TheGeographicalJournal, Vol. 162, No. 2,July 1996, pp. 169-178

Romancing colonial forestry: the discourse of 'forestry as progress' in British Burma RAYMOND L. BRYANT King'sCollege,University of London,Strand,LondonWC2R 2LS Thispaperwas acceptedfor publicationinJanuary1996 Recent research in political ecology highlights the central role played by the colonial state in tropical forest management, but little attention has been given as yet to the discursive representation of that role. This paper thus investigates the ways in which colonial foresters represented their work through books, articles and official reports. Using colonial Burma as a case study, the key elements of a discourse of 'forestry as progress' are delineated. In emphasizing the pre-eminence of teak extraction, forest revenue and forest conservation measures, however, colonial foresters failed to address in their writing other themes which would have called into question the 'progressive' image of colonial forestry. By way of illustration, the neglected dimension of political conflict between colonizer and colonized over forest management is briefly reviewed. Both the illegal 'everyday resistance' of peasants and the legal political opposition of Burmese politicians underscored that the colonial discourse of forestry as progress - in part or in whole was unacceptable to the vast majority of the Burmese population. Yet the attractiveness of this discourse to states in the tropics persists even today as foresters continue to extoll the 'non-political' commercialized nature of contemporary forestry as part of a broader attempt to counter growing popular opposition to state forest control. KEYWORDS:Burma,forestry,political ecology, discourse,colonial.

There is probablymore romancewrappedup in the historyof the greatteak forestsof Burma...thanin any other afforestedregionof similarsize in the world. Stebbing,1947:818

ROPICAL DEFORESTATION IS Cockbum, 1989; Boomgaard, 1992a; Miller, 1994). widely seen as one of the leading environ- In contrast, the colonial impact was generally later in mental problems of the 1990s (Park, 1992; Africa and Asia. If European rule in such places as Grainger, 1993). While the source of this environ- Java, St Helena and Mauritius provides early evimental problem has been linked to demographic fac- dence of colonial-inspired deforestation and even tors (e.g. Allen and Barnes, 1986), research in the rudimentary conservation initiatives (Boomgaard, emerging sub-discipline of political ecology has 1992b; Grove, 1993), it was not until the nineteenth emphasized the interplay of political, economic and century that political and economic changes on a ecology influences (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; wide scale occurred that would have a major impact Bryant, 1992; Peet and Watts, 1993). The ambiguous on how the forests of Asia and Africa were used and role played by the state in tropical deforestation is managed (Tucker and Richards, 1983; Dargavel et also highlighted in the political-ecology literature. al., 1988). In the process of altering patterns of tropiWhereas the state has the formal responsibility to cal forest use, however, colonial states prompted the protect the environment, in practice state policies growth of local popular resistance to the restrictions and practices have often been a major factor con- on forest access that were an integral part of comtributing to deforestation in the tropics (Hecht and mercial exploitation and selective forest conservation. Cockbum, 1989; Bryant et al., 1993; Grainger, 1993; The link between state forest control and popular Dauvergne, 1993/94; Pathak, 1994). Those policies resistance strategies has been a major theme in politiand practices are, in turn, often a legacy of colonial cal-ecology work on tropical forest management in rule. In Latin America the colonial impact was pro- colonial times (e.g. Guha, 1989; Peluso, 1992; nounced in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Bryant, 1996a). as the Spanish and Portuguese encouraged forest Less attention, however, has been devoted to the clearance for fuelwood and plantations (Hecht and ways in which colonial officials in general, and coloT

0016-7398/96/0002-0169/$00.20/0

? 1996 The Royal GeographicalSociety

170

ROMANCING COLONIALFORESTRY

nial foresters in particular, articulated their vision of tropical forest use and management. With the notable exception of such writers as Grove (1990, 1993), Guha (1990) and Jewitt (1995), the tendency in writing on colonial forest management has hitherto been to focus on the practices of colonial foresters rather than on the discursive representation of those practices. Yet, as Schmink and Wood (1987: 51) emphasize, 'ideas are never "innocent"... (but) either reinforce or challenge existing social and economic arrangements' (see also Blaikie, 1995). Accordingly, there is a need for an understanding of not only the ways in which colonial foresters conducted their work, but also the manner in which such work was summarized in official accounts. Specifically, such research needs to view forestry accounts as a type of discourse in which certain themes (commercial use, state forest control) were presented as the 'natural' focus of forest management, while other themes (subsistence use, local forest control) were marginalized. The following paper is a preliminary analysis of the discourse of colonial forestry in a Burmese context. It assesses how the work of colonial foresters in Burma's commercially-important teak forests was represented in official reports. The 'jewel in the crown' of the British-Indian forest estate, the teak forests of Burma were the focus of intense commercial exploitation, but also, as the opening quote illustrates, romantic representation. Yet these forests were 'romantic' in a very specific way. As summarized in diverse books, reports and articles, forestry in colonial Burma was all about 'progress', that is, the scientific long-term commercial development of the forest resource. In effect, a discourse was developed about colonial forestry in Burma that was centred on precisely this notion of progress. Yet, as with all discourses (Said, 1978; Watts, 1993;Jewitt, 1995), the discourse of forestry as progress was notable as much for the themes it marginalized as for those that it privileged. Themes marginalized in this manner included local forest use (including notably the role of women), indigenous forest management, and the role of political conflict in colonial forestry. The absence of any recognition of the politicized nature of colonial forestry from the discourse of forestry as progress was especially revealing. The impression given was that forestry was a 'technical' subject that was beyond the realm of politics, and thereby immune to political conflict. This discursive silence was, of course, understandable - to have acknowledged that Burma's forests were the focus of political conflict would have undermined the assumption of social harmony at the heart of that discourse. Yet an investigation of this discrepancy - between the discourse of forestry as progress on the one hand, and the politicized reality of colonial forestry on the other - is an especially fruitful avenue of inquiry pre-

