A forest is replanted after minister is found to have illegally cleared it

This story is extremely encouraging. Around the world, large plantation companies often encourage small holders to clear the land and then buy it from them.

This area of deforested land was within a protected area, and should never have been cleared

The idea that this behaviour of getting other people to clear the land is permissible is insane. I personally would like countries to punish illegal clearance by always requiring full reforestation at the cost of the guilty party – this would likely end the scourge of illegal deforestation (then we must start working on so called legal deforestation)

So in this instance a top government minister (Rishad Bathiudeen) is having to pay the $5 million cost to reforest the Wilpattu forest complex. It was declared a protected forest reserve in 2012 but in 2013 settlement of people displaced by the civil war was approved. The area in question covers roughly 5 square miles (12 square km).

This area is unfortunately in the dry zone, and as such it will be hard to get a healthy forest to regrow in this place, and take time.

However, what is encouraging is the idea that the polluter pays principle. I hope that this principle is enshrined in law in many other countries. Palm oil companies are constantly deforesting land outside their areas “accidently”. If it became the case that they would have to pay to deal with the damage, it would likely quickly become too expensive to behave in this way. A similar policy in west Africa would be likely to be extraordinarily effective – Herakle farms cleared the land for their palm oil plantation in the Congo basin before they had permission (this was in a pristine part of the Congo rainforest, if companies could be fined hundreds of thousands or indeed millions to undo their environmental damage it will make these companies be far more careful. Think too of the oil spills in the Niger Delta.

To a certain extent, I believe that these companies should pay to undo the damage, but I think that a punitive additional amount should be added. If the cost of environmental damage is high enough, there will be a significant reduction in the number of firms who “accidentally” engage in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

See Animals Wild