Tags:
Journalism of Courage
CONTRARY to popular opinion, Maharashtra8217;s Forest Development Corporation FDCM thinks conservation lies in cutting trees. Raised 30 years ago to mainly 8216;8216;raise economically important plantations8217;8217; for commercial purpose on leased lands, a stubbornly self-righteous FDCM has continued to brave criticism from experts and carried on cutting trees in forests outside national parks and sanctuaries.
Recently, however, a directive from the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court and damning observations by Maharashtra Legislative Assembly8217;s Public Undertaking Committee PUC have once again re-opened the debate on the very purpose of FDCM8217;s existence.
The FDCM moved a review application on June 30 against the April 30 directive. The court heard it on July 20; the next hearing is on August 4.
While the HC has banned tree-felling in the 10-km area beyond national parks and sanctuaries in keeping with the Indian Board of Wildlife8217;s IBW objective of making these eco-sensitive zones, the FDCM got permission from the environment ministry in 2002 to resume cutting trees.
SET up in 1974 with 4,900 sq km of prime forest, the FDCM8217;s pet programme from 1974 to 1987 was to replace the natural forest with commercial teak monoculture. But after the Environment Protection Act came into effect in 1987, it could no longer cut trees. There were indications that it might be shut but it was allowed to remain, entrusted with the task of developing wastelands into forests and implementing the World Bank-aided forestry project for raising plantations.
In 2002, the company managed to get a special permission from the Ministry of Environment to restart its tree-felling programme. In the Nagpur division alone, more than 6,000 hectare were to be clear-felled by 2006.
This permission, ironically, ran counter to the IBW8217;s policy imperative to set up eco-sensitive zones, which include about 25 percent of FDCM8217;s prime area. What8217;s stranger is that the IBW functions under the Ministry of Environment too.
To compound the problem, the corporation has only planted teak forests instead of mixed ones, and not done a good job even at that. The PAC report March 2004 has held the FDCM officials and employees responsible for poor returns from the teak monoculture pursued by it for many years. The PAC has also held it accountable for the losses in the wasteland development programme between 1988-91, calling for strict action against the officials responsible.
CONSERVATIONISTS say the teak monoculture will end the rich bio-diversity of natural mixed forests and harm wildlife corridors. In its defence, the FDCM says it8217;s not clear-felling and that 40 trees are spared in every hectare.
The FDCM8217;s desperation to start cutting tress was also attributed to its World Bank liability of over Rs 200 crore. Says wildlife activist and IBW member Bittu Sehgal: 8216;8216;The FDCM should be responsible for just one thing and that is to ensure that the forests under its charge are managed to optimise the supply of pure, drinking water to Maharashtra. That would be the best type of forest development.8217;8217;
The message is clear: either shut the FDCM or reinvent it with a forest-friendly mandate.
