Every human being has his arguments to justify whatever he does irrespective of whether his reasoning is sound and acceptable or if it stands careful scrutiny. The Forest Department officials in Kamalganj upazila of Moulvibazar did not also shy away from putting arguments in favour of their felling of a large number of trees, reportedly for freeing up forest land from illegal occupation. According to recent media reports, the forest officials felled about 1200 orange trees from an orchard that a local farmer had painstakingly nurtured for years.
The farmer alleged that the trees were cut in retaliation for his refusal to pay Tk 0.5 million in bribes to a forest official. The Forest Department has denied the allegation, saying that the operation was carried out solely to recover illegally occupied forest land. A government-formed probe committee is now investigating the incident.
There is no dispute that forest land must be protected from illegal occupation. Encroachment is a longstanding problem that deserves firm legal action. However, the manner in which the authorities handled this case raises serious questions. If the orchard had indeed been established illegally, why did the Forest Department remain silent all these years? The trees were planted eight years ago, nurtured over the years and had matured to bear fruit.
And then, all of a sudden, when the fruits were just three months away from being harvested, the authorities suddenly realised that it had become urgent to cut them down to save the forest. Their argument is difficult to accept, given their prolonged silence over the issue. Meanwhile, the farmer alleged that he had regularly paid bribes to forest officials to maintain the orchard. This time, however, he claimed he could not afford to pay because the demand had risen to such a staggering sum of half a million taka.
Even if the land had been occupied unlawfully, no law requires the destruction of mature trees. Once fully grown, the trees themselves become part of the country's forest resources. The authorities could have lawfully evicted the encroacher, taken possession of the orchard, preserved the trees and auctioned the fruit for the benefit of the state. Instead, they chose to destroy a valuable public asset, resulting in economic loss and unnecessary environmental damage.
The timing of the incident is particularly troubling. It comes as Prime Minister Tarique Rahman is leading a nationwide tree plantation campaign under the slogan "Plant Trees, Save Environment." While the government encourages citizens to plant more trees to combat climate change and environmental degradation, officials entrusted with protecting forests appear to be doing the opposite. Such contradictory actions undermine public confidence in government policies.
The destruction is also difficult to justify from an economic perspective as well. Bangladesh spends billions of taka annually importing foreign fruits. A marginal farmer who invested a huge sum by taking bank loan and toiled for years cultivating oranges, a fruit with growing domestic demand, should have been encouraged to contribute to local production, provided the land related matter was resolved through lawful means. By mowing down fruit-bearing trees, forest officials did a great disservice to the cause of forest and environmental conservation as well as to the nation's economic interests.
Moreover, Bangladesh, with just nine percent of its land covered by forests, is in dire need of afforestation. The Forest Department is expected to play a leading role in protecting and expanding the country's forest cover. However, any action driven by personal gain will not only undermine the department's credibility but also fail to protect the forests it is entrusted to conserve.
Forest Department officials have long been accused of acting as protectors turned predators, allowing the plundering of forest resources in exchange for bribes. The incident in Kamalganj may well be just the tip of the iceberg. However, the farmer in Kamalganj was not plundering any forest resources. Rather, in his pursuit of earning a livelihood, he was contributing to the national economy. If the farmer's allegation is true, the incident surfaced only because he refused or was unable to meet the alleged demand for a bribe. It is a stark reminder that as long as corruption persists within the bureaucracy, even the most well-intentioned government initiatives will never come to fruition.