Of Trees and Water

In recent times, the media – in particular the government mouth pieces: Kuensel and BBS – have tended to go gung-ho over the twin endeavors launched by the Bhutan Ecological Society (BES) and the Mountain Hazelnut Venture (MHV) - to blanket the entire country with tens of millions of trees - both fruiting and none-fruiting.

The BES aims to plant 10,000,000 trees by 2030.

Trees, trees everywhere

Making its initial start from remote Rangshikhar village of Trashigang in October of 2008, MHV’s initial plans were: 11,000,000 exotic hazelnut trees, covering 37,000 acres of degraded and barren land, in 15,000 plantations spread across all 20 Dzongkhags.

Nuts, nuts everywhere

In all fairness, the intensions of the BES and the MHV may be honorable – but have we really understood the long-term implications of these endeavors on the country? Their scope and scale are scary!

Given its nomenclature, BES should be a knowledgeable organization. But have they stopped to weigh the benefits of carbon sequestration – as opposed to ground water loss arising out of their endeavors? Have they considered Bhutan’s current stock of forest stand? Have they considered the following?

• Since 1979 – since close to half a century – there has been a ban on commercial harvesting of trees which has resulted in overstocking of the forests with poor quality trees, in addition to, some say, contributing to ground water depletion, resulting in drying up of springs that have traditionally been our source of drinking water.
  
  
• Available government records suggest that our tree density has increased from 280 trees per ha in 2016 to 377 trees per ha in 2022.
  
  
• The National Forest Inventory 2023 records that there are already 1.008 billion trees in the country. Of these humongous number, 93% of them are said to be growing in densely crowded conditions.
  
  
• One important question – do we have available fertile land (trees don’t grow on infertile lands) to accommodate such numbers of trees? Even if we do, is it beneficial to populate them all with trees, that too with only select species? What of space for other vegetation types – for the sake of bio-diversity which is critical for a healthy ecosystem?
  
  
• Studies show that agriculture land has decreased from 7.7% in 1995 to under 3% presently. Planting trees on agricultural land will further compromise the already compromised national goal of food security.
  
  
• Research indicates that a three-year-old tree can absorb around 10 kilogrammes of carbon dioxide annually. Another research has established that a 400 - 600 cm tall tree will drink up anywhere between 10 – 15 litres of water a day! Of the two, which is more beneficial? Remember: carbon sequestration impacts globally, while ground water depletion impacts locally.
  
  
• And what of the ethical issues surrounding carbon trading? Does it not seem like we are promoting environmental destruction elsewhere on the planet (after 29 COPs, there is clear indication that the state of our planet's environment is deteriorating by leaps and bounds - not improving), while screwing up our own – with doubtful and poorly understood undertakings?

Even more important, it is increasingly becoming clear that we will have to depend on our ground water reserves to supply us water in the future – particularly in rain-scarce countries like Bhutan.

Ice and snow melt – even rain – as sources for recharge of rivers/lakes/springs are likely to prove undependable as global warming escalates unchecked. Thus, it is clear that we will have to be extremely careful about jeopardizing our ground water reserves percolated over many thousand centuries. Looks like ultimately, we may have to depend on them for our safe drinking water.

As for MHV’s hazelnut project, I have already discussed about its impact on the nation – as far back as 2018. A repeat would be an overkill!