cisely because it reveals much about power relations in the forestry sector in colonial Burma. The objective of this paper, then, is to consider this discrepancy. It does so in two stages. First, the discourse of forestry as progress is examined with reference to three measures of progress - teak extraction, forest revenue and forest conservation. In aggregate, these three measures summarized what was considered officially to be the most important aspects of a forester's work. However, they also represented an assertion about what was considered to be the best use of Burma's forests generally. Yet, as forestry accounts extolled the virtues of progress, they passed over the political conflict that in practice characterized the system. Such conflict was in part a reflection of inter-bureaucratic differences over policy questions - for example, differences between forestry and civil (agricultural) officials over whether to convert forest to permanent agriculture or to retain it for long-term commercial timber production (discussed fully in Bryant 1996a; in the Indian context, see also Gilmartin, 1994, andJewitt, 1995). Above all, however, political conflict was associated with Burmese opposition to a system designed to meet imperial needs. Selected examples of Burmese resistance to colonial forestry are thus used in the second part of the paper to illustrate that, if the Burmese were scarcely unified in their opposition to colonial forestry, they nevertheless shared the view that Burma's forests were not being managed in the 'best interests' of the Burmese people. as ~progress' Forestry That colonial foresters in Burma explained their work in terms of a discourse of forestry as 'progress' was very much a reflection of the times in which they lived. Progress was an idea that was central to understanding how Europeans sought to rationalize their conquest of much of the Third World, particularly in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Adas, 1989). Progress was all about the application of Western science and technology to selected subjects - agriculture, forestry, communications, transport, etc. - in order to increase economic prosperity for, so it was claimed, colonizer and colonized alike. In so far as it was allegedly about the promotion of local (as distinct from colonial) social and economic wellbeing, progress had a moral overtone - it promised to introduce the benefits of Western civilization to the 'less privileged' peoples of the Third World. However, progress was also associated more narrowly with the elaboration of the state - its functional diversification from about the mid-nineteenth century. The colonial state in Burma (as elsewhere) not only grew in absolute size, but also asserted control over an ever-widening range of human activities (Taylor, 1987). From the viewpoint of the state and its officials, this process was summa-

ROMANCING COLONIAL FORESTRY

rized in one word: progress. Progress thus had political-administrative, as well as cultural, significance. Burma's colonial foresters, then, operated in a context in which progress was the central goal. But what constituted progress in the eyes of Burma's colonial foresters? Three broad measures of progress are discussed here: teak extraction, forest revenue and forest conservation. If, as will be noted, these three measures were not always in accord - viz the generation of revenue from the forests and conservation initiatives - they were nevertheless the key indices by which progress was measured by the colonial state. Throughout the colonial era, official attention centred on teak extraction mainly for export from Burma to India and England. Teak was widely used as a substitute for oak by the British in the construction of naval vessels, and accordingly was a timber of considerable commercial and strategic value (Albion, 1926). Teak extraction was originally a major imperial concern in south-western India in the early nineteenth century, but pervasive overcutting resulted in the rapid depletion of teak in this region (Rangarajan, 1994). Subsequently, the British were anxious upon acquiring control over Burma's forests to expand teak production in this part of the BritishIndian empire. Data on teak extraction illustrate that a general upward trend was the norm: from 62 918 tons per annum in 1869-74, climbing to 216 504 tons per annum during 1899-1904; before reaching a peak of 509 935 tons per annum in 1919-24 (Morehead, 1944). Given the export-oriented nature of teak production in Burma, teak exports followed a similar upward pattern: from 161 000 tons per annum in 1886-90, reaching 199 000 tons per annum in 1896-1900, before rising to nearly 230 000 tons per annum in 1926-30 (Shein, 1964; Morehead, 1944). These upward trends in teak production and exports were periodically interrupted due to war, poor rains (which affected the transportation of logs as this was done mainly by river in colonial times) and economic recession. The overall picture, however, is one of expansion as foresters sought to increase teak production and exports commensurate with long-term harvesting (see below). Progress with regard to teak extraction, then, was associated with rising production and export levels that fed the British empire's seemingly insatiable appetite for this timber. However, the expansion in teak extraction was not indiscriminate. Rather, it required a good deal of planning by forest officials under a management system known as scientific forestry. First introduced in Pegu in 1856 by the German botanist-turned-forester Dietrich Brandis, scientific forestry was imported from Germany in order to facilitate state control of the extraction process (Brandis, 1897; Heske, 1938; Winters, 1974). Prior to 1856 in British Burma, teak

171

sitesof teakextraction in colonialBurma Fig. 1. Principal

extraction occurred under laissez-faireconditions such that the teak forests of Tenasserim were all but depleted of merchantable timber by private firms operating out of the lumber town of Moulmein in only 30 years (Fig. 1). With its promise to bring extraction into line with regeneration, scientific forestry was designed to stop such destruction (Bryant, 1994c). Thus, the attempt to render teak extraction 'scientific' was a central element in the achievement of progress.

