SHILLONG: The State Forest Department recently held a workshop on the theme “Definition of Forests and Conflict Resolution in the context of Meghalaya.” This year is also the International Year of Forests. For decades, forest land in Meghalaya has been diverted for non-forest purposes, mainly for mining particularly in Jaintia Hills by flouting the Forest Conservation Act 1980. The question is why the need for a definition now? The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Lafarge Cements case where the apex court has accepted the dictionary meaning of forests and also the definition of forests by the indigenous tribal community, has forced the State Forest Department to take a call on the issue. The workshop is seen by many as a desperate attempt to justify the diversion of forest land through NOCs granted earlier, whereby all mature forests were classed as “non-forest” or “private forests” and evaded the applicability of the FC Act 1980. Earlier, the Supreme Court’s historic order on the Public Interest Litigation of TN Godavarman Vs Union of India (W.P 202 of 1995) clarified that the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to the dictionary meaning of the term irrespective of the nature of ownership and classification thereof including “deemed forest”. As a result, large areas under good forest cover which were outside the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came under the Act. In 1998, the court directed that working plans for all forest divisions shall be prepared by the state governments and approved by the central government. It was clarified that the term ‘State Government’ would also include District Councils constituted under Schedule VI of the Constitution of India. The seriousness of the matter was first highlighted by the Additional Principal C.C.F. Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India, North Eastern Regional Office, Shillong. His investigation started after several public complaints were received by the Office on clearing of large forest tracts for mining in Jaintia Hills. The report highlights that hundreds of hectares of land acquired by the project holders, mainly for cement plants had by-passed the compulsory procedure fixed for diversion of forest land for non forestry purposes as envisaged under FC, Act 1980. The report added that to avoid the FC, Act 1980 all such lands are first cleared of vegetation by the project proponents of cement plants and limestone mines, before formally acquiring the land from the community/clan/individual owner, village Dorbar. It is a clever ploy to evade the Forest Conservation Act and thereby facilitate the granting of NOCs by declaring all such land as “non-forest” land. NOC has mostly been issued by PCCF Meghalaya and/or the CEM JHADC. The report also mentions the “lukewarm” response to the letters sent by Addl. PCCF (Central), MoEF NER to Government of Meghalaya. The reply to above – an unsigned letter Dt May 4, 2010 by Conservator of Forest (M&E), O/o PCCF Meghalaya simply forwarded intra departmental correspondence without answering questions on the issues raised. The State Forest Department skirted the matter of enquiry into the violations and physical verification of facts on the ground. The letter from PHED also went along the same lines. The comments of Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) were enclosed without any clarification on recommendations issued under Environment (Protection) Act made by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) & State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC). Clearly both the Committees either never bothered to visit the plant/mine site or looked the other way. MoEF issued clearance based on recommendations of these two important bodies. Here the involvement of senior officials of MoEF cannot be ruled out. This emerges from the fact that although the three year term of both SEIAA & SEAC expired in July 2010, certain forces both at the State & Central level tried to delay reconstitution of these Committees to hush up the matter which came to light towards 2009 end. Dr. RC Laloo, the Forest Minister at the time, sensing foul play, forwarded a fresh set of names for empanelment to MoEF for immediate reconstitution. But the MoEF on some pretext or other kept the matter pending. The delay suited the project proponents and authorities responsible for giving NOC, followed by environment clearance. Forest officials confirmed that names of most members in earlier committees have been again recommended after Laloo’s departure. (To be continued)