From Bundelkhand to Nicobar: The trees India cannot afford to lose

By Bharat Dogra 

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 save threatened trees to the extent possible. Sometimes, however, conditions arise where some trees must be cut — and in such situations, it is advisable to plant at least three trees in place of every one axed, ensuring that at least one or two survive. 

Such promises of so-called compensatory afforestation are seldom fulfilled in any satisfactory way, which is why it is best to avoid large-scale felling in the first place. It must be recognized that the loss of well-established trees growing in natural conditions — with all their important ecological functions — cannot be compensated for by planting trees elsewhere.

While the need to avoid axing trees to the extent possible has always existed, the urgency has certainly increased in the age of climate change. A firm policy decision must therefore be taken: beyond a certain limit, the felling of trees should not be permitted. Where a larger number of trees is involved, the effort must be to achieve the stated development objectives by some other means, so that the threatened trees — or at least the bulk of them — can be saved. This limit will naturally need to be fixed differently for urban and rural areas, and separately for common lands and ecologically sensitive zones. The more fundamental challenge, however, is to first build a consensus: while acknowledging that felling some trees is sometimes unavoidable, there is an equal urgency to say a firm no to projects that involve tree loss beyond a reasonable point.

In the case of the Ken-Betwa river-linking project — conceived for irrigation and power generation in the Bundelkhand region of Central India — the most commonly cited estimate is that nearly 2.3 million trees are threatened. A sacrifice of this magnitude cannot be accepted, particularly in a region like Bundelkhand where drought, flooding, and chronic water stress have repeatedly been attributed to the deforestation of recent decades. The case for saving these trees is further strengthened when one considers the project's other high costs: significant disruption to biodiversity, displacement of local communities, and persistent questions about its basic viability — concerns that have drawn repeated criticism over the years.

Similar alarm has been raised in connection with the Kamala hydroelectricity project in Arunachal Pradesh, where the likely loss of approximately 2.3 million trees has been a recurring concern, alongside other adverse environmental impacts.

In the case of the Great Nicobar Project, government sources have stated that over 900,000 trees — close to a million — may need to be felled. Citing the project's economic and strategic importance, the government has sought to justify proceeding, while assuring that adequate compensatory afforestation will be undertaken. Critics, however, contend that the actual number of trees likely to be lost is far higher, given the exceptional density of this ecologically sensitive rainforest. Some estimates put the figure at several million; others suggest the number could approach ten million.

These widely varying estimates make it difficult to arrive at the best possible decision. An expert committee — comprising both government and non-government representatives, assisted by local communities and functioning transparently — should be constituted to produce more precise zone-wise estimates and arrive at a reliable aggregate figure. Similarly, after giving proper weight to the concerns raised by critics and ensuring that various local communities, particularly tribal communities, are genuinely heard, it should be possible to arrive at a decision that is inclusive of concerns relating to trees, broader biodiversity, and the rights and livelihoods of affected people.

More broadly, the government must issue clear instructions against taking up projects that involve the loss of trees beyond specified thresholds. Alternative means of achieving development and even security objectives must be actively explored, so that the possibility of saving large numbers of trees is built into the planning process from the outset.

---

The writer 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