172

COLONIALFORESTRY ROMANCING

There were various components to the scientific extraction of teak. First, there was the girdling or killing of teak two to three years in advance of felling. As green teak did not float (and as most teak needed to be transported by river), this step was an essential part of the extraction process. Moreover, when the work of extracting and processing the timber was in private hands, as it often was during the colonial era (Diokno, 1983; Bryant, 1996a), girdling was an important means by which foresters could monitor teak out-turn. Second, there was need of an accurate understanding of the incidence of teak in the forest. This prompted an extensive mapping exercise based on the linear valuation survey (a method pioneered by Brandis in which trees were counted along certain lines such as roads, ridges or streams).In the Burmese setting, where difficult terrain combined with a low incidence of teak, this was a time-consuming process. Finally, the scientific extraction of teak was predicated on the elaboration of detailed working plans specifying the sequence of harvesting to be conducted over several years in a given area. By the 1930s, a typical plan for a forest division could run to several hundred pages, and was structured in keeping with a standardized working plan manual (Burma Forest Department, 1938). Thus, progress was measured not only in terms of the number of teak trees extracted, but also in terms of the conformity of extraction to scientific criterion. Progress was as much about tree counting and mapping as it was about tree felling. A second measure of progress concerned forest revenue. Three-quarters of the total revenue of the colonial forest service in Burma was derived from teak extraction (indeed, Burma forest revenue largely derived from teak constituted more than 40 per cent of the total forest revenue of British-India in 1901, see Government of India, 1908). Conversely, only a nominal amount was earned from the extraction of non-teak timber species. With the exception of the Great Depression of the 1930s, increased teak extraction was translated into a larger financial surplus for the colonial exchequer. Thus, an annual average surplus of 491 451 Indian rupees (Rs) in 1869-74, swelled to Rs 4 551 148 per annum in 1899-1904, before reaching an unprecedented Rs 12 321 289 per annum in 1924-9 (Morehead, 1944). Forest officials were constantly under pressure from senior government officials in Rangoon, Delhi and London to maximize this surplus. If unending requests for cash from these quarters to meet general state expenditures were resented by a department that itself frequently suffered from a shortage of funds (Nisbet, 1901), there was nevertheless a general recognition on the part of colonial foresters that Burma's forests should be a 'paying' proposition (Brandis, 1895; Morehead, 1944). Indeed, the scientific forestry which all foresters espoused was predicated on large-scale commercial timber extraction

with adequate remuneration to the state as landowner. What was the point, after all, of devising complex and costly techniques of teak extraction and regeneration if not to satisfy the international demand for wood and the state's right to an income from its forest lands? At its most basic level, then, progress in forest management was about the expansion of teak production to increase the financial return to the colonial state. A third measure of progress related to the issue of forest conservation. If the other two measures of progress were bound up with the satisfaction of imperial timber-sourcing and revenue-generation objectives, then progress in forest conservation was about the steps that were to be taken to ensure that these other concerns did not result in forest degradation. In contemporary parlance, forest conservation was about the sustainable development of the forest resource. But, it needs to be emphasized that colonial foresters were only concerned with a small fraction of the forest resource - namely, teak as well as a few other species (such as padaukand pyinkado) located primarily in tropical rain forest, tropical moist forest or tropical dry deciduous forest that were of commercial and strategic value to the British empire (Fig. 2). Progress in forest conservation in British Burma (as in British India as a whole, see Guha, 1989) was thus a highly selective process. Moreover, the quest to maximize teak extraction and revenue at times conflicted with the aims of conservation. There were several aspects to the measurement of progress in forest conservation. First and foremost, progress was equated with the assertion of the state's proprietary rights over forest lands. Drawing selectively and self-servinglyupon pre-colonial indigenous tradition, the colonial state took up with great vigour the royal prerogative to the control of the teak tree and to forest lands not cleared for agriculture (Baden-Powell, 1882; Guha, 1990). According to B.H. Baden-Powell (a leading figure in the forestland enclosure campaign in both colonial India and Burma), there were 'no such things as forest rights, properly so called, held by individuals or communities over any forests in British Burma'; rather, the state was the 'unrestricted owner' of the forest and all that it contained (Baden-Powell, 1873: 50). That, in doing so, the state violated the claims of peasants to forest access is considered in the next section. What is important to note here is that forest conservation was seen by colonial foresters to be a process of intensive land management that was predicated on the demarcation of the commercially valuable forest lands as state reserved forests. Thus, not only was forest conservation considered to be an activity that was deemed a state prerogative (thereby denying alternative community-based forest management strategies),it also entailed and justified - the spatial extension of state forest control.

ROMANCINGCOLONIALFORESTRY

173

1939-40). The forest department was thus a leading land manager in Burma (as it was in colonial India where the forest department controlled over 20 per cent of the total land area by 1900, see Guha and Gadgil, 1989), and it enjoyed a wide remit to conserve the forests. Progress here was the extent to which that remit coincided with the country's commercially valuable forest estate. However, the demarcation of reserved forests was only a preliminary step in forest conservation work. Once an area was formally sanctioned as a reserved forest, foresters set about the complex task of enhancing the long-term commercial value of the forests in question. There were two elements to this endeavour. First, these officials sought to protect the existing forest cover from both natural and human hazard. For many years, this involved an attempt to exclude fire from the forests in the belief that fire was detrimental to the development of the teak tree (e.g. Baden-Powell, 1873; Nisbet, 1901). This involved the restriction, if not elimination altogether of selected indigenous activities (e.g. cattle grazing, honey collection) from the teak forests. The area over which the exclusion of fire was attempted grew rapidly from only 132 square miles in 1878 to a high of 7526 square miles in 1908 (RFA, 1877-8; RFA, 1907-8). Although the protected area varied annually, foresters could point to considerable overall 'progress' in the results as a large area of reserved forest was successfully brought under the fire-protection programme. Progress, at least prior to the turn of the century, was seen to be the successful exclusion of fire. Yet even as the new century began, opinion within forestry circles was already shifting as it was belatedly recognized that fire, rather than hindering the development of teak, actually helped it to survive (Slade, 1896; Carter, 1904; Troup, 1905). After much internal debate, the fire-protection programme (with the exception of young teak plantations) was wound up after the First World War. Progress, it seemed after all, was trickier to define than had been previously thought. A second way in which the long-term commercial value of the forest was to be enhanced was through regeneration. In many cases, such work was nothing more nor less than the clearance of vegetation that hindered the development of the teak tree. Fig. 2. Forestregions ofBurma Source: Improvement fellings were designed to manipulate Davis, 1960 the vegetation cover in such a way as to maximize optimal growing conditions (i.e. light) for favoured For these reasons, the area set aside as reserved species (Nisbet, 1899). Progress here was noted in forest climbed steadily during the colonial era. From terms of climbers cut, and competitor species felled. only 2288 square miles in 1881, the reserved area More intensive regeneration centred on the crehad reached 17 836 square miles in 1901, and ation of timber plantations. Experimental teak planencompassed 31 637 square miles in 1940 or nearly tations were established on a small scale from the one-fifth of a total administered land area of 170 000 1840s, but it was only after 1868 that this work really of British took-off. From under 100 acres planted near the square miles (Reporton theForestAdministration Burma [hereafter RFA], 1880-1; 1900-1901; town of Prome in 1868-9, the area planted with teak

174

ROMANCINGCOLONIALFORESTRY

climbed to 42 059 acres in 1896 before peaking at an estimated 115 350 acres in 1934 (RFA, 1868-9; 1895-6; 1933-4). Crucial to this growth in the planted area was a method of plantation forestry known as taungyaforestry. This method was predicated on the cooperation of Karen shifting cultivators who, in return for financial remuneration and the right to designated lands for their personal use, agreed to plant and tend teak in their hill clearings or taungya.The cultivators would then move on to a different plot repeating the process as they went. In doing so, they left in their wake teak plantations which in 100 or more years would reach commercial maturation. This system of land management resulted in sporadic conflict between foresters and shifting cultivators who felt that their itinerant lifestyle would ultimately be jeopardized as the planted area was increased (Bryant, 1994a). But from the foresters' viewpoint, progress in forest conservation was defined in terms of acres successfully planted. That colonial foresters were dedicated to the propagation of teak plantations, the financial return from which would probably not be realized in their lifetime, was a source of particular pride to these men (and they were all men). In their eyes, it was a vivid demonstration of their commitment to ensuring a future for Burma's valuable teak forests. Yet the planting programme was effectively terminated in the mid-1930s in the context of massive cuts in government spending as a result of the Great Depression - a source of much regret amongst many foresters (Kermode, 1946). Writing in December, 1947 on the eve of Burmese independence, the eminent colonial forester and forest historian E.P. Stebbing (1947: 820) congratulated the colonial forest service for having done 'a magnificent work for Burma' and for having left 'a great heritage to the Burmans'. According to the accounts of colonial foresters, the country's tropical forests had been managed sensibly, and much progress had been made. But the discourse of forestry as progress is as interesting for what it omits as for what it includes. Thepoliticsof 'progress' To describe forestry as progress immediately begs the question 'progress for whom'? Colonial foresters believed their work to be for the good of the country - they were 'stewards' entrusted with the long-term maintenance of Burma's forest wealth. However, this stewardship role was contested by Burmese peasants, shifting cultivators, timber traders and politicians. Forestry was an integral feature of colonial politics, however much foresters may have sought to portray it otherwise. There were two principal ways in which the Burmese contested colonial forestry, and by extension the discourse of forestry as progress propounded by colonial foresters. The first way relates to those

activities that were dubbed forest 'crime' by the state. Such crime involved peasants and shifting cultivators utilizing what Scott (1985) terms 'everyday' forms of resistance: resistance that is covert, often individual and ubiquitous, but which poses nonetheless a potentially serious challenge to the political and economic status quo. The seriousness with which the colonial state viewed everyday resistance is indicated by its maintenance of extensive records on such offences. Peasant resistance was centred on the question of the limitation of popular access to reserved forests. Villagers required access to these forests to obtain timber for housing, wood for fuel, bamboo for mats, fences and fishing traps, and a wide range of other forest products for dyes, medicines, fruit and intoxicants (Nisbet, 1901; Shway Yoe, 1989[1882]). The colonial state's reservation policy undermined this link between people and forest. In the case of villagers not living adjacent to reserves, free access to the forests was completely denied; dependence on the market for these goods was the inescapable result (Scott, 1976). However, even for those who lived next to a reserve, access was limited. Thus, official forest settlements specified which individuals could extract produce, how much they could extract of various forest products, and the time period over which they could do so (Nisbet, 1901). The popular response to these measures included diverse clandestine activities - the theft of forest produce and the illegal grazing of cattle, for example. During the early twentieth century, rising population densities combined with growing peasant landlessness to make the problem of theft in the Irrawaddy delta south of the town of Tharrawaddy particularly acute (Fig. 1). Villagers used boats to penetrate reserves taking advantage of the numerous streams to escape detection; in one instance, a 'fair-sized' village of fuelwood cutters was discovered inside a reserve (RFA, 1918-9: 22). In 1919-20 alone, 250 000 tons of kanazo(a tree used for fuel) valued at 250 000 rupees was illegally extracted from the Delta reserves (RFA, 1919-20). Foresters estimated that at least 75 per cent of timber, and 50 per cent of fuel, was harvested in this manner (RFA, 1918-9; Moodie, 1924). The all pervasiveness of theft led one forester to lament that villagers 'preferred to steal' what they required rather than go through the official process (RFA, 1933-4). Similarly, peasants grazed cattle in reserves in defiance of the regulations. In order to prevent damage to young trees, foresters imposed user fees in some reserves, and denied access altogether in other reserves (RFA, 1897-8; 1903-4). The response was widespread resistance to the law. In one instance, for example, a reserve in Pegu district, in 1907, was found to contain 26 cattle camps with 600 head of cattle (RFA, 1907-8). As one civil official commented, it was rules such as these that made forest

