The
newspaper article at reference is the immediate cause of this post.
One
reads that a two judge special bench of the Supreme Court of India has given
the nod to “felling 697 trees in over four hectares of protected forests … for
better connectivity across Agra, Gwalior and Mumbai.” To put the number in some
sort of perspective, the felling will help ease traffic flow over a 12 km
stretch of the highway (which otherwise would have been a bottleneck), to be widened
and four-laned. That is, 58 trees per kilometer.
I
accept that the bench had not much alternative as its Central Empowered
Committee, having been asked to look into the matter, said that the project is
in “public interest” and there is no other “viable alternative” to cutting the
trees. I am not second guessing this recommendation and have suppressed cynical
thoughts.
Yet,
I do question a part of what the bench said. Laying down “stringent afforestation
conditions to be met with before the trees are chopped down”, the bench appears
to have put its environmental-friendly stamp on its judgment. Is this really
so?
One
of the justices on the bench also said, “Plant 10 times the trees felled in suitable
places to be identified by the [UP] State Forest Department.” This is where my
personal Green antennae went up.
I
have seen this 10 for 1 swap too many times not to be disturbed by it. Whence
this ratio? We must remember that the one of the main reasons for opposing felling
of trees inheres in their carbon sink function and benefits. Fortunately, this
is measurable and it depends on a host of factors like the species, its
location, its environment, its age, where a tree is in its life cycle etc. Even
as this layman understanding may be questioned with in-depth analysis of capacity
to absorb carbon per tree analysis, it is necessary to acknowledge that it is a
step away from the mere accountants’ perspective of 10 new saplings for one full-fledged
tree. Why did the Supreme Court not ask the Empowered Committee to carry out
such a less superficial analysis? After all, the numbers of trees are not that
great, a mere 697 (isn’t this how the pro-growth lobby will tag the situation –
a mere 700 trees coming in the way of a fast corridor?)
Why
did the Supreme Court not use its extensive powers to change the parameters of
the debate, from mere numbers of the trees to their carbon absorption values,
including the Net Present Value of the trees to be felled, do discounting at
some rate and come up with the number of saplings to be planted? That would
have been an enlightened judgment.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
1. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-gives-green-signal-to-cut-697-trees-for-wider-road-to-taj/article6243002.ece
2 comments:
1. happy that yo suppressed your cynical thought process...ha ha
2.Instead of keeping it as a simple number game, you are suggesting a better method .. to use at least some parameter viz. carbon absorption... Agree with you. Some orgn like NEERI or TERI etc may be asked to come out with a model for such predictions.
who knows.. when they start modelling, they may start looking at other parameters as well and very soon a 'comprehensive modelling' including minor parameters like quantum of shade offered, nesting area for birds or squirrels, log density, fruit bearing or not , fodder yielding or not etc. may emerge.
you may consider forwarding this to moEF
Excellent response ma'am and meaningful parameters to add... MoEF is an ocean, a polluted by corporate interests at that ... I will stick to my blog space and hope that may be some environmental movement may happen upon it.
A warm welcome to this space.
RE
Post a Comment