As a research fellow at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, I observed birds in the tall, wet grasslands of the Dyne Elling Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary, a protected area in northeastern India. This habitat forms one of the most biodiverse places on earth. However, despite their ecological importance and uniqueness, most grasslands are classified as ‘wastelands’ by the Government of India. Standing on the deck of a government outpost, a Bengal herring florican, an endangered South Asian grassland bird, stretches its thick neck pouch to perform a short jump mating I wondered why this is.
Ecosystems around the world are reeling from uncontrolled habitat loss and the effects of climate change. All types of ecosystems are feeling these impacts: forests, grasslands, oceans, wetlands and deserts, but there is evidence that studies and conservation of forest biodiversity are biased. These landscapes have been highly valued for their economic value since the colonial era. However, this bias adversely affects the conservation of other ecosystems, such as grasslands, which cover 24% of India’s land area. These grasslands harbor enormous biodiversity and support the livelihoods of millions of people, but in India they are defined by the value that forests convert to for climate mitigation. It is time for India and other steppe countries to keep the ecological and social value of these ecosystems higher than their economic value. Trees are limited in what they can do to save us and our climate. The biodiversity of this planet’s tall grasses and wide plains deserves our attention and protection.
To understand how the steppe became a “wasteland,” we need to understand how British settlers appreciated the high-quality timber of Indian forests. They felled trees for construction, railroads in India, and shipbuilding, all of which supported Britain’s economic expansion and war effort. Britain also implemented plantation projects to maintain supplies of timber. This led to the establishment of the Imperial Forest Service, whose primary task was to support British forestation. At the same time, the British government Bayes Zamin Daftal (Wastelands Department) maps and manages areas such as grasslands that are deemed economically useless.
The Forest Service also called the grassland “degraded forest.” This is because they believed that these more open swaths of land might have retained forest had it not been for the “destructive” practices of the indigenous and pastoral communities who lived there. As shown in a recently published paper critically analyzing India’s grassland conservation policy, both of these designations ultimately lead to the conversion (or ‘restoration’) of grassland habitats to forest landscapes. Motivated. This also resulted in the displacement of indigenous and pastoral communities who depended on the grasslands for their livelihoods. Colonial authorities criminalized communities (through regressive acts such as the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871) and wrongfully denied control over these “wastelands.” Colonial governments were particularly wary of pastoralists and “wandering” communities, invoking the Criminal Tribes Act to punish activities involving livestock grazing. This is an important mechanism for maintaining grassland habitats. As Atul Joshi and his colleagues report in their paper paper On the colonial influence of forestry in the highlands Shora grasslands, colonial officials also began converting such grasslands into firewood plantations acacia and eucalyptus While supplying settlers, it prohibits indigenous communities from using them for firewood.
Just as forests are ecologically complex, so are grasslands. They range from the arid and semi-arid grasslands of central and western India, to the moist riverbank grasslands of the Himalayas, the highland grasslands of the Western Ghats, and the cold desert grasslands of northern India. These lands also have deep cultural significance based on their role in herding and fire practices. , continues to undermine conservation efforts.
Colonial officials had economic incentives to convert grasslands, but today governments around the world rely on forests and afforestation to mitigate climate change. There are global efforts to map potential areas for afforestation initiatives, but these efforts often identify grassland ecosystems as good candidates for afforestation, for example over 1 million square kilometers of grassland in Africa. We are seeing something similar in India. It is a vast grassland allotted for large-scale afforestation activities.
Still, grasslands may be equally, if not better, at storing carbon dioxide. Apart from being costly and flawed, carbon sequestration-based strategies ignore the ecological and social value of grasslands by converting them into monoculture forests. It does not offer the same ecological benefits.
India and other countries with substantial grasslands should focus on grasslands by establishing long-term monitoring plots and grassland-specific restoration efforts, mapping the extent of grasslands and the ecosystem services they provide. evidence-based scientific efforts need to be recognized, supported and prioritized. to humans. At a time when environmental justice is at the forefront of conservation debates, it’s time to abandon colonial labeling like “wasteland” that has led to violence against people of marginalized castes and classes.
Already, communities such as Todas, Phasepardhis and Idu Mishmi are protecting India’s grasslands through collective action and local management. These roles also help them regain their dignity and connection to the land. In the spirit of righting wrongs and with the aim of preserving the richness of nature, governments should provide indigenous peoples, pastoralists and marginalized communities with more resources to manage grasslands and include their knowledge in grassland restoration. Great institutions and rights must be restored. Grasslands are a key feature of an ecologically healthy India and must be protected for their value above all else.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily Scientific American.
