Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) to introduce a ₹200-per-tree trimming fee has sparked public criticism, with local civic organisations urging the administration to reconsider the move.
Residents, housing societies, and environmental advocates argue that the fee unfairly burdens communities already actively engaged in maintaining urban green cover. The policy, formalised through Resolution No. 7460 during the General Body Meeting held on 27 January 2025, mandates that residential societies must pay ₹200 for each tree trimmed within their premises. The fee applies even when trimming is necessary for safety reasons—such as preventing branches from falling during storms or monsoons.
In response, a prominent Navi Mumbai-based civil society group submitted a formal petition to the Municipal Commissioner, calling the new charge an unjust imposition on housing societies that are voluntarily contributing to the city’s environmental upkeep. The petition, also marked to senior civic officials in the Garden Department and Urban Development Ministry, characterises the fee as an “unwarranted tax on proactive citizens.” According to the organisation, housing societies in Navi Mumbai are not only adhering to mandatory tree plantation norms but also investing their own resources in nurturing greenery and ensuring safe tree management. Imposing a charge on basic maintenance like trimming, particularly when it is critical for safety, discourages citizen participation in environmental stewardship, the organisation argued.
“This move undermines the spirit of community-driven green initiatives,” stated a representative from the organisation. “We have consistently collaborated with the civic body on tree plantation drives and monsoon preparedness. Penalising societies for responsibly managing tree branches is regressive and counterproductive to the broader goals of climate resilience.” Urban greenery is central to sustainable city planning, especially in rapidly urbanising regions like Navi Mumbai. Mature trees provide critical ecological services—reducing air pollution, enhancing shade, cooling surface temperatures, preventing soil erosion, and contributing to carbon sequestration. When well-maintained, they also mitigate the impact of extreme weather events, increasingly common due to climate change.
The introduction of a fee, even if nominal, raises questions about municipal intent and approach. While NMMC officials defend the ₹200 charge as a policy decision meant to ensure trimming is done “scientifically and under supervision,” residents argue that such regulation should not come at the cost of citizen goodwill or collective action. A senior civic official stated that the nominal fee was carefully decided after internal discussions and aims to prevent unscientific or excessive pruning that could harm trees. “The fee is not meant to deter anyone. It ensures the trimming is carried out with appropriate guidance, preserving the health of the trees while addressing safety concerns,” the official clarified.
However, critics remain unconvinced. They question whether the policy truly encourages better arboricultural practices or simply adds bureaucratic hurdles. Several housing society members have shared experiences of delays in getting approvals for trimming requests, fearing that the new policy will exacerbate these issues. Environmental experts caution that punitive measures like fees may lead to unintended consequences, such as neglecting timely trimming, which can increase the risk of tree collapse, property damage, or injuries during adverse weather. “Tree maintenance should be a shared responsibility, but the framework must empower communities, not penalise them,” noted an urban ecology expert based in Mumbai.
The civic body’s decision also appears misaligned with the broader climate action goals adopted by forward-looking Indian cities. Navi Mumbai, often cited as a model for its urban planning and green initiatives, risks alienating environmentally conscious residents through such top-down policies. Encouraging citizen-led tree care aligns with the ideals of inclusive, sustainable, and resilient cities—especially at a time when urban ecosystems face unprecedented stress. Local housing associations have also expressed concern over the lack of stakeholder consultation prior to implementing the resolution. Several residents pointed out that decisions affecting society budgets and environmental responsibilities should involve public dialogue. “There is no transparency on how the collected fees will be used—whether for training, monitoring, or maintaining a database of trees,” said a representative of a residential welfare association in Belapur.
In a city that has previously won accolades for urban greenery, citizen-government collaboration has been key to success. Critics argue that NMMC must revisit the trimming fee policy not only through an administrative lens but also with a participatory governance approach. They have urged the administration to establish a consultative framework that includes residents, environmentalists, arborists, and ward-level officials. The demand to roll back the trimming fee is now gaining wider support across Navi Mumbai’s residential sectors, especially with the monsoon season approaching—a period during which tree maintenance becomes even more critical. Many societies are hoping that the civic body will re-evaluate the policy and revert to a more facilitative model that encourages safe and responsible tree care.
For a city aiming to evolve as a climate-resilient urban ecosystem, policies must not discourage citizen involvement in green initiatives. While regulatory oversight is essential to prevent tree abuse, penalising proactive community behaviour risks eroding the collective sense of environmental responsibility that Navi Mumbai has long cultivated.
Navi Mumbai Citizens Oppose Tree Trimming Fee
