To be without trees would, in the most literal way, amount to being “without our roots”. The sentiments of the celebrated writer on nature and culture, Richard Mabey, are not expected to resonate with realtors; certainly not those who have gained notoriety in recent days for having chopped off 63 trees under the garb of removing stagnant water from the premises of No. 11, Russel Street, Kolkata 700071.

Wanton destruction of trees is commonplace in India by the state, by builders, industries and even godmen of all kinds. It is, therefore, significant that Mr Justice Rajasekhar Mantha of the Calcutta High Court chose to describe the act as a “heinous crime” and, in his order, permitted the compounding of the offence upon payment of ?40 crores to the state of West Bengal, which took the property developers (petitioner and/or the owner of the property M/s Emaar India Limited) to court.

To compound means “to settle a matter by a money payment, in lieu of other liability.” Legal provisions regarding compounding of offences are mentioned under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The object of Section 320 of the Code is to promote friendliness between the parties so that peace between them is restored. For a realtor a penalty of ?40 crores ~ a 7-star hotel is reportedly planned for the premises ~ may not amount to significant damage but Mr Justice Mantha’s judgement provides enormous value addition to arguments and activists wanting such massacre of trees to stop.

The order said that “one cannot lose sight of the fact that (the felling of trees) has left a permanent wound on the environment. Irreparable damage has been caused to society by the conduct of the petitioner.” This is the crux of the matter; cutting trees amounts to destroying the acknowledged custodians of biodiversity and the very ecosystem that facilitates life as we are used to. Trees are the absorbers of carbon emissions and the deliverers of oxygen, rendering urban forestry critical to urban planning and cityscape.

What is significant about Mr Justice Mantha’s order is that he places an economic value on every tree cut. In a world where values are inconsequential but value in monetary terms means a great deal, this sends out a powerful message to other realtors, who consider trees to be the first amongst the dispensable, when it comes to property development. It is significant that Mr Justice Mantha chose not to punish the writ petitioner with limited imprisonment under the 2006 Act because that would not bring back the trees.

He reasoned that “compensating the State/ Forest Department/Society would be just and fair penalty, penance and retribution” and specified that the compensation “shall be used to develop the environment in general and maintenance of better vigil against illegal tree felling”. Not that the West Bengal government has been a model preserver of trees. It found itself before the Supreme Court of India in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR ) that challenged the state’s decision to cut 356 trees for a ?500-crore project to construct five railway overbridges.

The matter went to the apex court after the state had chopped off 50 trees and had planned to chop off another 306. Some were up to 150 years old. A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Mr S A Bobde, ordered that a committee of experts be set up to evaluate the true value of a tree because it wanted a just and fair compensation for the trees felled by any development project. The court held that the compensation should be calculated and paid as a part of the project cost when the project demands felling of trees.

The court also ordered that the compensation be expertly utilized to create a better environment and increase afforestation. It ruled that: “It is, therefore, imperative to make a realistic assessment of the economic value of a tree”, which had to be felled “with reference to its value to environment and its longevity, with regard to factors such as production of oxygen and carbon sequestration, soil conservation, protection of flora/ fauna, its role in habitat and ecosystem integrity and any other ecologically relevant factor, distinct from timber/wood.”

The expert committee held that many trees were “historical “ and of “irreplaceable value” and compensatory afforestation could hardly make full restitution. It also provided the formula for working out the monetary value of a tree as the age of the tree in years multiplied by ?74,500. Of this, the cost of oxygen alone is ?45,000, followed by ?20,000 as cost of bio-fertilisers. The committee held that adding the cost of micronutrients and compost, living trees would outweigh the benefit of most of the projects they are felled for.

The bottomline was that the five-member committee of experts held that the value of a heritage tree with a lifespan of well over 100 years could be more than a crore of rupees. Fifty trees had already been cut and the 306 remaining trees, many of heritage value, would be valued at ?220 crores. Given that states would go bankrupt paying such compensation, the apex court asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to work on a draft note on the protocol for calculating the value of trees and also on the legality of the EIA. Trees have customarily been the first casualty of infrastructure development and never feature in the development cost.

The inexorability of climate change and the need for mitigating measures has driven a global move to reform the legal infrastructure to protect trees, even in urban areas, by attributing an economic value to trees. The U.S. Forest Service says that a “healthy public tree in its 20th year after planting provides $96 in benefits and only costs $36, for an annual net benefit of $60”. One hundred healthy yard trees yield a benefit of $364,000 over 40 years and cost no more than $92,000, for a 40-year net benefit of $272,000.

“One hundred healthy public trees over 40 years provide $380,000 in benefits and only cost $148,000, for a 40-year net benefit of $232,000”, as per the US assessment. Mr Justice Mantha’s order is in keeping with a string of orders from various courts globally and in India, including state apex courts, which favour the creation of a legal infrastructure to protect trees. What gives reason to hope is that the court has set a deadline for the payment of the ?40-crore penalty within 15 days from July 26, the date of the order and also to plant and “ensure growth” of 100 trees on 11, Russel Street. All eyes on August 10.

(The writer is a veteran journalist and former Assistant Editor of The Statesman)