KOCHI: Nearly 100 cents in Edappally is set to be transformed into an office-cum-residential complex. Nothing out of the ordinary here. The area is, after all, one of the prime locations in the fast-growing metropolis.
Nothing out of the ordinary, save for the fact that this land belongs to the social forestry division of the forest department, the very wing tasked with afforestation and increasing tree cover activities in non-forest areas.
To prepare the ground for this contentious project, the team will have to axe about 59 trees located on this campus. How ironic!
Notably, the ‘Tree Committee’ that supposedly approved this move has the city mayor as its chairperson and the assistant conservator of forest (social forestry) as its convenor.
Understandably, the project has caused much uproar from environmental activists as well as the public. The Kerala Nature Protection Council (KNPC), too, has made its indignation clear.
“It is ironic to see a department tasked with the protection of trees now planning to tear away the green cover in the name of construction. This is incomprehensible,” says KNPC president C M Joy.
“The authorities should have planned better, or moved the project to a suitable area. Not only has the department foiled the chance to be a role model to the public, it has, with this controversial move, also sent the wrong message that people need not be concerned about nature.”
A writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Adv Daisy A Philipose for the petitioner Manzoor B H, who is nature lover and lawyer.
In the petition, it is mentioned that a large number of trees growing on lands owned or occupied by public institutions under the government are felled in the name of various developmental activities such as construction of buildings and widening of roads.
“The city has already lost significant green cover, especially avenue trees. So it is imperative that we take measures to protect the remaining trees in the city. Now, Edappally is a residential area and it is one of the green spots in the city. The urban forestry model is what we lack the most,” explains Manzoor.
He adds that if the department has a real concern to protect nature, it should ideally find an alternative space. “An office-cum-residential complex in the heart of the city is unnecessary,” Manzoor says.
Joy, who was one of the expert members of the Tree Committee, recollects the body’s functioning. “The committee was formed in 2010, and I was one of the expert members for a decade. During its initial years, the committee fulfilled its purpose. However, over time, not much consideration was given to protect trees. Eventually, I stepped down,” he says.
The respondents of the case include the district collector, assistant conservator of forests social forestry, and the corporation. As per the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, assistant conservator A Jayamadhavan, the social forestry division is finding it hard to function in Ernakulam due to the lack of a proper working place.
“The proposal for building a multi-storey office complex was initiated in 2008. To build the same, the semi-permanent buildings accommodating the social forestry division and Social Forestry Range offices have to be demolished. These structures were built in 1995 and ‘96, respectively, and are roofed with asbestos sheets,” explains Jayamadhavan.
He also adds that the new office complex will have social forestry, vigilance, and the liaison office in a single location. “This can greatly aid the public in meeting their needs,” he says. “Having accommodation facilities here will help officials avoid the daily commute of 2-3 hours.”
However, Joy trashes the justification. “It is unnecessary. The need for a residential complex shows that excess officials are getting posted in the social forestry division,” he says.
“Meanwhile, the forest department, which has the mandate of protecting the forests and the wildlife, faces severe staff shortage. This has resulted in the poor management of animal-human conflict.” Jayamadhavan, however, denies that the division is overstaffed.
Overlooking the biodiversity
As per the counter affidavit filed by Jayamadhavan, the 59 trees set to be axed include varieties such as mahogany, mula, manimaruthu, sindooram, pana, anjili, arana maram, mavu, edana, arampuli, pathimukham, chela, plavu, vattolam, karimaruthu, neermaruthu, raktha chandanam, thanni, and spathodia.
At least 26 of these are exotic. Seven belong to the species ‘aranamaram’, an exotic kind used for avenue planting.
However, as per the affidavit, none of the trees is a “rare, endangered or threatened” species. “The mentioned trees can be spotted in all places, and they grow easily. Also, we have plans to plant around 100 trees in the proposed building site,” Jayamadhavan says.
“The plan for a new office and residential complex dates back to 2008. Only now we received funds from the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Besides public and farming needs, we handle festival activities that include elephants. Not many know how to use the online facility, so Edappally is an easy access point when compared to alternative sites such as Mangalavanam and Nedumbassery.”
Joy contends that Edappally, a thickly populated area, does not have adequate green cover. “The trees may not be endangered or rare species. What matters here is the preservation of the plot that can be classified as a green lung,” he says.
“The area provides some cooling effect. If the green cover gets chopped, the people residing in the area will be affected the most. The social forestry department is bound by its mission – to safeguard green cover. They should find an alternative plan.”
Manzoor seconds this. “As part of the compensatory afforestation programme, they might plant saplings and the count will be registered. With the present climatic condition and lack of proper maintenance, most of them would perish in a few days,” he says.
“Also, it would take at least 10-15 years for a tree to grow fully. As citizens, we have every right to live in a clean and fresh environment. The proposed action will affect the environment in the locality and that violates Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Vishnupriyan Kartha, an ornithologist and secretary of Cochin Natural History Society (CNHS), notes that the plot is home to about 60 species of birds, including grey-bellied cuckoo, forest wagtail, black-naped oriole, Asian openbill, brown hawk owl, mottled wood owl, and brown-breasted flycatcher. “I am also part of the Tree Committee. Representing CNHS, I had sent a dissent note stressing on the need for a biodiversity study,” he says.