By Naba Bhattacharjee
Assurance to amend the Catchments Areas Protection Act, 1990 has once again hit the headlines. Such declaration has essentially become a yearly ritual devoid of any follow up, tangible action to actually reassess this moribund and defunct Act. The last pronouncement to review the Act was made on 21.2.2012. Another year has passed by and in the process substantial catchment areas of the State have been desecrated with impunity. This has been continuing since the last decade and more. However, the latest announcement on 8th June was made by the Chief Minister himself. Considering the astute leadership qualities of Dr. Sangma and his concern for environment and alienation of tribal land, it is expected that the amendment shall finally come through. On the contrary, the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 2012, was passed in a matter of days by amending the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Application and Amendment) Act, 1973 to “redefine forests” and in the process taking away hundreds of hectares outside the purview of forest with the sole motive of diverting such forests for non-forestry purposes, mainly mining. What a paradox in according priorities! An Act which would have benefited the entire population of Meghalaya is ignored and another aimed at benefiting a few industries, at the expense of the environment, finds priority.
This existence of Meghalaya Protection of Catchment Areas Act 1990 & Rules 1996 was first brought into public focus in 2004 when pristine catchments of the Riat Laban Forest was on the verge of being annihilated in the name of “wind fallen trees”, taking advantage of a cyclonic storm which up rooted a few matured trees. A mafia induced man made hurricane with cutting edge precision, felled ten times the number affected by the actual squall. It was the timely intervention by residents of Greater Laban which saved the only remaining catchment of Shillong. At that period and subsequently number of representations and memorandum including suggestions were submitted to government authorities for reviewing the defunct act. The writer in an article in this column – “A case for reviewing Catchment Areas Act, City’s endangered water sources”; dated 14th September 2004 had articulated the urgent need for amendment on priority to make the act effective and functional.
It is also a fact that it is not at all feasible to execute this act in its present form, except within government forest, in view of existing land holding system. The Act clearly restricts implementation of corrective measures as per section 6 pending declaration of an area as catchment area- either critical or non-critical as defined under section 2 (d) and (i) of the Act. Such declaration can only be made after obtaining consent of land owners in writing as per section 5 of the Act. Assent of land owner is virtually ruled out and hence there is no scope for invoking the remaining provisions of the Act ranging from section 6 to section 17, which includes prohibition of activities, offences & punishment, bar on civil suit etc. As almost 95 percent of the state’s area is either individual, clan or raid land and directly or indirectly under administrative control of respective District Council, execution was mostly impractical since the Act was conceived in haste, without proper study of ground realities and clarity of purpose. The forefathers of the indigenous population had the foresight of such emerging situations due to ownership status of land while formulating The United Khasi – Jaintia Hills Autonomous (Management and Control of Forests) Act, 1958. Unfortunately, District Councils have not been able to fully perceive nor execute the Act in letter and spirit. The Act provides for registration of all land with the Council irrespective of ownership status. Moreover, there is provision to constitute and notify any forest or sensitive area like catchments as protected forest or green blocks, whatever be the ownership status and without prejudice to the rights, titles etc; for the cause of common good and interest like water supply.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s definition of forests which still prevails includes forests irrespective of nature of ownership and classification and clarifies that the term ‘State Government’ would also include District Councils. This implies that forests could be designated as reserved and protected whether they are privately owned or otherwise under the Forest (Conservation) Act, section 2(1). All these and many other ground realities have to be taken into account while amending the Catchment Act or it shall become another paper exercise in futility and continue to remain toothless and redundant. Moreover, a draft of the proposed amendment has to be put in the public domain to garner suggestions and opinions of stakeholders so that this time the amended Act & Rules therein, can actually be implemented to check the rampant desecration of catchments or whatever remains of it. It shall be a positive indication if MUA-II declares 2013 as “Year of Environment Revival”.