‘Value of tree ₹74.5k multiplied by its age’
NEW DELHI: A tree’s monetary worth is its age multiplied by ₹74,500, a Supreme Court-appointed committee has submitted in a report, setting a guideline, for the first time in India, on the valuation of trees.
The five-member committee of experts added that a heritage tree with a lifespan of well over 100 years could be valued at more than ₹1 crore — and that the monetary value of a project, for which hundreds of trees are cut, is sometimes far less than the economic and environmental worth of the felled trees.
The report was submitted before a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, that had asked the committee to determine the economic value of trees, based on cost of oxygen they release, and other benefits to the environment.
According to the report, a tree is worth ₹74,500 a year. Out of this, the cost of oxygen alone is ₹45,000, followed by cost of biofertilisers, which are worth ₹20,000. The SC, while hearing a case relating to felling of 356 trees for construction of five railway over-bridges in West Bengal, commended the panel’s efforts, adding that it was inclined to lay down guidelines for all future projects that required cutting trees.
NEW DELHI: A tree’s monetary worth is its age multiplied by ₹74,500, a Supreme Court-appointed committee has submitted in a report, setting a guideline, for the first time in India, on the valuation of trees.
The five-member committee of experts added that a heritage tree with a lifespan of well over 100 years could be valued at more than ₹1 crore -- and that the monetary value of a project, for which hundreds of trees are cut, is sometimes far less than the economic and environmental worth of the felled trees.
The report was submitted before a Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde, that had asked the committee members in January last year to determine the economic value of trees, based on cost of oxygen they release, and other benefits to the environment.
The bench, which also included justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, stressed on the necessity to do away with the evaluation of trees only on the basis of their timber value and rather focus on the positive impact of trees on the environment.
For this purpose, the court, while hearing a case relating to cutting down of 356 trees for construction of five railway overbridges (ROBS) in West Bengal, appointed a committee of five experts -- Nishikant Mukerji (managing director, Tiger Environment Centre), Soham Pandya, (secretary and executive director at the Centre of Science for Villages), Sunita Narain (director, Centre for Science and Environment), Bikash Kumar Maji (assistant chief engineer, ROB unit, West Bengal government) and Niranjita Mitra (division forest officer, North 24 Parganas).
According to the report filed in February last year but was made public only on Wednesday, a tree is worth ₹74,500 a year. Out of this, the cost of oxygen alone is ₹45,000, followed by cost of biofertilisers, which are worth ₹20,000. Upon adding costs of micronutrients and compost, the report stated, living trees will more often than not outweigh the benefit of the most of the projects they are felled for.
Commenting on the West Bengal government’s plea to cut 356 trees, some of which were heritage trees, the committee evaluated their worth at ₹202 crore, which is more than the cost of the ROB project by the state government.
The committee also suggested that instead of cutting trees for highway projects, the governments should first explore alternatives such as using existing waterways and railway lines to facilitate traffic and transport infrastructure.
In case trees must be removed, the committee said, the first endeavour should be to relocate them, making use of modern technology, and if they must be felled; it also added that planting five saplings in lieu of one tree was not good enough since a 100-year-old tree cannot be equated with a few fresh saplings. It recommended that for a tree with small crown size, 10 saplings should be planted; 25 saplings for a tree with medium crown size; and 50 saplings for a tree with large crown size. Crown is the top part of the tree from which branches grow above the stem.
The bench, during the hearing on Wednesday, commended the committee’s efforts, adding that it was inclined to lay down certain new guidelines for all future projects which required felling trees in view of the report. “The committee’s recommendation will make every government go bankrupt. So, we need to fine tune a few suggestions,” the bench observed.
It found favour with the recommendation that a developer must look to use existing waterways and railway lines before insisting on a road project that required cutting trees. The top court further expressed its displeasure at a central government notification that did away with the need for an environment impact assessment (EIA) for a road project of less than 100 km. “We will examine validity of your notification,” the bench told additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the Union government in the matter.