By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: The HSPDP legislator Ardent Basaiawmoit said the new definition of forests in Meghalaya will give a free hand to anyone to destroy the forest cover in any tract of land less than four hectares.
Moving a cut motion on matters related to forest, Basaiwmoit said in Assembly on Thursday that the move seems to have been made to suit the industrial and mining lobby in the State as the definition of forest as adopted by the Government last year is that an area less than four hectares and having less than 250 trees will not be considered as forest.
Unhappy over the hurried passing of the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 2012 which defined forest in the last Winter Session of the Assembly, Basaiawmoit refused to withdraw his cut motion on the matter after expressing dissatisfaction over the reply of Forest and Environment Minister on the final day of the Assembly’s Budget Session on Thursday.
“I would not withdraw my cut motion since I am not satisfied with the reply of the Minister,” Basaiawmoit said.
The HSPDP legislator said that through the cut motion he wanted to express strong disapproval to the way the Bill was passed without giving adequate time to the members of the House to debate over its merits and demerits.
While justifying the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 2012 the Forest and Environment Minister Prestone Tynsong had said that the amendment was made in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.
“Out of the 77 per cent total forest cover in the State only five per cent is under the direct control of the Government and taking this into consideration, it has become more relevant to have the definition of forest to prevent its exploitation from various quarters,” Tynsong added.
Basaiawmoit, however, pointed out that the sudden urgency to redefine forest without taking public opinion and maintaining optimal transparency was not intended at enhancing conservation and increasing forest cover, but to provide a license to destroy forests with impunity.
He said according to the Amendment Bill passed by the Assembly “Forest” has been defined as a compact or continuous tract of minimum four hectares of land, irrespective of ownership where (a) more than 250 naturally grown trees per hectares of 15 cm and higher diametre at breast height (DBH) over bark are present or (b) more than 100 naturally grown bamboo clumps per hectare are present in case of tracts containing predominantly sympodial bamboo.
“From the present definition, it can be observed that any forest which is less than four hectare and which does not have more than 250 trees would not be defined
as forest and therefore, will not come under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act. Hence, diversion of forest land less than four hectares, for non-forest purposes would not need the consent of the Central Government,” Basaiawmoit said.
The HSPDP legislator further said that this has created an anomaly as there will be different definitions of forest in different states of the country which has already led to reckless denudation of forests for other purposes.
Referring to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court on December 12, 1996 in the TN Godavaran versus Union of India case, the HSPDP MLA pointed out that the word “forest” must be understood “according to the dictionary meaning.” The term ‘forest land’ in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in government records irrespective of ownership and classification.
The action of the Meghalaya government in redefining ‘forest’ is therefore contrary to the definition of the Supreme Court, Basaiawmoit said.
“I must mention here that the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management & Conservation of forests) Act, 1958 defined forest as an area with not less than 25 trees per acre, reserved or unreserved or any other forest produce growing on such area which have been or are capable of being exploited for purpose of business or trade. This is a better definition (of forest) as compared to the one passed by the House,” he said.