ROMANCING COLONIAL FORESTRY

officials 'so thoroughly unpopular with the people' (RFA, 1897-8: cxvix). As a result of these, and other activities, overall forest crime increased dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From a total of 1386 cases in 1889, breaches of the forest law rose to 4629 cases in 1915 before soaring to an unprecedented 10 701 cases in 1930 (RFA, 1888-9; 1914-5; 1929-30). However, these reported cases were only a fraction of the real number of breaches of the forest law. The number of undetected cases ran 'into the thousands' because foresters did not record a case unless the identity of the offender was at least suspected (RFA, 1908-9: 5). Not only were the number of forest offences increasing; they were also becoming more serious. Thus, teak-related incidents increased as peasants challenged the very essence of colonial forest policy. There was, in the words of Burma's chief forester, a 'lessening respect for teak as a royal tree' (RFA, 1925-6: 21). Even worse, junior Burmese foresters were attacked - and a few even killed - while on forest patrol (RFA, 1924-5; 1925-6). Yet colonial foresters continued to speak stoically of progress in the management of Burma's forests, and dismissed such incidents as the isolated behaviour of criminals. What these foresters refused to acknowledge was that such resistance represented a colossal vote of no confidence in the system of colonial forest management. What was defined as progress by colonial foresters was seen as a major source of deprivation and conflict by the Burmese peasantry at whose expense the system was imposed. A second way in which the discourse of forestry as progress was contested was associated with those Burmese politicians who participated in the legal political process following the constitutional reforms of 1923. In the Legislative Council, before official committees and in public meetings, Burmese politicians attacked colonial forestry policy, notably with reference to the exclusion of Burmese timber traders from the most lucrative teak leases. Unlike the illegal resistance of the peasantry, such resistance did not seek the abolition of the colonial system of forest management. Yet the activities of Burmese politicians illustrates the important point that opposition to the colonial state in Burma was expressed both through illegal and legal means. The British introduced limited self-rule (dyarchy) in January 1923 (and extended it in April 1937) as part of an attempt to accommodate moderate Burmese nationalist demands. As a subject transferred formally to Burmese ministerial control in 1923, forests were the focus of sustained critical attention by Burmese politicians throughout the inter-war period (Bryant, 1994b). Most of these politicians came from the small Burmese middle class that emerged in the nineteenth century. In the case

175

of Shwegyin U Pu (Premier of Burma in 1939-40) and U Chit Hlaing (the leading nationalist of the 1920s), family wealth was derived in part from the timber trade (Taylor, 1987). If this middle class owed its relative affluence to economic activities facilitated by the British, many of its members were nevertheless highly critical of selected aspects of colonial rule. One of the main bones of contention centred on Burmese participation in the teak trade. Openly challenging the official account of progress propounded by colonial foresters, Burmese politicians questioned the justice of a system in which a few European firms controlled the most lucrative sector of the nation's forest industry. Indeed, the contrast in the positions of the European and Burmese firms in the teak industry could not have been greater. In 1925, the five principal European firms (led by the mighty Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation) held 28 leases covering an area of 56 926 square miles, whereas Burmese firms held 15 leases comprising only 1614 square miles (BurmaLegislativeCouncilProceedings[hereafter BLCP], 10 March 1925). Between 1919 and 1924, the European firms extracted 381 797 tons per annum or about 75 per cent of total annual teak production. In contrast, Burmese firms during the same period extracted 23 119 tons per annum, less than five per cent of total annual production (Blandford, 1936). Extraction by the forest department represented 20 per cent of total annual production between 1919 and 1924, but subsequently fell to 11 per cent in 1928 (Blandford, 1936). During the early twentieth century in particular, teak extraction was virtually synonymous with extraction by the five main European timber firms. Colonial foresters viewed this process as being an inevitable part of progress in Burma's maturing forest industry - only the large European firms, they believed, had the experience and capital to do the job effectively (Blandford, 1936; Morehead 1944). From the perspective of the small Burmese firms struggling to survive, however, this account was a gross distortion of reality. The European firms had prospered not as a result of the superior talent of the firms in question, but rather as an outcome of political connections. Through debates in the Legislative Council, and before official enquiries, Burmese politicians fought against what they considered to be systematic discrimination against Burmese firms by the colonial state - discrimination which embraced the duration, location and security of tenure of leases, the method by which royalties were paid, the treatment of lease violations, and royalty rebates during economic recessions (Diokno, 1983; Aung Tun Thet, 1989; Bryant, 1994b). To take but one example, Burmese members of the Legislative Council drew attention to the fact that while the government had granted to the European firms a 30 per cent

176

ROMANCING COLONIAL FORESTRY

rebate on their royalties on 1July 1933 in consideration of the Great Depression, Burmese firms were denied an equivalent reduction (BLCP, 9 February 1933; 2 March 1935). It was not surprising, therefore, that Burmese who had once been 'very much engaged' in the timber business were by the 1930s becoming increasingly peripheral as the direct result of such discrimination. As the timber trader and politician U Thin Maung charged in 1935, this trend had much to do with the fact that 'the larger firms are quite able to make their points of view heard (by government), but the local traders are not and their opinions are often ignored' (BLCP, 4 March 1935: 404). Burmese politicians thus kept up the pressure on the government to change forest policies in favour of Burmese timber traders. Notwithstanding these efforts, Burmese politicians failed to alter colonial policy on the teak leases. However, in the context of the present paper what is significant is not whether this resistance succeeded or not, but that it existed at all. The campaign by Burmese politicians to modify the teak leases was reformist in character. Thus, in contrast to the struggle of the peasantry to circumvent the access restrictions at the heart of colonial forestry, the transformation of the entire colonial forestry system was not the goal of Burmese politicians. Yet, in mounting their campaign against the colonial state, Burmese politicians were nevertheless challenging selected aspects of the discourse of forestry as progress. Thus, while they accepted the pre-eminence of commercial (as distinct from subsistence) timber extraction in the management of Burma's forests, Burmese politicians contested that element of the discourse which favoured the large 'efficient' European timber firms over their smaller 'less efficient' Burmese counterparts. Although the interests, actors, mode and extent of resistance thus varied, the general grievance was similar - Burma's forests were not being managed in the 'best' interests of the Burmese. What those interests were, and who was to define them, was still the subject of debate amongst the Burmese at the time of the Japanese invasion. What was clear, however, was that the colonial discourse of forestry as progress did not square with the perceptions of a large proportion of the Burmese population. Progress was, indeed, in the eye of the colonial beholder. Conclusion This paper has explored in a preliminary fashion the ways in which colonial foresters represented their work in Burma through a discourse of forestry as progress. Further, it used selected examples of Burmese resistance to colonial forestry to highlight the discrepancy between this discourse and the reality of a politicized system of forest management. If

