Rejoinder, our reply

In a rejoinder to our report headlined "Of forests and kochu plantation" published on August 1, 2008, the Department of Forest has said the department is not responsible for the denudation of the hills, jhum and crop cultivation like arum in the hills which are neither the reserve forests nor belong to the forest department.
Signed by Uttam Kumar Saha, divisional forest officer of Chittagong Hill Tracts North Forest Division, Rangamati, the rejoinder says the natural forests of Pablakhali, Shishak, Bagaihat and Massalong Range of the Kassalong reserve on 14,450 hectares were felled by BFIDC during 1961-2000 as per government decision.
The report's statement that not more than two dozen mature trees were found in 200km journey through the hills of CHT is not true at all, claimed the department.
About the destruction of forests by the Bengalee settlers and indigenous people, the rejoinder says forest department is not responsible for it, rather it has taken adequate actions to keep the settlers away from the forestland and efforts are being continued.
The department said Teak was introduced in the CHT in 1800 while Eucalyptus and Acacia were planted in 1980s in the forest areas. Those were planted after scientific research and trials and finally recommended by experts.
“According to the Global Forest Resource Assessment the global deforestation rate was estimated at 13 million hectare per year during the period 1990-2005. This is alarming. With a huge population pressure the situation of Bangladesh is not far from any country in the tropics,” said the rejoinder.
About the two photographs published along with the report, the forest department claimed the exact location of the photographs was not known but it can be affirmed that those areas are not reserve forests. “There are no reserve forest of any kind under the control of the department around 4km on the west and 7km in the east of Marissa,” it said.
OUR REPLY
The arum plantations that we saw were no doubt being done on forestland and we even met a forest department person present on the arum plantation. We later talked to more forest department officials who were upbeat about the 'prospect of arum, banana and pineapple plantation' in the hills.
We raised the issue not of current destruction of the forest only but total decimation of the forests of all kinds, including reserve forest, from the time of British in 1860s. Our question is how forest department during the period of Pakistan and Bangladesh could continue with the same legacy of the British and destroyed all the natural forests.
Our question is why forest department did not object to the destructive operations of the BFIDC that is partially run by the department officials, either in power or those who join it after their retirement?
The Daily Star agrees that forest department is responsible for the commercial exploitation of the forest resources. As such it has no responsibility of managing the natural forests that used to house two species of bear, gaur, banteng, spotted deer, buffalo, rhinos, a few species of primates, big cats like the Bengal Tiger and leopard and small cats like the clouded leopard, marbled cat, leopard cat, etc.; raj dhanesh, kao dhanesh, half a dozen species of fruit and green pigeons, almost equal number of rare woodpeckers, white-winged wood duck, dollar bird, reticulated python, Burmese brown tortoise, etc. Thus these disappeared during the past 70 to the recent period.
If the reserved forests were managed and retained, all these and many more species of wild animals would have prevailed in our forests like in the neighbouring Indian states of Mizoram, Assam and Meghalaya, and Myanmar.
The rejoinder does not contradict DS story but supports it because it says the reserved forests of the area concerned had been dereserved at least twice officially. Also it agrees to the fact that the forest department is responsible for the introduction of the exotic plants like Teak, Acacia, Eucalyptus, etc.