In SC, Centre turns down proposal to set up new authority to protect trees

The Union government has turned down a suggestion to create a new authority for protecting trees at the central and state levels – a proposal that included determining a tree’s value before a decision is taken to fell it for a development project --- and has instead recommended to the Supreme Court that such matters be decided by the states.

In a submission on February 8, the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC) responded to a host of suggestions made by a seven-member, Supreme Court-appointed expert committee headed by wildlife expert and former chairman of the Wildlife Trust of India MK Ranjitsinh Jhala.

The committee was directed by the top court in March 2021 to examine steps for conserving trees and suggest a method to assess the value of a tree in a petition filed by Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, which opposed the felling of primitive trees, some aged over 150 years, for construction of five road-over bridges (ROB) as part of a road-widening project of the West Bengal government.

The committee in January 2022 recommended a tree conservation authority be set up at the state and local levels for overseeing compensatory afforestation and to act as custodians of public-owned trees on non-forest land (PTNFL). It also recommended having a permanent body, such as National Forest Conservation Authority (NFCA), to oversee forest conservation at the apex level.

The Centre, replying to this suggestion, said: “There is no requirement of constitution of tree conservation authority or a separate national-level model act as there are enough statutory provisions to safeguard the PTNFLs.”

On having NCFA, the ministry said, “There is no need for creating a permanent body NFCA as this will lead to double regulation and unnecessary delay in project clearance.”

The Centre said there is no dearth of statutory bodies on the issue of forest conservation, citing the examples of the Forest Advisory Committee (a statutory expert body) to deal with forest clearances and the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife for permissions under Wildlife Protection Act.

On the method of assessing the value of a tree, the Jhala committee had said that the intrinsic and instrumental value of trees should be based not on its “timber worth” but the age, girth and environmental contribution.

In its 184-page report to the top court, the committee also said that while it “favours a cost-based approach, it agrees that a benefit-based approach based on net present value (NPV) criteria is a better way of assessing the value and making developers pay, as is proposed for land-use change.”

It recommended a large-scale national research project to conduct a species-specific tree ecosystem service valuation to arrive at their NPV, considering functions of age, girth-at-breast height, etc.

The Centre, in response, said: “Currently, the value of trees is calculated by respective states/union territories as per local norms prescribed under various state enactments.” It listed out 32 such enactments on the subject enacted by states/UTs and said, “Advisory may be issued to them to further revise the valuation criteria.”

As for the remaining states/UTs yet to enact laws in this regard, the advisory would require them to frame appropriate laws in line with the expert committee’s suggestions.