The master plan of Nijgadh International Airport Nepal gives the impression that the authority is in haste to cut down trees to make Nepal prosperous. The Forest Ministry’s approval of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that has recommended cutting down 2.4 million trees for the airport project has infused the feeling of prosperity among the ministers—from Prime Minister, Forest Minister, to Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation Minister.
Nepal urgently needs another international airport as an alternative to Tribhuvan International Airport. But the lackadaisical approach in seeking ways to minimize the damage while constructing the airport has raised question.
It is our collective responsibility to preserve ecology. Destruction in the name of development is nothing but our misfortune. The haste to destroy the forest has raised a specter whether we are looking for prosperity like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. A key question has emerged: Are we deserted prosperity or prosperity with greenery? We are not against building the airport, but it is crucial to seek ways to minimize the damage. It is entirely up to us to decide whether to choose the concrete development like in a foreign country or to go for the prosperity with ecological balance, animal habitat, bubbling sound of flowing water, ponds and lakes.
How long will the glittering prosperity last in the dry desert made by destroying the forest? On the other hand, the haste in felling trees without preparing the Detail Project Report (DPR) of Nijgadh International Airport has raised doubts. It’s true that Nijgadh was picked as one of the most appropriate locations for the construction of international airport out of 8 potential places based on a study conducted in 1995. Nothing could be done in the beginning. No other alternatives were explored. Why the dense forest was viewed as the appropriate location?
Nobody thought that prosperity was possible with minimum damage. Obviously, many questions have been raised over the move to cut down unreasonably high number of trees and choose the core forest for the mega project. What kind of prosperity are we striving for, by destroying the environment?
The Ministry of Forest and Environment had approved the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), one of the major tasks for the construction of Nijgadh airport, on May 23. However, the EIA doesn’t seem to have paid the attention for ecology. Instead the EIA states, “It seems that Rs596 billion can be earned by selling the cut-down trees at market price or Rs 15 billion can be earned if the trees are sold at government royalty.” This demonstrates that the government is striving for prosperity in terms of monetary value, and inattentive to seek ways for alternative arrangement to save the environment.
As we are looking for prosperity by destroying the forest, the authority is unconscious about the growing carbon emission due to the deforestation. The rapidly growing industrialization and deforestation in the word has been increasing carbon emissions. Along with its impact on the environment, the increasing deforestation has also affected the climate change. On average, a tree produces 104 liters of oxygen in a year, thereby providing us with fresh air for living. If we look at it that way, the felling of around 2.4 million trees—600,000 big trees and 18,00,000 small—will reduce billions of liters of oxygen. Are we not misled in seeking prosperity in the name of becoming a developed country?
Many developed countries in the world have not been able to save carbon because of industrialization and deforestation. That’s why the countries that are emitting excessive carbon are buying carbon from the countries that are emitting less carbon. The target of carbon emission trading is to reduce global warming. Aren’t we seeking prosperity by destroying the forests to meet the same target? At a time when the world conference on climate change is being held and targets are being set for cutting down on carbon emissions to reduce the global warming, we are in a hurry to cut down trees.
The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement has set a long-term goal of limiting the average global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius in comparison to pre-industrial revolution level. The counties have also agreed to limit the global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In order to achieve this target, countries around the world should reduce their carbon emissions.
Instead of thinking about the future from a broader perspective, we are more concerned about immediate development. Our desperation for quick prosperity has also invited the problem. Forests are indispensable part to maintain the ecological balance. What will be our future if we look for prosperity by clearing the forest?
Countries, except for USA, have expressed commitment to reduce carbon emissions. But are we not focusing our attention on the ways to increase carbon emissions. The European Union has pledged to cut greenhouse emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. To fulfill their commitments, the countries having more emissions of carbon prepare two methods. Firstly, they conserve the forests and use clean energy for reducing greenhouse emissions. Secondly, they also extend financial assistance to other countries with the potentiality of alternative energy and help in the conservation of carbon in those countries.
Against this backdrop, we are preparing to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees to build an international airport. We can’t imagine the existence of creatures where the forests are destroyed and such a country can never become prosperous. It is unwise to consider big airport and concrete infrastructures as a benchmark of development. The prosperity made by destroying the habitat of various wildlife, aquatic, amphibians and terrestrial among other creatures might seem good for sometimes but won’t last longer. Only the prosperity made by accepting the existence of everything can’t be considered a sustainable. The affluence without creatures, greenery will only invite environmental disaster. Therefore, the dream of prosperous Nepal can only be realized by accepting the existence of nature.
According to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) directive, airport runway can’t be built near wildlife sanctuary. However, the proposed airport construction site is close to Parsa National Park. Though the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks were made for the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity, we couldn’t manage them scientifically. The forest administration has so far spent around Rs 1.55 billion in the past eight years to plant 114.6 million trees. But we have not data on how many plants grew. We only plant trees and hardly find time to take care of them but we are always in a hurry to cut down trees. No one has the answer as to why we could not manage space for planting trees.
