Greater Bengaluru Authority’s notice on reporting risky trees draws flak

Bengaluru: A public notice issued by the Greater Bengaluru Authority’s forest department Thursday has drawn criticism for placing the onus squarely on citizens to report dangerous trees in their properties. The notice states that property owners or occupiers must assess the condition of trees within their premises and submit tree-felling applications in the prescribed format if they pose a risk.

While the move is aimed at preventing accidents, experts argue that it shifts responsibility away from authorities and lacks a systemic, data-driven approach.

Vijay Nishanth, founder of Project Vruksha, pressed for sustained efforts instead of knee-jerk reactions after the recent thunderstorms. “GBA should have its data ready. This includes the distribution and condition of brittle tree species like African Tulips or Copper Pods. When authorities are aware where these trees are, they can take steps to ensure safety,” he said.

He also suggested that the issue of potentially dangerous trees and branches can be taken up at ward committees. “Trees are a major part of the city’s brand. GBA should build up its own data by completing the tree census. Along with this, raising awareness among people on vulnerable tree species and assessing tree health are also important steps,” he added.

Environmentalists have also flagged procedural hurdles that may discourage timely action. Dattatraya T Devare of Bangalore Environment Trust said that the system is far from user-friendly. “Moreover, it is very difficult to navigate the new GBA website to find the form. The whole process is cumbersome for common citizens,” he said.

The form (Form 1) requires applicants to mention details like the survey numbers, khata extract and certificate from tahsildar, and enclose records like the khata certificate or tax paid receipt.

Devare pointed out that people will not be able to get such trees removed on time due to elaborate procedures. “If we do not act on time, these trees become more precarious and dangerous. When it becomes an emergency, some contractors will charge exorbitant amounts,” he added.

Responding to the criticism, GBA’s deputy conservator of forests Sudarshan GK maintained that the responsibility lies with property owners when trees are on private premises.

“If citizens report dangerous trees to GBA, our teams will take necessary action,” he said, adding that the forest department team will cut trees only after evaluating the need to cut or trim them.

Box

Forest dept understaffed

According to a senior official, GBA forest department is severely understaffed, with only 16 officers handling tree-related issues across the city.

“The responsibility of keeping a tab on roadside trees and reporting them to the forest teams must be taken up by the engineering departments of the corporations. Since there are engineers up to the ward level, they can be made to survey and report such trees. Moreover, it is the corporations’ engineering departments which are the custodians of roads, and by extension, roadside trees,” he said.

The official added that the tree officer (DCF) is not mandated to take up these cases suo motu. “The DCF acts on complaints and applications, and cannot take up tree cutting on their own,” he said.

A proposal is now underway to involve ward-level engineers in surveying and identifying dangerous roadside trees, in an attempt to bridge gaps in monitoring and response.