Felling century old trees for charcoal a telling case of environment

The president issued a directive to executive directors and district commissioners to take action against wanton tree felling, while also cautioning that measures in that regard should be within bounds, both of the law as well as mindful of habit or customs in an area. It is a programme of change, and action for it.

The president blamed local government officials for allowing people to invade forests and clear some old trees often of unique species just for making charcoal, for the reason that issuing such permission enables the civic leaders to get votes where the time comes. He made a catching illustration of how a 20-year-old youth clears a 150-year-old tree for charcoal, that is, for the most lowly of reasons, whereas such a tree should be conserved at all costs. What that remark and case at issue suggests is that there is really no one taking care of forests, or aware of vital tree species.

Pointing out negative effects of indiscriminate tree felling, he alluded to Tabora region’s status as source of quality honey, noting that this capacity entirely depends on keeping the woodlands and habitats in place, as obviously bees will not settle in any tree but appropriate habitats. He similarly pointed at the drying rivers all over the country as a result of tree felling, a lamentable situation that until recently had not been recognised or action being taken as an emergency. Now things have changed, the public is more conscious but as the president noted, glaring gaps exist.

Assuming that the graphic illustration about a 20 year old youth felling a 150 year old tree of rare species or special quality, there is a clear situation where the civic leader or local government official who allows people (or this youth) to cut down trees in a nearby forest lacks awareness on what is found there. Only outside experts with prior knowledge of what tree species were found in an area would belatedly recognise that some rare species of trees as old as 150 years had been cut down. And when they inquire what happened, little is said of what it was cut for but charcoal.

What the president was suggesting in passing was that if the tree had been cut for some serious purpose that would be plausible, for instance if local carvers making tourism ornaments obtain the permit to cut that particular tree. That would also imply that village authorities are in a position to obtain substantial revenue when they issue permits in a selective and deliberate fashion for instance to cut one rare tree species for a good purpose. It would retain several trees. 

But when local governments are largely unfamiliar with what trees are found in the neighbourhood, and that applies to most villages in the country, and permits to fell trees are issued by the same ignorant local officials, who shall preserve tree species? This is a cry of alarm that has been sounded and it ought to be closely examined by environment agencies so set up offices at ward level to coordinate issuing of permits enabling updating of rare species inventory.