Tree felling: Activists say expert panel failed to give voice to public

Activists have raised objections over the way the Tree Expert Committee (TEC) concurs with the project proponents while evaluating public suggestions and objections in felling trees.

They believe the TEC has forgotten the crucial objective of the high court order that set it up more than four years ago: Democratisation of decision-making in tree felling.

Since its inception, the TEC has made decisions on requests to remove close to 5,000 trees to make way for various development projects. Minutes of the TEC meetings show that the members have visited spots and explored whether to retain, translocate or fell the trees.

Ever since the BBMP cited the Tree Protection Act to stop conducting public hearing on the grounds that its provision is limited to only receive objections, citizens aware of the harms caused by loss of green cover depend on the tree committee to protect the vegetation.

“The TEC has become a sort of intermediary agency between the tree authority and public. In reality, the committee is there not merely as a body of experts, it plays a crucial role in giving voice to the public whose opinions are never taken into consideration while deciding on a project — right from planning to execution,” activist Rajani Santosh noted.

A case in point is the permission given to fell trees for part of the Silk Board-KR Puram (Phase 2A) metro line. While the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) had the sought removal of 1,026 trees, the TEC ruled to axe 806 and translocate 220 between Kadubeesanahalli and Baiyyappanahalli depot.

But the committee failed to consider the public’s complaint over discrepancy in counting trees by the BMRCL, which gave different numbers in the Detailed Project Report (DPR), environment impact assessment and enumeration list.

Asked about it, officials said the DPR was prepared in October 2019, EIA report in October 2020, and the final count of trees took place in June 2021.

While the TEC accepted the evasive reply that saplings grew up into trees between October 2019 and June 2021, it did not question the change in land requirement.

“Sometimes they act and sometimes they don’t. In the case of Benniganahalli, the committee ruled that 52 of the 91 trees marked for removal should be saved through translocation,” another activist said.

“In the case of Kempapura, they ruled that hundreds of trees were not doing well and hence they could be felled. There is an urgent need to democratise the process. At least members of the public should be able to get a response to their suggestions and objections. It would be better if the committee conducted a public hearing.”

I B Srivastava, TEC chairman and former principal chief conservator of forests, said the committee was following the high court orders. “The TEC should function in accordance with the mandate given to it,” he said, adding that the tree officer or the BBMP deputy conservator of forests can answer the rest of the question.

BBMP sources said no official will risk questioning the project proponent without an order from the court, especially the BMRCL that comes with government backing.