Compensatory afforestation proposed inside a Great Indian Bustard grassland
A 400 hectare dry grassland and scrub area in Solapur district holds a small breeding population of the Great Indian Bustard, estimated at fewer than a dozen birds. The district has received 3.5 crore rupees of compensatory afforestation funds and proposes to plant 60,000 seedlings of neem, Acacia nilotica and Prosopis juliflora on 150 hectares of the grassland, citing green cover and carbon. Grazing by about 2,000 sheep and goats from three villages has been banned for the last five years; as a result grass now stands 60 cm tall over much of the area and woody shrubs have thickened. A parallel proposal would widen the approach road and erect 1.2 km of new 11 kV overhead line on 9 m poles along the grassland edge. Local representatives support the plantation, and the forest officer must reply to both proposals within a month.
1. Evaluate the plantation proposal from the point of view of the bustard's habitat requirements.
Read the worked answer
The Great Indian Bustard is a bird of open, short-grass plains. It needs low vegetation to see approaching predators and to display, and it nests on bare ground among grass tufts. Every element of this proposal works against those needs.
Trees create perches for crows, kites and other predators, which is one of the main causes of nest failure in bustard habitat; they also shade out grass and break the openness the bird needs. Neem and Acacia nilotica are not the problem in themselves, but a plantation is.
Prosopis juliflora is worse: it is an invasive species that forms dense thorny thickets, and planting it inside a protected grassland would be an act of self-harm to the habitat.
Carbon and green cover claims do not hold here. Dry grasslands store much of their carbon below ground, and a plantation of this size will not offset the loss of a critically endangered species' breeding site.
The officer should also address the grazing history honestly. Five years of total protection has produced 60 cm rank grass and thickened shrubs, which is itself now reducing habitat quality. The answer to that is managed grazing, not trees.
2. What should the 3.5 crore be spent on instead, and how should the road and powerline proposals be handled?
Read the worked answer
The funds can legally be used for habitat improvement, which is what this site needs.
Priorities:
- Remove Prosopis juliflora and other woody encroachment mechanically, with follow-up root removal, over about 150 hectares.
- Reintroduce rotational grazing in three or four blocks, so that grass is cropped to 15-25 cm rather than left at 60 cm; moderate grazing is a management tool in grassland, not a threat, provided it is timed and rotated.
- Use controlled early burning in small blocks on a rotation of three to four years to control shrub and refresh grass, under a written fire plan.
- Employ village watchers for nest protection and predator monitoring.
- Fund grassland research and a predator-proof enclosure only if it is locally justified.
Powerline: 1.2 km of new overhead 11 kV line along the edge is a serious collision risk; bustards have poor frontal vision, heavy bodies and a wide turning circle, and powerline collision is a leading cause of adult mortality. Bury the line, or reroute it away from the grassland, and if neither is possible, fit bird diverters and record every span in a register.
Road: widening should be permitted only with speed limits, night restrictions during the breeding season and no new borrow pits or street lighting that attracts insects and, in turn, predators and birds.
3. What monitoring would you attach to the approval, so that the effect of these decisions can be judged?
Read the worked answer
Monitoring must be simple enough to survive on a field budget, but specific enough to answer the question of whether habitat quality rose or fell.
Bird indicators: systematic early-morning transect counts at fixed points, four times a year, recording bustards and all large birds; nest searches in the breeding season with success rates; and a mortality register, including powerline collision searches along the 1.2 km corridor at fortnightly intervals.
Habitat indicators: grass height and percent cover measured at 50 permanent quadrats, shrub and Prosopis density, and bare-ground percentage. These are cheap to record and directly test whether the grazing rotation and removal work are achieving the 15-25 cm sward that the bird needs.
Pressure indicators: animal-days per hectare per block from a simple register at the entry points, fire incidence from the beat book, and the number of unauthorised cutting or encroachment cases.
Report annually against a stated baseline fixed before works begin, and make the release of the next tranche of funds conditional on the report. Without that linkage, monitoring becomes paperwork and the grazing rotation quietly lapses.