Date | Feb 28, 2017:
In December 2012, the Government of Meghalaya amended its Forest Regulation Act of 1973 and said only a compact and continuous tract of minimum four hectares would now be considered as forest in the state. This happened two months after the State introduced the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Act, ostensibly to regulate mining in the State. The new definition has watered down the definition of forest. Prior to that the Government went by the definition of forests as elucidate by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) which states that 25 standing trees in one acre of land constitutes a forest. Since the State Forest Department had already granted forest clearance to several coal and limestone mining companies, it was compelled to bring out a new rule to cover up their acts of commission. Interestingly the state government says the new amendment with a revised definition of what a forest is, has become necessary since the previous definition was vague. But environmentalists know that the actual reason was to open up larger tracts of forest land for non-forest use and mainly for the cement companies.
The new definition specifies that an area should have more than 250 naturally growing trees with a girth size of 15 cm or more per hectare (ha) to be regarded as forest. In case of a bamboo dominant patch, more than 100 naturally growing clumps should be present per ha. In case of mixed vegetation, the number changes to 150 trees and over 40 bamboo clumps. In December 1996, the Supreme Court had passed a landmark judgment, reinterpreting the definition of forest under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. The definition not only includes forests mentioned in government records but “all areas that are forests as per the dictionary meaning of the term irrespective of the nature of ownership and classification.” Going by the Oxford English Dictionary a forest is “a large area covered chiefly with trees and undergrowth”. There is no demarcation of area or number of trees in the dictionary meaning. The problem with Meghalaya is the dichotomy of forest ownership. The state government is vested with only roughly 4% of forests, the rest being under the jurisdiction of the District Councils. Both authorities however, assert their rights to give clearance for mining leases. In the process every rule is subverted to accommodate the interests of the mining lobby in Meghalaya.
Nothing much is done to conserve forests or to create new forests under compulsory afforestation programmes as mandated by the FC Act 1980. Meghalaya is quickly losing its forests. And plantations are not forests!
(Source: http://www.theshillongtimes.com/)