.2 to 12.6 metric tons per hectare, valued at $6,870.
  • Non-timber forest products (fuelwood, tendu leaves, Jatropha seeds, karonda fruits, etc.) were worth around $8,070 over five years.

 

Dheemri (80 ha, Udaipur District)

  • Standing biomass rose from 17 to 26.3 metric tons per hectare, valued at about $50,600.
  • Floral diversity improved from 30 to 41 tree species; the Shannon Diversity Index increased from 2.7 to 2.9.
  • Regeneration: young saplings increased from 566 to 1,014 per hectare, and mature trees from 59 to 66 per hectare.
  • Carbon sequestration rose from 7.6 to 11.9 metric tons per hectare, about 1.6 times higher.
  • Fodder production reached about 100 tons per year. Each household saved around $36 per year on feed.
  • Milk income: the village now earns about $12,300 per year from dairy sales due to healthier livestock.
  • Biodiversity: rare and threatened species like Wrightia tinctoria, Woodfordia fruticosa, and Boswellia serrata have returned, showing that the forest ecosystem has recovered.

Water Benefits (15 ha Demonstration Landscape) Nature-based water and pasture restoration has greatly improved local water recharge. Together, small structures now store and recharge about 55 million liters (≈ 5.5 crore liters) of water every year. 

Sustainability and Ongoing Challenges

Both villages continue balancing livelihood and conservation goals under recurring drought and external pressure. Periodic rule infractions and inter-village disputes persist, yet institutions remain adaptive—reviewing rules every 5 years, enforcing sanctions, and reinforcing norms through rituals like Kesar Chidkaav. 

Implementation bottlenecks included limited local capacity, seed and sapling shortages, sapling mortality, information gaps, and mobilization challenges. 

Policy and Equity Outcomes

District administrations have since issued enabling directives urging Panchayats to prioritize pastureland restoration under MGNREGS marking a tangible policy shift toward commons-based natural-resource management.

Benefits are broadly shared, with marginalized households and women gaining most through reduced drudgery, fodder security, and wage opportunities.

Resources and Long-Term Viability

Financing combined public funds (MGNREGS) with modest private/CSR co-financing channelled through Panchayats. A ₹ 4.41 lakh investment over 3 years on 10 ha generated over 40 % of annual village employment and durable NRM assets. Direct and ecosystem benefits equate to 8–10× returns within a decade.
Anchoring stewardship in community institutions and aligning recurrent public budgets ensures that ecological, financial, and institutional gains remain self-sustaining and scalable.

 

 

 

Lessons Learned

An investment of $5,300 to restore 10 hectares of common land over three years delivered benefits far exceeding costs. FES monitoring across 80 sites (4,133 ha in four states) using IFRI, NRAS, and EHM frameworks shows that secure tenure and strong community institutions—combined with public and private restoration funds—led to a 2.5× increase in standing and grass biomass.

Lesson 1: Restoration efforts without securing tenure of communities’ results can be unsustainable. Restoration is not on-time job and requires constant community monitoring

 

Lesson 2: Designing the Nature-Based Solutions should be context specific and should keep in mind the community needs, aspiration and livelihood priorities. Nature-based solutions should respect the ecological history and integrity of the region. For instance, native plants should be used for afforestation activities rather than introduced species.