colonial foresters perceived their role as being that of non-political 'stewards' of the country's forests, and celebrated that role in their accounts of forestry as progress, then the actions of peasants and politicians alike illustrated that this view was not shared generally by the Burmese population. Notwithstanding the contested nature of the colonial discourse of forestry as progress, the Burmese state even today finds it useful to explain and justify forestry practices in a similar manner. Thus, the preeminence of large-scale commercial teak extraction over other forest uses remains the official preoccupation, and, as the annual reports emphasize, teak production in recent years is comparable to the levels achieved in colonial times (Union of Myanmar, 1989, 1994). Similarly, and again expressed forcefully in offical reports, the state's interest in expanding forest revenue is strong. Indeed, since the advent of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) in September 1988, this interest has strengthened as the regime emphasizes natural resource extraction to make up for the loss of foreign assistance (due to human rights violations) that occurred after 1988 (Smith, 1991). In terms of forest conservation, forest officials devote much space in descriptions of their work to the pursuit of a largescale programme of reforestation with particular attention given to plantations of teak and other commercial timbers (e.g. Union of Myanmar, 1989). In aggregate, the themes of teak extraction, revenue generation and selective forest conservation thus remain central in forestry reports in a manner quite similar to the colonial period. Not surprisingly as well, this discourse once again neglects the politicized nature of forestry in contemporary Burma. As during the colonial era, resistance to state forest control is widespread, but is most evident along the ThaiBurmese border where Karen and Mon insurgents are fighting a protracted war with the Burmese army (Smith, 1994; Bryant, 1996b). The discourse of forestry as progress is not confined to Burma. The imperial quest to reorganize forest use in terms of large-scale commercial timber extraction, revenue generation and selective forest conservation - and to explain and justify such a massive reorganization in terms of progress - took place concurrently in many parts of South and South East Asia. In Dutch-controlled Java and British India, for example, this quest was reflected notably in the extensive creation of state reserved forests, the protection of key commercial species (e.g. teak in Java, sal and deodar in India), the push to maximize revenue from commercial forests, and the limitation of popular forest access - all documented in official reports as 'progress' (Guha, 1989; Peluso, 1992). As in Burma, this quest has continued in the post-colonial era, but if the record on forest conservation has been less successful than was the case in colonial

ROMANCING COLONIAL FORESTRY

times, political conflict nonetheless remains a central feature of forestry management in both India and Indonesia (Gadgil and Guha, 1992; Peluso, 1992). Although terms such as 'social forestry' and 'sustainability' are now used, foresters in the Third World generally today are caught up in the same commercially-driven discourse of forestry as progress as were their colonial predecessors (e.g. Mok, 1992). In part, this situation reflects the continued influence of First World countries in the Third World. Through bilateral Aid, trade and educational relations, as well as through the activities of such FirstWorld-controlled international institutions as the World Bank and the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation, the First World continues to influence forestry in the Third World (Westoby, 1987; Grainger, 1993). But the discourse of forestry as progress is also admirably suited to legitimating the goals of political control and economic development pursued by Third World states - thus indicating a powerful source of support for this discourse in the Third World itself. Today, as during the colonial era, peasants resist the restrictions on forest access

177

imposed in the name of scientific forestry. Foresters fight forest 'crime', and peasants assert forest 'rights' in a seemingly never-ending political contest. And, if the ability of the state to coerce peasants has increased in modern times, so too has the ability of peasants to fight back - often in conjunction with national and international non-governmental organizations, and against the backdrop of international media coverage (e.g. Broad, 1993; Colchester, 1994). In the process, the discourse of forestry as progress still espoused notably at international forestry conferences - is contested by a variety of groups at the local, national and international levels (Ekins, 1992). Whether 'progress' in the management of tropical forests is desirable or not is therefore a moot point. Rather, it is who will define, implement, and ultimately benefit from, such progress. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Professor Philip Stott and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments, as well as Gordon Reynell for assistance with the two Figures.

REFERENCES Adas, M. 1983 Colonization, commercial agriculture,and the Broad, R. with Cavanagh,J. 1993 Plundering paradise:thestruggle destructionof the deltaic rainforestsof BritishBurma in the in the Philippines.Berkeley: University of for the environment late nineteenth century. In Tucker, R.P. and Richards,J.F. CaliforniaPress. and the nineteenth-century worldeconomy. Bryant, R.L. 1992 Political ecology: an emerging research (eds) Globaldeforestation Durham: Duke UniversityPress. agenda in Third-Worldstudies.Polit.Geogr.11(1): 12-36. andide- -, 1994a Shifting the cultivator:the politics of teak regeneraof men:science,technology, -, 1989. Machinesas themeasure dominance. Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress. tion in colonial Burma.Mod.AsianStud.28(2): 225-50. ologiesof Western Albion, R.G. 1926 Forestsandseapower:thetimber problemof the -, 1994b Fighting over the forests: political reform, peasant resistance and the transformationof forest management in Royal Navy, 1652-1862. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard late colonial Burma.J. Commonw. UniversityPress. Comp.Polit.32(2): 244-60. Allen, J.C. and Barnes, D.F. 1986 The causes of deforestation -, 1994c From laissez-faireto scientific forestry:forest manin developing countries.Ann.Ass.Am. Geogr.75: 163-84. Hist. agement in early colonial Burma 1826-85. For.Conserv. creative in Aung Tun Thet, 1989 Burmese entrepreneurship: response 38(4): 160-70. thecolonialeconomy. Stuttgart:Steiner-VerlagWeisbaden. , 1996a (forthcoming)Thepoliticalecologyofforestryin Burma, system Calcutta: 1824-1994. London: C. Hurst. Baden-Powell,B.H. 1873 Theforest ofBritishBurmna. Superintendentof GovernmentPrintingand Stationery. , 1996b (in press) Asserting sovereignty through resource for forest officers.Calcutta: , 1882. A manualof jurisprudence exploitation: Karen forest management on the ThaiBurmese border. In Howitt, R., Connell,J. and Hirsch, P. Superintendentof GovernmentPrintingand Stationery. Blaikie, P. 1995 Changing environmentsor changing views? A nationsandindigenous (eds)Resources, peoples.Sydney:O.U.P. political ecology for developing countries. Geography 80(3): Bryant,R.L., Rigg,J. and Stott, P. 1993 Foresttransformations 203-14. and political ecology in Southeast Asia. GlobalEcol.Biogeogr. andsociety. Letters Blaikie, P. and Brookfield,H. 1987 Landdegradation 3(4-6): 101-11. London:Methuen. Burma Forest Department, 1938 Working plans manualBurma, third edition. Rangoon: Superintendent of Government Blandford, H.R. 1936 Distribution of teak forests. Note prepared for the Government of Burma, MSS Eur. D., India Printingand Stationery. Office Libraryand Records, London. Burma LegislativeCouncilProceedings(BLCP), various years. Boomgaard, P. 1992a Exploitation and management of the Rangoon: Superintendent of Government Printing and Surinamforests 1600-1975. In Steen, H.K. and Tucker,R.P. Stationery. ontoday's tropical challenges Carter, H. 1904 Fire protection in the teak forests of Burma. (eds)Changing forests:historical perspectives in Central andSouthAmerica. Durham:ForestHistorySociety. IndianForester 30(8): 363-6. -, 1992b Forest management and exploitation in colonial Colchester, M. 1994 Sustaining the forests: the communityHist. 36(1): 4-14. based approach in South and South-east Asia. Dev. Change Java, 1677-1897. For.Conserv. Brandis,D. 1895 The Burma teak forests.GdnFor.9: 1-32. 25(1): 69-100. Woking:Oriental UniversityInstitute. -, 1897 Indianforestry. Dargavel, J., Dixon, K. and Semple, N. (eds) 1988 Changing

