Forest dept rejoinder, our reply
In a rejoinder to our reports headlined "Logging fest" published on September 20 and "Forest men not guilty" published on September 22, the Department of Forest says two out of three Padma chars were denuded in 2007-08 and erosion is still washing away trees, so plundering of trees in last six months is not true.
Signed by the divisional forest officer (DFO) of the Social Forest Division, Rajshahi, the rejoinder says foresters are not responsible for plundering trees. It adds the trees are never worth Tk 32 crore, the immature trees are only useable as firewood and may worth Tk 17.5 lakh.
On the Water Development Board's warning of erosion, the rejoinder says there was no written warning from the WDB authorities.
The report's statements about signs of tree-felling on the chars, interviews with foresters, locals, and descriptions of forest staffs' involvement in plundering are fabricated, baseless, motivated and exaggerated, claims the rejoinder.
"Forest department staffs have no chance of plundering trees as local beneficiaries are involved in the scheme. Question of felling trees in broad daylight and selling trees by hanging scale does not arise," argues the department.
About our second report, the rejoinder says it is a reiteration of the previous report and the reporter did not quote statements of forest officials accurately.
OUR REPLY
We have no doubt that we saw tree plundering occurred on the three chars in presence of forest department staffs. We reported not only on current plundering of trees but also on total destruction of forests on the chars by forest staffs on plea of river erosion.
The DFO in his rejoinder calculated the value of the trees at Tk 40 per maund though The Daily Star correspondent witnessed on the char that the trees were being sold at Tk 80 per maund in front of the forest department's nursery attendant Abdur Razzak.
The department suspended Razzak for neglect of duty just three days after our report was published.
Sources confirmed us that all the plundered trees were not firewood; rather many of those were valuable timber trees as well.
Upon receipt of the rejoinder we contacted WDB again and the official concerned reaffirmed that the Board had alerted the forest department beforehand about danger of the chars being washed away by river erosion anytime.
During our visits to the chars, we randomly talked to a number of beneficiaries and locals who unanimously informed us about involvement of foresters in tree plundering and about their depravity.
We saw many signs of felling and selling trees after weighing those by a scale in presence of nursery attendant Razzak. We talked to labourers and boatmen who were employed by forest staffs and their men to carry logs to brick kilns and wood sellers.
We stand by our report.
Comments