Redundant relief?

the recent Supreme Court (sc) judgement on tree felling in Andaman and Nicobar islands has triggered a controversy. The court, revising its May 7, 2002, order, allowed tree felling in the islands for six months to help repair and build houses for Tsunami disaster victims (see 'People first', Down To Earth, January 31, 2005). But it is being claimed that this relaxation is not required and the "politically motivated" move will merely benefit a few contractors with vested interests.

" sc has given the order considering the Tsunami devastation but I feel that the complete picture was not placed before it. As much as 230,000 cubic metres of forest is already there that could have been commercially utilised. So, I feel this relaxation is not required," reasons Sameer Acharya, secretary, Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology (sane), a local non-governmental organisation . The sc' s 2002 judgment had allowed limited tree felling, allocating some forest areas for the purpose, most of which are still unexploited and could have met the current demand, he explains.

But the islands' lone member of parliament Manoranjan Bhakta claims the relaxation is necessary for the rehabilitation work: "Rehabilitation is more important than any other thing at this moment. The sufferings of people is not important for some people but it really matters to me," he says. The sc order, however, still prohibits felling in areas up to 1,000 metres from the seashore, in national parks and sanctuaries and in the mangrove forests.

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.