178

ROMANCING COLONIAL FORESTRY

in Asia, on today'schallenges forests:historical perspectives tropical Australia,and Oceania.Canberra: Centre for Resource and EnvironmentalStudies,AustralianNational University. Dauvergne, P. 1993/94 The politics of deforestation in Indonesia.Pacif.Affairs66(4): 497-518. Davis, J.H. 1960 Theforestsof Burma.Gainesville:Universityof Florida. Diokno, M.S.I. 1983 Britishfirms and the economy of Burma, with special reference to the rice and teak industries, 1917-1937. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London. movements Ekins, P. 1992 A new worldorder:grassroots for global change.London:Routledge. land:an ecological hisGadgil, M. and Guha, R. 1992 Thisfissured toryofIndia.Delhi: O.U.P. Gilmartin, D. 1994 Scientific empire and imperial science: colonialism and irrigationtechnology in the Indus basin. 7. AsianStud.53(4): 1127-49. Government of India, 1908 Imperial of India:theIndian gazetteer Oxford:ClarendonPress. Empire,vol.III: economic. London: Grainger, A. 1993 Controllingtropicaldeforestation. Earthscan. Grove, R.H. 1990 Colonial conservation,ecological hegemony and popular resistance: towards a global synthesis. In MacKenzie, J.M. (ed.) Imperialismand the naturalworld. Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress. 1993 Conserving Eden: the (European) East India -, Companies and their environmentalpolicies on St Helena, Mauritiusand in Western India, 1660 to 1854. Comp.Stud. Soc.Hist.35(2): 318-51. woods:ecological Guha, R. 1989 Theunquiet changeandpeasantresistancein theHimalaya.Delhi: O.U.P. , 1990 An early environmental debate: the making of the 1878 ForestAct. IndianEcon.Soc.Hist.Rev.27(1): 65-84. Guha, R. and Gadgil, M. 1989 State forestryand social conflict in BritishIndia. PastandPresent123:141-77. Hecht, S. and Cockbum, A. 1989 Thefate of theforest.London: Verso. Heske, F. 1938 German forestry.New Haven: Yale University Press. Hirsch, P. 1990 Forests, forest reserve, and forest land in Thailand. Geogrlj.156(2): 166-74. Jewitt, S. 1995 Europe's 'others'?Forestrypolicy and practices in colonial and postcolonial India. Environ.Plann.D: Society andSpace13: 67-90. Kermode, C.W.D. 1946 Natural and artificialregenerationof 72: 15-21. teak in Burma.IndianForester Miller, S.W. 1994 Fuelwood in colonial Brazil: the economic and social consequences of fuel depletion for the Bahian Hist.38: 181-92. Reconcavo, 1549-1820. For.Conserv. Mok, S.T. 1992. Potential for sustainabletropical forest man43(2): 28-33. agement in Malaysia. Unasylva Moodie, A.W. 1924 Working for the planfor theDeltaForestDivision period1924-25 to 1933-34, vol.1. Maymyo: Superintendent of GovernmentPrintingand Stationery. Morehead, F.T. 1944 Theforestsof Burma.London: Longmans, Green and Company. Nisbet, J. 1899 Notes on improvementfellings for the benefit of teak in fire-protected reserved forests, Burma. Indian

Forester 25(5): 202-14. 1901 BurmaunderBritishruleandbefore,2 volumes. London: ArchibaldConstable. London:Routledge. Park,C. 1992 Tropical rainforests. domains: thestate,peasantsandforestsin Pathak, A. 1994 Contested India.London:Sage. contemporary Peet, R. and Watts, M. 1993 Development theory and environment in an age of market triumphalism. Econ. Geogr. 69(3): 227-53. controlandresisPeluso, N.L. 1992 Richforests,poorpeople:resource tanceinJava.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Rangarajan,M. 1994 Imperialagendas and India's forests:the early history of Indian forestry, 1800-1878. IndianEcon.Soc. Hist.Rev.31: 147-67. in BritishBurma(RFA). Rangoon: Reportonforestadministration Superintendent of Government Printing and Stationery. Variousyears. in tropical the environment Rush, J. 1991. The last tree:reclaiming Asia.New York:Asia Society. London:Penguin. Said, E.W. 1978 Orientalism. Schmink, M. and Wood, C.H. 1987 The 'politicalecology' of Amazonia. In Little, P.D. and Horowitz, M.M. (eds)Landsat riskin theThirdWorld:local-level Boulder:Westview perspectives. Press. Scott, J.C. 1976 The moraleconomy of thepeasant.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. -, 1985 Weapons of theweak.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. andforeigntradein relationto the Shein, M. 1964 Burma'stransport economicdevelopment of the country(1885-1914). Rangoon: Departmentof Economics,Universityof Rangoon. Shway Yoe, 1989 (1882) The Burman:his life and notions. Edinburgh:Kiscadale. Slade, H. 1896 Too much fire-protection in Burma. Indian Forester 22(5): 172-6. sector,Field docuSmith, C.F. 1991 ReportontheMyanmarforestry ment no. 11. Yangon: Union of Myanmar for the Food and AgricultureOrganization. rights Smith, M. 1994 Paradiselost?Thesuppression of environmental andfreedomof expression in Burma.London:Article 19. Stebbing, E.P. 1947 The teak forests of Burma. Nature160: 818-20. Taylor, R.H. 1976 Politics in late colonial Burma: the case of U Saw. Mod.AsianPolit.10(2): 161-93. -, 1987 Thestatein Burma.London:C. Hurst. Troup, R.S. 1905 Fire protection in the teak forestsof Burma. IndianForester 31(3): 138-46. Tucker, R.P. and Richards,J.F. (eds) 1983 Globaldeforestation and the nineteenth-century world economy.Durham: Duke UniversityPress. Union of Myanmar, Ministryof Agricultureand Forests, 1989 situation inMyanmar. Yangon:M.A.F. Forestry Union of Myanmar, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, 1994 Reviewof thefinancial,economic 1993/94. Yangon: M.N.P.E.D. andsocialconditionsfor Watts, M. 1993 Development I: power, knowledge, discursive practice.Progr.Hum.Geogr.17(2):257-72. offorests.Oxford:Basil Blackwell. Westoby,J. 1987 Thepurpose Winters, R.K. 1974 Theforest and man. New York: Vantage Press.

-,

Romancing Colonial Forestry: The Discourse of 'Forestry as Progress ...

cial exploitation, but also, as the opening quote illus- trates, romantic ... accounts extolled the virtues of progress, they passed over the political conflict that in ...

474KB Sizes 2 Downloads 235 Views

Recommend Documents

Irving Woodlands Professorship in Forestry
PURPOSE. The Irving Woodlands Professorship is an endowed position that will support the A) technical forestry education needs of the University of Maine at ...

HS Forestry Resources.pdf
In 1901, the Division of Forestry of the U. S. Government was known as the. Bureau of Forestry, and in 1905, it became the Forest Service. Gifford Pinchot.

world forestry - New Generation Plantations
Sep 7, 2015 - In Brazil, the Mata Atlantica (Atlantic. Rainforest) is a global biodiversity hotspot that has been devastated by past agriculture practices; today.

Irving Woodlands Professorship in Forestry
including an introductory course in computer applications, GPS, and surveying, ... Other forestry courses may be considered based on the candidate's expertise ...

SUMMER INTERNS – FORESTRY Olympic Resource Management ...
Feb 11, 2015 - of timberland in Washington, Oregon, and California. ... College students currently ... in the field in all types of terrain and weather conditions.

SUMMER INTERNS – FORESTRY Olympic Resource Management ...
Feb 11, 2015 - Job focus will be: • Data collection on 5-25 year old ... the ability to work independently in the field in all types of terrain and weather conditions.

History and evaluation of the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry ...
The Forest and Wildlife Research Center at Mississippi State University was established by the. Mississippi Legislature with the passage of the renewable Natural Resources Research Act of 1994. The mission of the Center is to conduct research and tec

Forestry Course Syllabus Final.pdf
Page 1 of 4. Environmental Conservation &. Forestry I and II. Course Syllabus. 2016-2017. Howard G. Sackett Technical Center. 5836 State Route 12. Glenfield, NY 13343. 315-377-7300. Contact Information. Instructor: Kimberly Brown. Email: kibrown@boce

History and evaluation of the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry ...
The mission of the Center is to conduct research and technical assistance programs relevant to the ..... Source: Current Research Iinformation System 2002 ...... USDA is both a reporting and accounting system for the McIntire-Stennis program as well

Forest Certification Report Forestry Department ...
Fiji Forest Certification Project Report, 2012. Deborah Sue ... 2.0 Update on the Status of the Forest Certification Project and the Fiji Forest .... 2) 1 Filing Cabinet.

OUTREACH NOTICE Forestry Technician (Timber Stand Improvement
Jan 12, 2015 - ... of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest will be advertising for two .... Chelan District Forester at [email protected] or mail to:.

HS Forestry Learning Objectives .pdf
Page 1 of 3. i. Forestry. Forests are ecosystems, and the current approach to managing our forests is ecosystem. management. Forests provide habitat for wildlife and support a great diversity of plant and. animal species. They are watersheds that are

Forestry seedlings production by biotechnological ...
Abstract. The forest biotechnology on the Faculty of Forestry Sciences is an interdisciplinary research dedicated to the development and application of advanced technology for the enhancement of forest regeneration and adaptation. Technical capabilit

OUTREACH NOTICE Forestry Technician (Timber Stand Improvement
Jan 12, 2015 - ... of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest will be advertising for two .... Chelan District Forester at [email protected] or mail to:.

Teaching in the Virtual Outdoors: Online Forestry ...
Updating/offering 46 online or hybrid courses in Natural .... Online Tools…FREE http://www.skype.com. • Allows online students access ... conferencing…

Teaching in the Virtual Outdoors: Online Forestry ...
g sc oo stude ts oo g o college credits and trying to find career .... Housed on external server…no downloading of ... free hosting! • Lots of good forestry video.