J&K State is remarkable for its forest wealth. Ever since the birth of the State in 1846 in its present territorial geography, forests have always held the pride of place for more than one reason. The large variety of trees, dense forestry, spectacular flora and fauna, richness of soil and noticeable sanctuaries and open space for the wild life, all combined to make J&K forests most enviable natural wealth in the country. Consequently, the State formed well thought Forest Policy that encompassed all aspects of this natural source of wealth. Protection and conservation of vast forests in the Himalayan foothills, across the Pir Panchal, over the Shivalik extended forests and large number of smaller forest segments was the task entrusted to the fairly elaborate Forest Department organization with administrative hierarchy looking after it.
However, of late, unfortunately slackness has overtaken the Forest Department for reasons not known. As the importance of forests on national level became transparent in view of multifaceted developmental activities, which carried the necessity of felling forest trees for establishing industries and other infrastructure, the issue of having a National Forest Policy was taken up by the central authorities. Consequently, in 1988 National Forest Policy was adopted and some broad outlines for the preservation and conservation of forest wealth in the country were formulated. As a matter of fact, J&K State should have taken the lead in implementing the outlines of National Forest Policy because of her huge and rich forest wealth. That did not happen and the State slept over the matter for 23 years. It was only in 2011 that we got the J&K State Forest Policy as the future guidelines for administering Forest Department along the specific lines.
The curious thing about the vision document or what may be called State Forest Policy is that it remained only a document to decorate the office of the policy planners. On ground, there was no activity visible which would show that the guidelines are implemented in letter and spirit. The vision document laid enough stress on creating institutional mechanism that would monitor the implementation part of the Forest Policy. However, till date no such mechanism has been worked out. The basic objectives of the State Forest Policy were conservation of biodiversity and natural habitat through preservation of natural forests with the vast variety of flora and fauna, extending tree cover outside forests to reduce pressure on natural forests for supply of forest produce and reducing pressure on forests through appropriate interventions including development of forest fringe belt into high production tree strips etc. This notwithstanding, the report of the CAG points out that the Department has not paid any attention to the institutional mechanism and thus the basics of the Forest Policy declared in 2011 remain unfulfilled. The Committee on Public Accounts (PAC) of the Legislature took up the observation of the CAG with the Forest Department with particular reference to the institutional mechanism said Department has only vague and evasive reply. It is five years when the State Forest Policy was announced and it is two years that the CAG had urged the department to set up the institutional mechanism of monitoring. Yet despite lapse of so much of time and advice from the CAG, the Department is still nowhere close to fulfilling the task. Exasperated by the evasive reply of the Forest Department, the House Panel in the month of August last directed the Forest Department to constitute a departmental committee to look into delay in constitution of high powered institutional mechanism and submit the report within two months-by October 2015. It is surprising that the department has not even responded to this suggestion of the House Panel. Not only this, the Forest Department has not prepared working plans in all the 20 Territorial Divisions in the State despite being aware of the fact that such plans guide the officers about the works they are required to carry out. Though the department responded by saying that plans in 19 divisions out of 30 Territorial Divisions were already operational and the working plans of three Territorial Divisions were formulated and submitted to Government for approval while as working plan of one Territorial Division was under the process of submission for approval to the Government, the House Panel is not satisfied with this reply.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel