The forest department’s estimate of the survival rate did not match the figure submitted by the Central Public Works Department to it. (Representational)Of 404 trees transplanted for the ‘Proposed Expansion and Restoration of the existing Parliament Building at Plot No 118’, which is part of the Central Vista project, only 121 or 30% survived. This is a part of the overall data on tree transplantation submitted before the Delhi High Court in an affidavit by the forest department in May this year.
The forest department’s estimate of the survival rate did not match the figure submitted by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to it. As per the affidavit, the CPWD estimated that 266 transplanted trees have survived.
A CPWD official told The Indian Express, “As per the last report submitted by us in May 2022, a total of 267 trees were surviving out of 402 trees transplanted — 102 out of 130 at the new Parliament building site and 165 out of 272 at NTPC Eco Park, Badarpur.” A senior forest department official confirmed the transplantation sites.
Transplanted trees haven’t fared too well in the rest of the city either: Of about 16,461 trees transplanted in the past three years, only around 5,487 or 33.33% have survived so far, as per data.
Overall, the survival rate that the forest department found was below the rate of about 41.17% estimated by user agencies that carried out transplantation for infrastructure projects in the city. As per data submitted by user agencies, 6,777 trees have survived so far.
According to the Delhi government’s Tree Transplantation Policy, notified in 2020, “The benchmark tree survival rate at the end of one year of tree transplantation shall be 80% or as notified by the department, from time to time. The final payment of the technical agency shall be linked to the tree survival rate achieved with a provision for a penalty for tree survival rate below the benchmark rate.”
The forest department said in the affidavit that “reconciliation of data will take at least two months as there has been a difference in survival rate submitted by user agency and forest department”.
On why the data differs, a senior official of the forest department said, “In some cases, transplantation sites may have changed. User agency takes records from the agency that carried out the transplantation, and transplantation agency gives them maintenance records for only one year. After that year, they might not have been maintained and trees may have died. Lack of maintenance after the first year, and possible change of site, are possible reasons for difference in data.”
Ecologist C R Babu pointed out that the survival rate of 33% was very low. “The survival of transplants depends on the type of species. If they are shallow-rooted plants, there will be greater success. Some transplanted trees are highly sensitive and die because they are unable to adjust to the shock of transplantation.”
“The age of the tree is also important. If you have a 10–15-year-old tree where the root system is still shallow, the tree might survive. Transplanted trees can take 10-15 years to develop a full-fledged tree canopy that renders ecological services. Transplanted trees are also more susceptible to abiotic and biotic stress, and to termite infestation. Young, growing plants are more immune and tolerant to such stressors. All this taken together, the success rate of transplantation is low,” Prof Babu said.
Navneet Srivastava, Deputy Conservator of Forests (West), said: “It’s a technical subject and some trees that are being transplanted are 70-80 years old. Sometimes user agencies transplant trees and then abandon them. Monitoring was difficult, but it has now been intensified with this report being the starting point. Transplantation has many phases and the tree needs care to survive the shock of transplantation.”
He said the surveys that resulted in the data that was submitted in the affidavit were carried out in February, March and April this year.