Delhi's tree cutting plan: Not just bad ecology, but bad math as well

For a ground coverage of only 21 per cent by buildings, over 83 per cent of the existing tree cover is going to be lost

Recent plans to ‘redevelop’ government residential colonies in south Delhi have been in the news for the wrong reasons.  The proposals involve cutting and removal of a majority of the standing trees -- several of which are fifty years old or more -- and have led to questions about how such ‘re-development’ plans are prepared and evaluated.

Delhi is one of the greenest capitals in the world, something that makes this city - situated in a semi-arid zone - more habitable. This greenery, however, is distributed unevenly. On the one hand, we have Lutyens Delhi, the city’s greenest area, which has the luxury of large plots with one house set among hundreds of trees. On the other end of the greenery continuum, we have ‘unauthorized’ colonies such as Sangam Vihar, where one tree is surrounded by hundreds of houses.    The colonies of Netaji Nagar, Nauroji Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, among others, are relatively green and closer to Lutyens, but the redevelopment plans, if not revised, may push them closer to the bleak built-up landscapes like Sangam Vihar.

The planning process involves the preparation of a plan by the planners and architects, landscaping proposals from a landscape architect, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) commissioned by the project proponent, which is reviewed by a government committee appointed by the MoEFCC, and tree cutting permission from a tree officer under the Tree Preservation Act in Delhi.    

In the current case, the EIA reports and the Environmental Clearance (EC) letters were reviewed for three areas -- Netaji Nagar, Nauroji Nagar and Sarojini Nagar – and the treatment of the existing trees on the site. The following observations can be made about the same.

1. The EIA reports provide a list of the species of existing tree species at site, the number of trees for each species, the total number of trees, and finally the number proposed to be cut.   

 2. The following table provides an overview of the percentage of ground area to be covered by the buildings, by green space and by road and pavement. It also evaluates the percentage of trees to be cut.

	% area			No. of trees
Locality	Ground coverage of buildings (%)	Green (%)	Road + pavement	Existing Trees	No of trees to be cut	% trees to be cut
Nauroji Nagar	29.9%	41.9	13.0	1,513	1,465	96.8
Sarojni	18.2%	35.2	37.6	13,128	11,000	83.8
Netaji Nagar	25.7%	41.8	14.9	3,906	3,033	77.6
Average	21.2%	37.5	29.5	18,547	15,498	83.6

3. From the table it is apparent, that on an aggregate the buildings alone are covering only 21 per cent of the ground area, but a massive 83 per cent of the existing trees are to be cut.  It isn’t clear why such a high percentage of trees are being cut.    Perhaps the culprit is the roads, parking and parking basements.

4. The EIA reports do not provide the girth or height of the trees, thus providing no sense of whether there are pole-sized the size of one’s wrist, or stately old trees with girths of four feet or more.

5. There is no existing land-use map or ‘existing tree cover’ map of the site in the EIA report.  Thus one does not get a sense of the existing tree cover, and the spatial distribution of the trees across the site, whether there are patches of bunched trees, and if they have been preserved in the redevelopment plans. There is no map view of which trees are being cut and which are being retained.

6. The EIA reports mention about 12 bird species, which seems like an underestimate.

7. The Environmental Clearance permission letters discuss the extent of construction, but are silent on the number of existing trees, or the high percentage being cut. It focuses largely on the ‘green construction’ aspects such as water reuse, rather than on preservation of the existing greenery on site, which does not seem to have been evaluated at all.

8. From news reports, it seems that the scrutiny of the Tree Preservation Act of Delhi has been waived off in ‘public interest’.

To summarise, for a ground coverage by buildings of 21 per cent, over 83 per cent of the existing trees are to be cut. This seems an unreasonably high percentage.   The proportion of road and pavement (29.5 per cent) is also high.  The existing trees have not been viewed as the natural ecological assets of the site, and it seems that an site and no serious attempt has been made to preserve the majority of existing trees.  

Based on this analysis the following suggestions are offered:

1. Put the environmental clearance on hold.

2. Create an ecological assets map of the site that maps the topography, the slopes, the water bodies, low-lying areas, areas of natural or planted vegetation etc.

3. Prepare an ‘existing tree cover’  list and map for the site that lists the salient attributes for each tree – its girth, height, species, presence of birds, nesting etc.

4. As currently practised, the EIA process kicks in only once the building plans are prepared.  The EIA process and the duration it takes is largely viewed as a regulatory drag on construction projects. Based on the ecological assets map and existing tree cover map,  areas to be preserved,  and the minimum percentage of trees to be preserved should be earmarked prior to preparation of site plans, rather than an end of the planning cycle environmental review that tries to impose environmental restrictions on an existing proposal.

In the current scenario, the project should go back to the drawing board with a constraint on the percentage of trees that can be removed, say not more than one third.  We should give our architects and planners an opportunity to come up with something better

Let’s see what our architects and planners can come up with.

Chetan Agarwal is an independent environment analyst and senior fellow, Centre for Ecology Research and Development (CEDAR)