Shrinking green cover: A desperate tree-hug

Go Green!’ Imagine, it was once a thoroughly out-of-place slogan in a city that had steadfastly opted to ‘stay green’ for decades. But today, as 8,561 trees face the axe, when Bengaluru’s vegetation cover has dropped to less than 3% in multiple development hubs, a desperate fight is on to preserve its last green dots!

Ready to axe trees in their wooded thousands, the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) has an excuse: Road-widening. But does current and projected traffic data on the identified roads justify an approach that mostly suits only private traffic? Does it not run counter to a plan to reduce private transport and boost public transport?

Shrunk vegetation cover

But before dwelling deeper into those critical questions, here’s what a recent study has revealed about the once-green Bengaluru: Built-up areas, both residential and commercial, have shrunk vegetation cover in Bengaluru South Region (BSR) from 55.17% in 1973 to just 2.66% in 2017.

Also Read: Let fully-grown trees be part of widened road's 'tree median'

In Peenya Industrial Estate (PIE), the decline in tree-cover has been even more alarming. Between 1973 and 2017, it dropped from 70.22% to 2.11%. The joint study by Dr T V Ramachandra from the Indian Institute of Science and three other researchers also revealed a similar pattern in Whitefield.

Interpreting the findings, the researchers were clear: That unplanned development had wreaked havoc with the city’s biophysical environment, affecting public health, polluting its water bodies, causing biodiversity loss and triggering drastic changes in the local climate. The warning is dire and urgent: Change course now, or perish.

Public consultation

But these signals of impending disaster seem to have been completely lost on the agencies concerned. Projects that require tree-felling on massive scales are planned, passed and ready for execution. Public consultations, if at all they are held, are reduced to a farce.

Yet, unfazed by the lost battles of past years, multiple citizen groups and environmentalists in the city have intensified their fight to save the trees. Their petitions before the Karnataka High Court have led to a strong directive to the government.

Tree census

A tree census, a definite count of all trees in Bengaluru, is at the heart of the latest legal battle. Violating the Court’s direction to conduct the tree census for entire Bengaluru, including its urban and rural districts, the count was limited to the boundaries of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Its order of April 22, 2019 is clear about this.

Now, consider this: The KRDCL’s road-widening plan would mean a total of 1,758 trees axed on the Budigere Cross - Kempegowda International Airport route, 869 trees on the Nelamangala-Madure road, 1,593 trees on the Madhure-Devanahalli road, 3,637 on the Anekal-Hoskote route, 520 on the Bannerghatta-Anekal route and 184 trees on the Bidadi-Jigani road.

Panel powers stripped

These are effectively outside the BBMP limits and a limited tree census will have no effect on the KRDCL plan. To make it all worse, the Forest Department stripped a High Court-monitored expert committee, tasked with filtering applications for infrastructure-related tree-felling, from having any say outside the Palike limits.

The Court, now hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Dattatraya T Devare from the Bangalore Environment Trust (BET), has pulled up the government, seeking an explanation.

It observed: “As the State Government has unilaterally passed the order dated 16th January, 2020, the State Government must file an affidavit and explain the conduct of passing such an order without seeking the leave of this Court. Prima facie, it appears to us that every authority is out to defy the orders of this Court.

The PIL was intended to ensure that the functions of the Tree Authority and Tree Officers are strictly in accordance with the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Rules, 1977.

Roadside tree counts

Beyond issues with jurisdiction, a tree census announced after a deal between the BBMP and the Wood Institute has been problematic. A veteran environmentalist explains, “By enumerating only roadside trees, their attitude is showing at every stage. The Tree Act requires the enumeration of all trees, not just roadside ones.”

Questioning the rationale for road-widening, he says the current levels of traffic on the identified routes are so low that they do not warrant such projects at all. “The Feasibility Report of the project shows a future rate of growth of vehicles that is totally against the stated objective of boosting public transport.”

Even within the BBMP limits, trouble looms large over the trees. The immediate concern is a tender process commenced by the Palike to widen the Ballari and Jayamahal Roads. These projects require the felling of an estimated 450 trees, most of them fully grown and with wide canopies.

Violating orders

Questioning the process, the Heritage Beku group contends that any action on the project before completion of the tree census would be akin to violating the Court’s directions. The Court had ruled that a tree should be felled only after exhausting all other alternatives.

Public consultation / hearing has been mandated for projects where 50 trees or more are marked for felling. Ecologist Harini Nagendra notes how civic agencies have circumvented this by sorting the trees into lots of 49. “The Silk Board – BTM Metro line is a case in point. They just chopped the trees. The sorting was ridiculous.”

So, what is the alternative? Any project plan, Nagendra says, should be developed in consultation with ecologists, or at least with the Forest Department. “But even the forest department says they come to us right at the end for permissions. They say, ‘We are pressurised by our bosses to say yes and approve it.’”