Nagpur: Even as the state-level committee (SLC) has failed to follow the ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC)’s order against the issue of 50 additional horizontal bandsaw (AHBS) licenses in toto, the MoEFCC and Maharashtra forest department’s own officials have found flaws in the timber report submitted recently by the Institute of Wood Science & Technology (IWST), Bengaluru.
As per Supreme Court orders, additional sawmill licenses are issued by the SLC based on the timber availability report, which the latter had requested IWST on June 15, 2017 to prepare. Even before the report came in, SLC, led by former principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF) UK Agrawal on July 23, 2018, issued 50 AHBS licences. This decision was rejected by the MoEFCC on October 30, 2020, and later by the state government.
The IWST report was discussed in the 19th SLC meeting but minutes of the meeting revealed that the MoEFCC representative and even PCCF (production & management) Praveen Srivastava raised objections to the report, which allegedly has many flaws. Interestingly, Srivastava was not invited to the meeting.
“The report speaks about consumption patterns and not about timber availability as told by the apex court. If you want to issue new sawmill licenses you need to assess timber availability in the entire state but no assessment was done,” said MoEFCC sources.
“Only existing sawmills were chosen randomly and consumption was extrapolated. It was supposed to be examined by an internal committee of top officials, which was not done. The report is completely flawed. We are not happy,” they added.
Srivastava had recommended not to accept the IWST report but his suggestion has been ignored. He had advised not to accept the information filled by the sawmill owners as the same has not been vetted by the field officers. The possibility of erroneous incorporation therein is not ruled out.
Besides, data of timber depot malki (ownership) fellings apparently seems not to have been verified by the depot officers concerned or the respective range forest officers. Therefore, the same may not be accepted just on their face value.
According to the PCCF (P & M), information from just 52% of the sawmills has been collected and extrapolated. It may not yield the correct result. The data collected from forest depots, sawmills, furniture shops, check posts, inter-state imports have the inherent possibility of duplication, his report said.
From the interaction with the CCFs (Pune, Dhule & Kolhapur) regarding forest timber, during the PCCF (P&M)’s visit to Pune during November 23-27, 2020, it was learnt that neither deputy CFs nor CCFs were aware of the findings of the aforementioned report.
Ideally, the data pertaining to divisions should have been confirmed by the respective officers. The IWST report is based on samples @2 sawmills per division and only 102 sawmills’ data have been analysed, which may not give the correct picture.
MoEFCC PICKS HOLES
* Methodology used to determine availability of timber for wood-based industries in future not discussed in detail
* Since major source for timber is trees outside forests (TOF), what methodology was followed to ascertain timber from TOF is unknown. Survey of sawmills to ascertain the same not proper
* Definition of TOF misunderstood while drafting report. Forest Survey of India not consulted
* SLC meeting on January 21 failed to discuss issue of initiating departmental action and contempt proceedings against UK Agrawal