What should be the approach towards land restoration considering various trade-offs?

The negative impacts of the degradation of land and the need to restore it are well-recognised.¹ There are various national and global efforts in this direction that use different means to restore land. Allowing land to naturally regenerate is one such strategy. Planting multiple indigenous tree species is another. In addition, there can be plantations of one or more (indigenous and/​or exotic) species of trees which can generate timber, which if harvested sustainably, can sustain land cover and facilitate land restoration. Such a harvest of timber and other products can generate financial incentives for restoring land.

There are apprehensions, especially among ecologists and environmental activists, about the use of single-species tree plantations for land restoration.² It is true that such plantations may not be like secondary and mature forests in terms of multiple environmental benefits. However, is it desirable to neglect plantations as a practical and viable strategy towards land restoration? What are the trade-offs between natural regeneration and plantations as different means towards land restoration? These are the questions that are briefly addressed in this essay. It is not written as a research article (since there is adequate research on this issue in different disciplines) but as a note that can communicate with a wider set of readers who may not have a background in economics and/​or the science of land restoration.

Focusing on three environmental benefits of restoring land

In this essay, we focus primarily on three objectives of land restoration. First, is the prevention of land degradation. This may require a sustainable vegetation cover over the land. Such a cover should be adequate to prevent erosion, as well as the decline of soil fertility. The second objective is the protection of biodiversity. It is needless to mention the benefits of conserving pools of species and genetic biodiversity worldwide.³ Even if these are not used currently, there is value in conserving them by considering the option value (the value when new information is available in future) and the irreversibility if this diversity is destroyed. The third objective of land restoration is the enhancement of carbon dioxide sequestration (even if this may not be the most important way to increase carbon dioxide absorption globally). However, the extent of carbon dioxide absorption depends on the net biomass production in the land. Though there are other benefits of restoration, most of these can be achieved when land is restored with these three primary objectives.

Need to focus on marginal benefits and costs

When we discuss the benefits and costs of an action towards restoration, there is a need to focus on marginal costs and benefits. Certain actions which are costlier to society may become beneficial when this ​‘marginality’ is taken into account. Let us take an example to make this point clear. If a part of a natural forest is cut down, and then a plantation of indigenous trees is created, there is a definite negative impact in terms of land restoration. On the other hand, the creation of such a plantation in an already degraded land will have a positive benefit. Hence, it is not correct to focus on the absolute costs or benefits of different means of land restoration.

Trade-offs between the protection of biodiversity and addressing climate change through land restoration

If the objective of land restoration is to preserve biodiversity, then it is to be protected as a mature or secondary forest (or other ecosystems, such as natural grasslands, wetlands, etc). By protecting it, a pool of species and genetic diversity is conserved. If such a pool is already conserved in say 50,000 hectares, then the additional gain in having the same pool in another 10,000 hectares is not that high. There can be a declining marginal value in protecting the same pool of diversity as the area of land increases (probably after a threshold limit). This feature implies that specific pools of biodiversity need to be protected, but it may not require the protection of the same forest type beyond a specific area. The remaining part of forests or land which can sustain the same pool of diversity may be managed for other purposes.

One such purpose can be the absorption of carbon dioxide, even though it is not necessary to view the protection of natural forests and tree plantations as the only or major tool to reduce carbon dioxide emission. If the absorption of carbon dioxide is the objective of restoring land, there has to be an appropriate management for this purpose. This is to be in such a way that the additional biomass production in each year should be significant so that the absorption of carbon dioxide is also significant. A mature forest may not have too much additional biomass production and hence, may not absorb carbon dioxide notably. Tropical forests may achieve this maturity (peak in terms of biomass stocks within 100 – 120 years). Hence, the conservation of secondary forests in a manner that promotes the attainment of maturity is important for sustaining the benefits of carbon dioxide absorption.

Nevertheless, the management of secondary forests, which implies pruning or harvesting parts of biomass (like timber) regularly and the use of these in a manner that avoids the release of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere (for example, cutting down a part of the trees for timber, and using it for making furniture or constructing houses are desirable with this goal), can enhance carbon sequestration in forested lands. This process will ensure that the annual absorption of carbon dioxide remains higher even after the period that is required for the forest to attain maturity. Other goals of protecting forests, like the maintenance of a land cover, preservation of soil and water, etc., can be achieved with such a managed forest.

If we take the conservation of biodiversity and absorption of carbon dioxide as two goals of protecting forests, the pursuit of one may affect the other, and hence, it is better to pursue these in different areas. This is similar to the case for zoning where it is efficient to carry out two activities in two separate spaces rather than in one.⁴ One part of the forest is to be preserved (untouched) for biodiversity, and the other can be managed to enhance the absorption of carbon dioxide. This means that there should not be a greater expectation of protection of biodiversity from those forests which are protected for carbon dioxide absorption and vice versa. Though this is a common strategy in the management of forests, many environmentalists argue for the extension of fully conserved areas without understanding these costs and benefits.

Plantations of one or more trees can also help in absorbing carbon dioxide if the harvested material is not burnt. Whether to have one or more crops can be based on concerns about efficiency and the value of biomass. There is no point in bringing in the concerns about biodiversity in such plantations (since these are not appropriate for protecting such diversity anyway). One can evaluate plantations based on the vegetative cover over land and their ability to conserve soil and water, but it is somewhat pointless to evaluate them based on the goal of biodiversity. If we accept this position, there is no major difference between plantations of one species and multiple species if these are adequate to conserve soil and water resources (and if the harvested material is not burnt and carbon dioxide is not released back into the atmosphere).

The real issue with exotic species

If plantations serve the purpose of absorbing carbon dioxide and providing a sustainable vegetative cover over the land (to conserve soil and water), then one needs to consider the appropriateness of exotic species for this purpose. In certain cases, exotic species are already in the country, and preventing them on the basis of indigenousness, per se, is not useful. However, whether the propagation of such exotic species in plantations can ​‘over-compete’ the indigenous species in nearby territories could be a major concern. This can be a consideration in avoiding plantations of certain exotic species. If there is no such problem, there is merit in the plantation of exotic species as one means of land restoration (when these can sustain vegetative cover and conserve soil and water resources).

It is possible that plantations of certain exotic species may have a negative impact on soil and water conservation. The traditional concern about trees like eucalyptus is their absorption of water. Whether this concern is still relevant in the new generation eucalyptus plantations which use seedlings with a shallow root structure needs to be taken into account.⁵ If not, the advantages of cultivating a commercially valuable tree, like eucalyptus, and harvesting it without destroying the land cover could be an attractive strategy, especially, in countries like Brazil where land is not a scarce resource.

An appropriate strategy for land restoration also depends on the incentive for individuals and firms. Let us think about the regeneration of natural (secondary) forests as one restoration strategy. If this strategy does not provide any significant direct benefits to individuals (and hence, society), then people/​society may not follow such a strategy. This strategy, then, becomes impractical or unviable. Different kinds of private incentives have to be considered in deciding the trade-offs between strategies or means of land restoration, discussed next.

Private incentives for land restoration and their impact on the selection of means

Private individuals who invest in land restoration may have different interests or motivations. (Though these interests determine public interest too, we may consider the public choices in a following section.) It is possible for some individuals to devote their resources to restoring land without expecting any monetary returns. The joy of seeing that the land is restored itself may be adequate to motivate them. It may be noted that these individuals who are investing in restoration incur a cost for this purpose but there are no financial revenues. Hence, they may encounter a net financial loss which may be compensated by the non-monetary gains from restoration. They may be getting finance from other investments which are not related to land. There may be wealthy individuals who can devote a significant amount of resources to this purpose. (There may be other people who can devote limited resources for this purpose). For these individuals who are driven solely by the environmental benefits of land restoration, natural regeneration (or the establishment of secondary forests) can be attractive.

For some of these individuals, these non-monetary gains may include their contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Some of them may use this carbon sequestration as a way to gain revenues from carbon finance. However, others may be interested in social gains from carbon sequestration.) If this contribution has to be sustainable, then biomass production is also to be sustainable. This may require pruning and harvesting of vegetation from the restored land. Some of the trade-offs mentioned in the previous section are relevant in this regard. The main point is that there could be trade-offs even for those who restore land mainly (or only) for environmental/​social benefits. However, such gains (or motivation to derive such benefits) on the part of a set of individuals may not be adequate to restore or conserve the whole area of land which is prone to degradation.

There are many other individuals and private organisations which are interested in a monetary return from land restoration.⁶ This expected return may vary between that which is equal to the market return from any financial investment to zero percent. (If x is the market return for a financial investment, then the expected return could be px with the value of p ranging between 1 and 0.) There may be other individuals who want to recover a part of the cost of restoration. (If C is the cost of restoration, they expect a recovery of qC wherein q can vary between 0 and 1). Monetary returns from restored land are important for both these sets of people.

Even for these people, restoring natural vegetation or establishing secondary forests can be attractive as long as revenues from sources, such as non-timber forest products or eco-tourism, which can be obtained without disturbing the nature of vegetation, are notable. However, the net income from these sources depends on the socioeconomic and geographical contexts. In certain places, wildlife viewing is possible without harming natural plant growth and it can be a major source of revenue.⁷However, the availability of more land of this kind may reduce the returns per land from this economic activity. Non-timber forest products (NTFP) can be an important source of revenue⁸ but here we need to reckon the cost of collection. Hence, it may generate higher incomes where the cost of collection is lesser (probably where the cost of labour is less as in territories which poorer people inhabit). There may be contexts, such as Brazil, where the income from NTFP or eco-tourism may not be significant. Given the availability of a lot more land, these incomes even if significant, cannot be a major incentive to restore a major part of the land in such countries.

Hence, monetary gains from harvesting timber and non-timber products in lands undergoing forest restoration may need to have a private incentive if it has to serve as a major motivation for land restoration. The discussions in the previous section indicate that this can be achieved if the goal of biodiversity is not pursued as part of land restoration (or if that part is taken care of by the government in national parks or legally mandated areas in private lands so that species/​gene pools of all types can be conserved). However, other goals of land restoration, such as the absorption of carbon dioxide and the prevention of soil erosion can be achieved by harvesting sustainably part of the biomass (like timber) and using it in a manner that does not release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in the short term.⁹ Moreover, part of the land restored by private individuals or firms can be used for restoring natural (secondary) forests. This can be done as part of mandatory requirements (as in the case of Brazil) or voluntarily for the non-monetary gains mentioned earlier.

The other case is to explore the possibilities of land restoration in commercial plantations and agricultural farms. There have to be changes in plantation/​cultivation practices (and the development of technologies for this purpose) to see that these do not lead to the degradation of land. This may include changes to ensure that the land has vegetative cover throughout the year, excessive chemicals are not used, water/​moisture is conserved, organic nutrients/​minerals are not destroyed, and so on.¹⁰ Do these changes increase the costs and/​or reduce the productivity¹¹ and consequently, reduce the profits of plantation/​cultivation? If this additional cost is insignificant, then land restoration in such areas may not be a major challenge. If it is significant, this is the additional cost to be borne by private landholders for the non-monetary gains from land restoration. A sizeable section of landholders may be able to bear this cost if adequately motivated. A subsidy that can compensate for this additional cost should be able to motivate most of the landholders to move towards land restoration. (Technological changes can reduce the amount of subsidy that is required for this purpose too).

Conservation strategies in public lands: A normative view

The conservation of public lands should reflect the priorities of the population, as a whole. If we include future generations also, this conservation has to be driven by sustainable development goals.

Since the ownership of these lands is with a single entity (the government) representing the whole society, the problem of collective action can be solved relatively easily. (This becomes clear when we compare the effort that is needed to persuade millions of individuals and firms to adopt a restoration strategy). Hence, it is cost-effective to use public lands for those restoration goals for which private benefits are much less when compared to social benefits. Based on this framework, it is better if public lands are used for goals such as the conservation of biodiversity. This is so since the conservation of land with this goal may not give significant income to individuals (and the present generation) even though these are socially useful.

When public lands are conserved with the goal of conserving biodiversity, other lands can be conserved with goals that ensure the restoration (or the avoidance of degradation) with certain financial returns. Hence, the use of such land for the sustainable harvest of timber or for the optimal absorption of carbon dioxide (which may require the management of biomass production) becomes part of a socially useful strategy.

Conclusion

The restoration of land should happen everywhere. However, there are other purposes for which land has to be used. Hence, land restoration cannot happen with any one specific goal, or with a goal that makes the utilisation of land difficult for other purposes. It is important to pursue land restoration with different goals in multiple parcels of land. There can be trade-offs (as noted earlier) when these different goals are pursued and land restoration in a country as a whole needs to take these trade-offs into account and devise different strategies in different locations so that the overall goal of restoration is achieved. This is much more important in populous countries in south and east Asia or parts of Africa or other developing countries where agriculture or related activities continue to be an important occupation for a significant share of the population.

Authors

Santhakumar V, Professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru
Daniel Piotto, Professor, Forestry, Universidade Federal do Sul da Bahia, Brazil

Featured photo by Ales Krivec on Unsplash