Transplanting no alternative as most trees don’t survive it

NEW DELHI: Videos of large trees being transported to new sites with absolute ease in overseas countries are being circulated on social media, the purpose being to ask why those in the seven colonies being redeveloped in south Delhi cannot be similarly transplanted instead of being chopped down. Transplantation of grown trees, however, is neither easy nor cost effective.

Usually after all the effort, most transplanted trees don’t survive the ordeal. According to data provided in the permission letters issues by Delhi’s forest department to National Buildings Construction Corporation (

NBCC

), only 175 of the 2,490 trees to be felled in Netaji Nagar and only 11 of 1,465 in Nauroji Nagar are to be transplanted.

“Most trees cannot tolerate transplantation, particularly big, old trees. The success rate is extremely low,” CR Babu, professor emeritus,

Centre

for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, told TOI. “Some Ficus species like peepal and banyan are likely to survive, but others won’t. The option for NBCC is to redesign the housing projects.”

Ecologists and biologists, even urban designers, feel NBCC’s design needs revisiting to prevent the loss of 16,500 trees. Saying such a thing was possible, Babu recalled, “When I was heading the state-level environment impact assessment authority, we received a real-estate plan requiring the chopping down of 8,000 trees. We asked them to redesign the project. Eventually less than 100 trees had to be cut.” He had one redesign suggestion. “I have observed,” Babu said, “that U-shaped buildings work better because this leaves space on the sides and in between.”

The difficulties related to transplanting may be why the forest department didn’t recommend large-scale translocation of the trees in these colonies. “Beyond a girth of, say, 80 cm, it’s nearly impossible to

transplant

the tree because it has huge roots. If the roots are trimmed, the tree doesn’t survive,” said a forest department official. “A species with latex can survive since it gets nutrients even after uprooting.”

The official added that the cost-benefit analysis didn’t show advantage in transplanting full-grown trees. “The cost of transplanting a young tree is around Rs 1 lakh, but for a big tree it is Rs 2-3 lakh. Transportation is a massive problem because some of these trees are really huge and have to be transported with a ball of earth around their roots,” the official explained.

Having revealed that the need to construct parking for 70,000 vehicles was a big factor behind the need to remove so many trees, A K Mittal, CMD, NBCC, added, “We are exploring how more trees can be transplanted. We have been allowed to build only 12 storeys. If we could go up to 20, we would have more towers and possibly vertical parking. People have to understand that basement parking requires excavation.”

K T Ravindran, urban designer and former chairman of Delhi Urban Arts Commission, said one solution was to look at the proximity to metro stations with reduced parking charges and another to explore the possibility of a multi-level paid parking facility. “A very important aspect is a focus on residential components, keeping the commercial component to the minimum because the parking demand of commercial-shopping areas is large. The builders can recover the cost of the project through sale of houses,” he said.

Prabhakar Rao, urban ecology expert and member of Kalpavriksh, insisted Delhi could not afford to lose 16,500 trees even if new trees are planted. “Compensatory afforestation is like saying, I will lend you Rs 1 crore and you can repay me Rs 1 every day till the crore is reached. Saplings can never compensate for the loss of trees,” Rao said. “If a tree with a 1-ft girth is felled, two trees with 6-inch girth should be planted. We cannot afford to lose trees in Delhi because of dust control and oxygen. Trees also render other services such as retaining soil moisture and biodiversity.”