Date: 16 Oct, 2007
The workshop was co-hosted by the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature research project “Integrated Research of Regional Ecological History in Asia - Tropical Monsoon Region: 1945-2005” (Project leader: Akimichi Tomoya) and “Assessment and Future Vision for the Application of Sustainable Forestry” (Project leader: Ichikawa Masahiro). Many of our program’s members participated in these projects, and its objectives are very similar to our own. The former research was mainly conducted in northern Laos on mainland Southeast Asia, and the latter had its field base in Sarawak (Malaysia) of insular Southeast Asia. The main debate involved the similarities and differences in forest and forest usage records in these two different regions, and whether or not analysis frameworks for mailand and insular Southeast Asia, or for subtropical forest and tropical forests, can be used when comparing the two. In Northern Laos and Sarawak, ethnic minorities based their livelihoods on slash-and-burn agriculture as well as by trading lightweight but expensive forestry products obtained through hunting-gathering. By the 19th century, the colonial governments began to develop institutions for land and forest management with the aim to conserve forest resources and secure tax revenues, but their effectiveness was debatable. In the 20th century, the logging boom began. The main products were teak in Northern Laos and dipterocarps in Sarawak. However, because the logging was selective, the boom did not destroy the forest completely, and was able to coexist with slash-and-burn agriculture. From the forest usage records in the two regions, it can be seen that although the logged tree species and forest commodities differ in view of the different types of forest vegetation, there were few differences in terms of the livelihood structure of the local peoples, the governments’ forestry resource use and management systems, and the relationship between local residents and the government in terms of the forest use.
However in the latter half of the 20th century, following the establishment of large-scale plantations in Sarawak, the differences between forest use in the two regions have increased dramatically. In Sarawak, all existing forests were cut down, and forestation on a massive scale began, starting with oil palms and later Acacia mangium, and monoculture plantation forests now cover over half of the original forest area. In short, this government-led fundamental conversion of nature was carried out in the pursuit of economical profits. Plantations – first teak and more recently rubber – were also established in Northern Laos, but on a limited scale, and local slash-and-burn agriculture, with a gradual shift toward sedentary farming along with an expansion of paddy farming, still makes up the basis of the local economy.
What is responsible for the differences between these two regions in the latter half of 20th century? One hypothesis is that in Northern Laos, a fairly high population density has been maintained throughout history due to migrations, but in Sumatra, the low population density, leading to low land use pressure from traditional livelihoods, allowed the establishment of large-scale plantations. In addition, tropical forests hold the largest share of biomass resources on earth. Thus, this as well as intervention by outsiders in forest use should be the starting point for looking at differences between these two regions’ forest usage records. However, plantations do not use the existing forest vegetation, but reset them, and function by exercising total control over the tree species and ecosystem. It can be argued that the specific features of the natural environment in the equatorial zone, such as the abundance of sunshine and precipitation and the high temperature throughout the year, have nurtured such tropical forest with extremely bountiful natural resources, thus encouraging the development of large-scale plantation. If the design and development of technology accelerate on a global scale, in order to ensure the efficient use of energy and water circulation as a humanosphere, the equatorial zone must be seen as a critical place where the circulation is larger and more intense than anywhere else. We must discover useful ways to utilize the rare equatorial zones as a humanosphere for humankind. (Kono Yasuyuki)