A protest had been held in Bangalore’s Koramangala against the felling of 67 trees for the construction of the Ejipura – Kendriya Sadan flyover. A group of residents and environmental activists had taken part in this demonstration. They have reported that there have been complaints by the residents that BBMP had earlier claimed that only 38 trees would be felled for the project, but that number was later increased to 67. Though a senior civic official said that several tree branches would prove to be a hindrance to vehicular movements on-ramps of the flyover, this can be dangerous hence the decision of felling the trees. But locals and environmentalists have argued that these trees can be kept by regularly pruning the branches to ensure they don’t become an obstruction to traffic on the ramps of the 2.5 km long elevated corridor.
Section 8 (3) (vii) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act of 1976 states that any project requiring felling of over 50 trees needs to be carried out only after a set process of public consultation. Thus, the BBMP is clearly violating the set procedure as the residents or locals, and the said public clearly seems to reject the proposal of the felling of 67 trees. There has also been a promise of replanting most of the trees the Supreme Court is sure to take care of for the next 3 years.
Though the work on the elevated corridor had been stalled for more than six months, the High court of Karnataka directed the civic body to submit the timeline for the completion of the long-pending project and an estimate of 45% has been completed.
There have been similar situations across the country, one of the recent examples being the Delhi Metro proposal to cut 7,229 trees and replant 5,545 that the Supreme Court had approved.
This raises a valid question of whether replanting trees is truly the best alternative for the sustainable development of cities.
Shashi A