The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Mysore Division,
Aranya Bhavan,
Mysore 570 008
Sir/Madam,
Sub: Objection to the proposal of Mysore City Corporation to cut 201 trees.
Newspapers of 20-21 October, 2010 have covered the press release of the DCF inviting objections from the public to the proposal of Mysore City Corporation to cut 201 trees to widen various roads in Mysore. It is said that the objections have to be submitted in writing within 20 days of the publication of the press release. Mysore Grahakara Parishat is hereby submitting its objections.
1. We object to the contents of the press release itself. According to "Deccan Herald" of 19-10-10, "In case of no objections, it would be treated as approval for the proposal and the MCC would be allowed to axe the trees." According to "Star of Mysore" of 20-10-10, "Measures will be taken to fell the trees if no objections are received, according to a press release issued by the DCF". This is highly objectionable. According to the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, it is the foremost responsibility of the forest department to preserve trees and give permission for cutting only when there are overwhelming reasons. Permitting MCC to fell the trees without any application of mind and waiting for public objections to reconsider the decision is a blatant shirking of its responsibility. It is clear that the makers of the law recognized that there is tremendous pressure to cut roadside trees in the name of development. But they also recognized that since these trees provide great environmental benefit, extreme care has to be exercised before they are allowed to be cut. This can be seen in the reasons for enacting this law stated at the beginning of the Act: "Trees which provide shade, mitigate the extremes of climate, render aesthetic beauty, purify the polluted atmosphere, mute the noise, have been one of the first casualties of pressure on space in our cities and towns...Avenue trees are destroyed...We have reached the stage when it is incumbent to legislate to restrict and regulate the felling of trees." The law clearly intends that the first priority of the Forest department is protect trees, especially mature trees. It is supposed to apply its mind, do a cost/benefit analysis of tree cutting and give permission for cutting only if the developmental benefits far outweigh the environmental cost of tree cutting. It can not blindly give permission just because there are no public objections. Such permission is a gross violation of the intent of the law.
2. Coming to MCC’s proposal, our objections and suggestions about alternatives which may be satisfy MCC's needs, but without cutting trees, are listed below:
i. The MCC should not have taken up the widening of the roads without prior consideration of the fate of roadside trees. It is presumptuous on its part to widen the road and then seek permission of the forest department for felling. This is happening far too often and any leniency given will promote felling of more trees elsewhere.
ii. Tree experts Dr. Kodira A. Kushalapa (former Regional Chief Conservator of Forests) and Dr. S. Shankara Bhat (former Professor of Botany, University of Mysore) have inspected the trees proposed to be cut. In Vani Vilasa road (where the road has already been widened in anticipation of Forest Department's permission), the 99 trees proposed to be cut are well grown, healthy and young and can survive for long and should be saved. The trees can offer very good shade for parking 2-wheeler and 4-wheeler vehicles in between main road, which is one-way and the foot path. Therefore the trees should be retained and permission to fell should not be given. One or two trees which are crooked or unhealthy can be replaced by tall tree seedlings planted with tree guards. The trees on the road are choked due to asphalting without allowing any soft soil around the trunk. This will prevent any increase in the trunk girth and may ultimately kill these beautiful trees. The soil around the base should be dug to free the trees to grow.
iii. The big Peltophorum tree in front of Karanji tank abutting the newly constructed bridge should be retained, as it is not interfering with the movement of traffic.
iv. The trees on Vihara Marga can be retained even after widening the western side of the road, as there is no movement of pedestrians and no pressure of parking of vehicles or residential houses.
v. On Mirza Road from Hardinge Circle, trees are marked for cutting only on the side of Kuppanna park. The road can be widened filling the earth up to the edge of the park and the widened part of the road reserved for 2-wheelers. This will save all the trees and the road being one-way, there will be no traffic congestion
vi. We have strong objection for removal of rows of trees in 4-5 different locations, when there is scope for saving and retaining, as done in other roads such as Kalidasa road.
vii. Decongesting the roads is the stated goal of road widening by MCC. In many of the roads, widening is being done at the expense of footpaths. This will force pedestrians to walk on the roads themselves, thus obstructing traffic and negating the very reason for which the roads were widened. So road widening will not attain its purpose. This can be seen in many roads which have been already widened (New Sayyaji Rao Road, Temple Road in V.V. Puram, etc.). In weighing the pros and cons of road widening and tree cutting, the Forest Department should also consider this fact.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Sreemathi Hariprasad
President
Copy: 1. Sri. C.H. Vijayashankar, Hon'ble Forest Minister, Karnataka Government
2. Sri. S.A. Ramdas, Hon'ble Minister for Mysore District, Karnataka Government
3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka