Development vs environment: Over 41,500 trees to go for road projects

Public outrage over the proposed axing of 8,561 trees for an opaque, questionable road-widening project had barely settled down when this news broke: Over 33,000 trees to make way for the Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project, spelling a green disaster unprecedented in scale.

For over a decade, the project was touted as just the right extension for the half-ringed NICE Road, completing the full circle around the city. But beyond land acquisition challenges, the environmental impact was hardly debated. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) ensured that it remained that way, insisting that no more than 200 trees would be felled.

The fresh Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, submitted by the Authority on the directions of the National Greens Tribunal (NGT) has thoroughly exposed the mischief played by the earlier report. To make it even worse, an estimated 9,300 trees are in the TG Halli catchment area, a recipe for big eco-trouble.

Procedures bypassed

Bypassing mandated procedures, this attempted shortcut flies in the face of a grand vision. A vision drafted as a master plan to make Bengaluru’s outward expansion well-structured to strike the right balance between development and the environment.

So, do the public, the affected farmers and other land-losers have a say in how the project unfolds? For the record, a public hearing has now been called in Singanayakanahalli on August 18 to elicit people’s suggestions and objections. But how many would turn up in these pandemic times is open to question.

How transparent would the process be? One such consultation conducted by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) was dubbed a ‘complete sham’ by environmental activists who attended it. None of the questions posed by the informed activists received proper responses. Eventually, it ended up as a one-way declaration of the project details and nothing more.

Legal route

Like BDA, the KRDCL too had not initially declared the extent of loss to the tree cover. The project came into public scrutiny only when the consultation process approached and the details had to be revealed. Stunned by the number of fully-grown trees lined up for felling, environmentalists took the legal route.

But even this intervention did not help. Spot inspections by activists and ecologists revealed that many trees have already been axed and carted away. As a veteran environmentalist informs, trees were felled as recently as three to four days ago in the road-widening project’s Nelamangala to Chikkaballapura stretch.

How is the KRDCL road-widening project justified when the PRR is now gathering steam, the environmentalist wonders, preferring anonymity. “The Corporation had contended that the PRR was unlikely to come due to NGT objections. Now that the BDA is going ahead, there is absolutely no justification to axe the trees, many of which are over a hundred years old.”

Rethinking PRR

What about the PRR, a project that has hardly seen any objection based on environmental factors? Now that the EIA has revealed an unacceptably high number of trees to be felled, seasoned green campaigners have sought a rethink on the PRR too. “The traffic scenario has changed with the Covid-19 outbreak. The government has no money to tackle the pandemic, but wants to go ahead with this project.”

Online petition

Simmering anger against the two road projects have already led to an online petition filed at change.org. The petition, signed by over 8,000 people so far, notes that the projects do not find mention in the transport section of the draft Revised Master Plan (RMP). The Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) too has no reference to the KRDCL road-widening project.

Dubbing the public consultation process as merely a ‘charade,’ the petition notes: “The projects are piece-meal, and a band-aid approach which will not solve any problem. The measures will accentuate the heat island effect in the city due to acute tree cover loss, increase in vehicles, and pollution, and lead to more concretisation.”

Road ahead: Eco plan

The road ahead, the petition suggests, should be this: Empower Metropolitan Committee to develop a Master Plan for the entire district of Bengaluru, and formulate an ‘Ecology Plan’ as the basis for the entire Master Plan exercise. “We need a habitable city first. We need to save the existing green cover, which has dropped to less than 3%. It has to increase to at least 15%.”

In the long-term, only a Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) can develop a multi-modal transport plan for the entire city. Projects such as PRR should then be reviewed based on how it can integrate with a multi-modal transport mix of mass transit options that includes the suburban rail, a re-imagined and efficient bus service and the Metro.

Major illegality

“It is not right for any infrastructure project to be retrofitted into a non-existent plan. Currently, there is no plan for Bengaluru’s expansion,” contends Leo Saldanha from the Environment Support Group (ESG). “Since there is no plan, you cannot push for the project in violation of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. That is one major illegality,” he explains.

The Supreme Court, he reminds, had held that no project can be conceived against an original alignment. “If the government wanted to bring in the PRR, it had to amend the original plan in accordance with the Act, which it did not do.”

Drawing attention to the BMICAPA vs NICE judgement, Saldanha recalls the apex court’s ruling that the concept of any project against any planning framework was void from the very beginning. “In the case of the PRR, it is very adventurous of them to go against the law of the land. Pushing for public consultation now shows their lack of sensitivity.”