In times of climate change, avoid projects that involve excessive felling of trees

From Bundelkhand to Arunachal to Nicobar, Millions of Trees Are Threatened. Can They Be Saved?

In times of climate change, it has become increasingly important to avoid felling an excessive number of trees. Of course it has always been important to try to save any threatened trees to the extent possible. However sometimes such conditions arise that some trees have to be cut, and in such situations it is advisable to plant at least three trees in place of one axed one, ensuring that at least one or two survive. Such promises of so-called compensatory afforestation are seldom fulfilled in satisfactory ways, so that it is best to avoid large scale felling of trees to start with. It should be realized that the loss of well-growing trees in natural conditions (with all their important, well-established ecological functions) cannot be made up by planting trees elsewhere.

While the need for avoiding axing of trees to the extent possible has always been there, the urgency of this has certainly increased in times of climate change. Hence now a firm policy decision should be taken that beyond a limit the felling of trees will not be allowed, and if a larger number of trees are involved, then the effort will be to achieve the stated development objectives in some other way so that the threatened trees, or at least the bulk of them, can be saved. This limit has to be fixed differently for urban and rural areas of course, and also for the common areas and the more ecologically sensitive zones. The main issue, however, is to first try to create a consensus that while recognizing the need for felling some trees in some contexts, there is also an urgency of saying a firm no to those projects which involve the felling of trees beyond a point.

In the case of the Ken-Betwa Link project, in Bundelkhand region in Central India for irrigation and power, the most commonly stated estimate has been that nearly 2.3 million trees are threatened. A sacrifice of such a large number of trees cannot be accepted, particularly in a region like Bundelkhand where the drought and flood disasters as well as more chronic water problems have been frequently blamed on deforestation of recent decades. The case for assigning priority to saving these trees increases further when we realize that there are also other high costs relating to biodiversity disruption as well as displacement of people relating to this project which has faced repeated criticism on other grounds too, including its basic non-viability. 

In the context of Kamala hydro-electricity project of Arunachal Pradesh also, concern has been repeatedly voiced regarding the loss of almost the same number of trees—about 2.3 million—as well as other adverse impacts.

In the context of Great Nicobar Project government sources have stated that over 900,000 trees or close to a million trees may have to be axed, but citing the economic and security importance of the project, the government has sought to justify the project, also assuring of adequate compensatory afforestation. At the same time, critics have alleged that the number of trees likely to be felled in this ecologically sensitive rainforest area is much higher, as the density of trees in this ecologically sensitive region is very high. These critics speak in terms of millions of trees being threatened, some of them saying that the number may go up to ten million, or close to this.

These very widely varying estimates make it difficult to take the best possible decision, and it should be possible for an experts’ committee, including government as well as non-government representatives, helped by local people and working in transparent ways, to come up with more precise estimates for various zones of the affected area and then add them up. Similarly, after considering with due regard what some critics have said and also giving a proper and adequate chance to hear various local communities, it should be possible to take a decision that is inclusive of concerns relating to trees, other biodiversity as well as various local communities, particularly tribal communities.

More generally, the government must issue instructions to avoid taking up projects that involve the loss of trees beyond certain numbers. Other means of achieving various development and even security objectives can be considered so that the possibilities of saving a large number of trees can be incorporated.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071 and Man over Machine.