Punjab forest restoration plan misses the wood for the trees

Nearly 27,000 trees felled, auctioned when only eucalyptus, mesquite weed were to be removed in Patiala, Sangrur sanctuaries from 201517, but inquiry is awaited

CHANDIGARH: Three years after hundreds of trees were felled in two wildlife sanctuaries in Patiala and Sangrur under an officially approved restoration plan, Punjab forest department officials have begun looking into violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Under the scanner are two aspects of the restoration project. One, while the state wildlife board had permitted the removal of only eucalyptus and mesquite weed from Bir Mehas in Nabha and Bir Aishwan, fullygrown trees of other native species were among the 26,742 trees felled between 2015 and 2017.

In Punjab, Bir is a local forest designated as a wildlife sanctuary.

Secondly, the felled trees were auctioned and the money earned was not used for the needs of people living around both sanctuaries, which is contrary to provisions of the Act.

FORESTS PLOUGHED DOWN

The two-year restoration, sanctioned in 2015 by the state government and the board, aimed to clear the sanctuaries of eucalyptus and exotic species, particularly an undesirable weed, and planting local plants in their place as part of a long-term forest rejuvenation plan.

To buttress their allegations, forest officials cite the longdrafted management plans of the two sanctuaries that show Bir

Mehas had 63 plant species, including timber, medicinal, fruit and commercially valuable trees such as sheesham, neem, babool, mulberry, peepal and teak. As many as 4,067 trees of these species were allegedly among the 15,681 trees cut on the pretext of removing eucalyptus trees.

Likewise, Bir Aishwan, once thriving with 60 plant species, lost 11,061 trees, though the objective of restoration was to get rid of the weed.

“The original management plans for these Birs were not followed,” says a senior forest department official, requesting anonymity as he not authorised to speak to the media on this issue.

Principal chief conservator of forests Jatinder Sharma said he had visited Bir Mehas and was disappointed with the way the once lush forest trees were cut and replaced with new ones.

“I’m sure the state wildlife board was not apprised of these facts before it sanctioned the restoration,” he said

Sharma questioned his department’s decision to accept royalty of felled trees auctioned by the state forest development corporation. The accruals were not used for bona fide needs of people around these sanctuaries as per rules.

Official documents, seen by Hindustan Times, show that in 2015, the then conservator forests (parks and protected areas circle) wrote 18 letters to officials, putting on record the “illegal felling and destruction of wildlife habitat in the restoration work”.

The official objected to “the ploughing down of the forest area”.

WILDLIFE TAKES A HIT

Officials allege the restoration damaged wildlife, particularly in Bir Aishwan that has been known to support 32 species of wild animals, including blue bulls, sambar, porcupines and bird species.

Top officials are now looking into the alleged irregularities in the restoration project as highlighted in a string of official letters and the department’s responses to petitions under the Right to Information Act.

One of the letters, addressed to the special chief secretary says no permit was issued by the Punjab chief wildlife warden to remove full-grown trees.

However, Kuldeep Kumar, a former principal chief conservator of forests who executed the restoration, defends the project saying it was sanctioned by the state wildlife board.

“The Birs were freed of eucalyptus and exotic weed and rejuvenated by planting native trees. Forestry is a long-term enterprise and it has to be looked in 50-100 years’ timeframe,” said Kumar, who is now PCCF (wildlife). “Everything done was in the interest of wildlife.”

A section of forest department officials even question the timing of raking up the three-yearold restoration project, calling it “a part of internal politics”.

While Sharma was non-committal on a probe, Satish Chandra, additional chief secretary (forests), feigned ignorance.