No law to hold forest officers accountable
Illegal tree felling remains rampant in most reserved forests in the country.
This has been happening at a time when the government is trying to increase the country's forest coverage to 18 percent from the current 15.58 percent by 2030 -- a condition to achieve Sustainable Development Goal.
According to data from the Department of Forest, 10 percent of the country's total forestland has been lost since independence due to deforestation, land grabbing, leasing, and allocation for government and non-government projects.
Last month, a news report of The Daily Star also showed that illegal tree felling continues unabated in Chiria Reserve Forest of Chattogram's Rangunia upazila.
The logs obtained by felling are either shipped across Karnaphuli to sawmills, where they are processed and transferred to high-end furniture stores, or to brick kilns.
Locals and NGO representatives have pointed to inaction of forest officers as a cause of these violations.
There are a good number of relevant laws regarding forest conservation, such as Forest Act 1927, Environment Conservation Act 1995, Wildlife Conservation and Security Act 2012, and Brick Manufacturing and Brick Kilns Establishment (Control) Act, 2013.
As per brick manufacturing and brick kilns act, use of timber as fuel in brick-fields is prohibited. Moreover, the act also states that brick-fields cannot be established within 1km of forest and ecologically critical areas, within 2km of government-owned forest areas and within 500m of hills and mounds.
The forest act lists activities that are prohibited in reserve forests, which includes clearing any part of the forest, felling, removing timber, setting fire, burning lime or charcoal.
The act also confers certain powers upon the forest officer for dealing with offences. They are empowered to seize any forest produce and tools used to commit offences, and has the right to arrest (without warrant) any person who is reasonably suspected as being involved in such offences.
Though the act provides ample power to officers, it does not mention what action should be taken against such officers if they fail to perform their responsibilities. Rather, the act provides indemnity to them for any action done in good faith.
It is alleged that such protection provides favourable treatment, which goes against the constitutional stipulation of equality before law.
It is also noted that if the actions of those in power are not legally scrutinised or have no consequences, they might lead to abusive and discriminatory practices.
When asked about the lack of effectiveness of the existing law, ABM Imdadul Haque Khan, advocate of the Supreme Court, said, "The Forest Act 1927 was promulgated by colonial rulers, with a view to exploit forest resources for commercial purposes instead of conservation."
"Although the law has been amended, its spirit still bears this legacy," he said. "Moreover, the existing measures focus mostly on punitive measures instead of preventive ones. This is not in line with the international principle of precautionary measures."
As to possible ways of ensuring accountability of forest officers, he added, "The law should be amended to incorporate provisions to hold forest officers accountable if they fail to perform their obligations."
Comments