This story is from December 3, 2020

Tree a monument. Why dig its green grave?

Tree a monument. Why dig its green grave?
Participants in the TOI Debate conducted on a virtual meeting app on Wednesday
Nagpur: When it comes to infrastructure development projects, the establishment is often accused of missing the forest for the trees. But in Nagpur — adjudged the country’s second greenest city not so long ago — for the second time after Bharat Van, authorities have missed both the forest and the trees, allege environmental activists and lovers.
Environmental engineering student Laukik Yelne says the city’s planners “lack the understanding” of ground realities and the environmental impact of their proposed actions.
“They should carefully study how pollution levels spike after cutting trees,” he says.
Fellow environmental engineering student Jyoti Kumari feels checks and balances are already in place, but their implementation goes awry due to the massive scale. “The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) has mandates like accounting for all the deforestation and clicking photos of the trees cut, but since it is such a large society, it is hard to implement norms without effective collaboration,” she says.
Citing a Supreme Court paper which calculates the “value” of a tree basis the volume of oxygen it gives, environmental activist Anasuya Kale Chhabrani asks, “If the apex court can look at trees this way, why can’t the city planners give it the same consideration.”
Jaydeep Das, the former wildlife warden of Nagpur, strongly seconds Chhabrani. “The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed it would save 75,000 kilos of carbon over the next 30 years with its project. It has forgotten that God is a greater mathematician. My study over the last two days suggests that Ajni’s 446-acre trees take out 11.4 lakh kilos of carbon per year, and saved Rs16.8 crore worth of oxygen over the last one year,” says Das.

Vidarbha Economic Development (Ved) council president Shivkumar Rao acknowledges that infrastructure development has always been at odds with environment conservation, but calls for better analysis. “We need a complete cost-benefit analysis and thorough citizen engagement. With close to 1,900 trees purportedly being cut, we need to look at the cost of cutting them, as also the benefit of traffic reduction, fuel savings, reduced carbon dioxide emissions,” he elaborates.
Skating coach and tree lover Rohit R Deshpande, however, is all for the proposed project. “Inter-modal station (IMS) requires the integration of rail, road, Metro under one roof. Choosing Ajni is crucial because it offers all of that. It is also located in the heart of the city, so people from all corners of the city can access it easily,” he says.
Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) secretary Vishal Muttemwar disagrees. “Nobody is denying the fact that Nagpur needs development. But you need to carry out a thorough environment impact analysis first,” he says.
He adds, “It would be an understatement to say that the bureaucracy is lazy. Alternatives like the Concor land and Food Corporation of India godowns clearly exist. We can save the trees and still have the project."
Environmental activist Shrikant Deshpande chimes in, “Why should we trust the NHAI? Is there space remaining in the city to add 25,000 more trees, like they are claiming?
Vinod Chaturvedi, former OSD (officer on special duty) to Maharashtra CM, says that land for the project can be found in the city itself. “Nobody has considered the fact that Ajni is not the main junction. Nagpur city is the junction and interchange point. And land is also available in Nagpur. The divisional railway manager’s office can be shifted to Civil Lines, for instance.
“We can develop our city without cutting trees. This is public money, not anyone’s inherited property,” says Chaturvedi.
Rao posits that Khapri had already been readied logistically to serve as a fitting alternative for the Ajni IMS. Chhabrani, though, calls for a careful assessment of all the locations and the environmental impact, before making any decision.
The discussion veers towards the question of whether some projects are taken up just for prestige, without even double-checking their need. Rao calls for a long-term approach. “Infrastructure projects are not built for 10-15 years. They are built for 100 years. If infrastructure is created ahead of demand, it is not an issue. Viability can only be ascertained over 25 years, not 5 years,” he says.
Muttemwar questions the amount of land earmarked for the project, wondering if all of it will actually be needed. “Under the garb of IMS, authorities want to acquire more land. That is what I oppose,” he says.
Greens also address the allegations of ‘perennial opposition to the government’ that often come their way. Shrikant Deshpande says, “We don’t oppose unnecessarily. When cement roads were built, and roads were widened, we did not say anything. But if the entire biodiversity is threatened, we are bound to oppose.”
He adds, “All we are asking for is to be taken into confidence when any such major project is conceived.”
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA