the british who colonized india also wanted gain access to the teak forest and what?

The colonial origins of scientific forestry in Britain

By: Jan Oosthoek

Around 1850 Great britain had no forestry service and there was no formal training of foresters. Forestry was however practised in the context of estates mainly owned past the aristocracy and managed by foresters who had learned the traditional management techniques under an apprentice organization from their predecessors. British forestry was fragmented, not formalised, and far from centralised during the entire 19th century. About of the forestry remained concentrated on big privately owned estates, especially in Scotland, where it served the double purpose of ornamental wood and, to a lesser extent, woods product for local use.¹ The British Government and many landowners did not feel the necessity to increase timber production and introduce modern formalised forestry practices from the continent because the British had straight access to the large timber reserves of their Empire, of Scandinavia and the Baltic states. Importing timber from overseas was much cheaper than to produce it dorsum home in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.^two  At the same fourth dimension the expansion of commercial agriculture under the Eastward Indian Company and afterwards the construction of the railways seriously depleted timber resources on the Indian sub-continent. In response the colonial authorities in India created the Indian Forestry Service and introduced mod scientific forestry from continental Europe in order to prevent further devastation of the forest resources.^three Back in Britain, some Scottish landowners realised that the potential for forestry in Scotland was considerable and that past creating and expanding forestry they could make their estates more profitable. The creation of demonstration forests, university lectureships and the introduction of scientific forestry from the Continent were all desired and encouraged past Scottish landowners and forester alike. However, the needed expertise was not bachelor in U.k. and landowners and foresters had to expect overseas to detect people who possessed experience with the desired scientific forestry methods. In this paper it will exist argued that mod British forestry is rooted within a colonial forestry credo based on a reductionist scientific approach which originated in France and Deutschland. In improver it volition as well be shown that Scottish landowners, foresters and universities played an important part in the introduction and dissemination of scientific forestry in Britain.

Tabular array: Central events in the introduction of scientific forestry in Britain
1854	Establishment of Scottish Arboricultural Society
1856	Dietrich Brandis introduces scientific forestry in India
1864	Creation of the Indian Forestry Service
1867	First Forestry students from Bharat are sent to Federal republic of germany and France
1872	Hugh Cleghorn elected equally President of the Scottish Arboricultural Society
1877	John Croumbie Brownish delivers a paper at a meeting of the Scottish Arboricultural Guild calling for the cosmos of a forestry school in Scotland
1878	Forestry school established at Dehra Dun, India, for the training of Indian foresters
1881	Brandis retires as Inspector-general of Forests in India and is succeeded by William Schlich
1884	Outset International Forestry exhibition is held in Edinburgh
1885	Schlich is succeeded by Berthold Ribbentrop
1885	Forestry section at the Royal Engineering Higher at Coopers Colina, Surrey, established past Schlich for training of foresters for the Indian Forestry service
1889	Lectureship in forestry established at the University of Edinburgh
1891	Colonel F. Bailey appointed as Lecturer in Forestry at the University of Edinburgh
1905	Found of forestry at Oxford University founded past Schlich
1914	Forestry course established at the University of Aberdeen
1919	Creation of the Forestry Commission in Uk

Cosmos of the Indian Forestry Service

In 1874, in an address to the Imperial Scottish Arboricultural Society, Hugh Cleghorn, the starting time Inspector Full general of Forests in Republic of india⁴, told his audience that "the regime in India began to be seriously embarrassed by the scarcity of timber; its attending was directed to the direction of the indigenous forests".⁵ Timber resources in Bharat were declining rapidly nether the pressures of the high timber demand in the British Empire, local use and above all the rapid expansion of colonial agriculture and the associated loss of forestry cover in India during the first one-half of the 19th century.^{half dozen} An important watershed in the history of Indian forestry was the construction of a railway network after 1850. The network of tracks increased from but 32 kilometres in 1853 to over 51,650 kilometres in 1910. The structure of the railways required an enormous amount of timber because to build two kilometres of track almost 900 sleepers were needed. Indian trees, particular sal (Shorea robusta), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), and teak (Tectona grandis) were much used as sleepers, considering of their force and perceived resistance against rotting. Already severely depleted past the clearance of forests for commercial purposes earlier in the century, India experienced a resources crisis, and the authorities realised that the intensive extraction of timber could not be sustained indefinitely. In order to secure a continuous catamenia of timber the forests had to exist brought nether control using a management government that would protect the forests and perpetuate the production of timber.^vii
A second reason why the regime became increasingly alarmed almost the rate of forest immigration was the observation of the detrimental furnishings of overexploitation of the forests on the environment. From the late 18th century botanists and other scientists in the colonial service observed the combined impact of imperialism and local overexploitation of the forests in tropical landscapes. They believed that deforestation acquired desiccation, a drying out of the land surface, resulting in a refuse in rainfall, flash floods, soil degradation, and silting upward of rivers.⁸ For example, the offset Conservators of Forests in India, Dr Gibson in Mumbai and Dr Cleghorn in Madras, warned in the 1840s and 1850s nearly the increasing devastation of forests and the resulting silting up of rivers.⁹
Alarmed by these developments, Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India at the time, published a paper in which he laid down the start outline of an Republic of india-wide forest policy, including the establishment of a Forestry Service, in 1854. Two years later on the forest policy paper, in 1856, Dietrich Brandis, a German Botanist and forester, was appointed Superintendent of Forests in Burma. Brandis is widely regarded equally the founder of modernistic forestry in Bharat, a fact that was gratefully acknowledged by Indian Government officials:

Dietrich Brandis, first
Superintendent of Forests in
Burma

…the man to whom…must be accorded the proud title of the male parent of Indian forestry, is not a Briton at all but a Prussian, and that man is Dr Brandis.^x

It was Brandis who start introduced practical scientific forestry in Republic of india by carrying out systematic surveys and cartoon up management plans based on growth statistics. The objective of this scientific method was to measure the almanac growth of tree stands and to evaluate how much timber could exist extracted annually without compromising the hereafter productivity of the woods.¹¹
The British authorities were so impressed with Brandis' work that he was appointed as the first Inspector General of Forests in India, a post he had to share with Scottish botanist Hugh Cleghorn, when the Indian Foresty Service was established in 1864. Information technology was Brandis' task to organise the Indian Forestry Service, recruit foresters and to initiate proper forestry administration and direction. Brandis' biggest claiming was to achieve full state control over the forests, an aim that facilitated the development of scientific forestry in India.¹²

The Continental connection

In order to sympathize the development of forestry in India it is important to appreciate the tensions between the Indian Forestry Service and the Revenue Department. The Department regarded the creation of a separate forestry service as a waste of public money and was convinced that it would result in greater cost than do good. It was the full general purple policy of the British that the administrative mechanism in Bharat had to exist self-supporting. Therefore foresters in India had to prove that state forestry could be an economically viable enterprise, which made the case for controlled, rationally managed forests even stronger.¹³
The first footstep to reach control over Bharat's forests was through surveying and mapping, to demarcate the forestlands that were country property. Milward, an officer in the Indian Forestry Service, observed about a century subsequently that:

Authentic surveys and sufficiently good maps of forests are a sine qua not for successful assistants and management.^xiv

The mapping of India's forests also provided data that made the introduction of scientific forestry direction practices possible. Scientific forestry was imported from the major continental European powers, France and Deutschland, where it had adult since the tardily 18th century. It was during this menses that continental administrators and foresters had get alarmed past a dramatic refuse of forestry resources. On top of that came the rivalry between the different German language States which stimulated the want to become cocky-sufficient and non to depend on neighbouring states for resources such as timber. In response the forest authorities in French republic and most of the German states encouraged the evolution of quantitative methods to manage their forests, reverse the depletion and to brand their states independent from timber imports. The scientific forestry method imported in India stood in directly line with an essentially German continental tradition with a flavour of French forestry management methods mixed in. The ascendant image of scientific forestry management is to pursue maximum sustainable yield, and turn a profit, which resulted into a tradition of quantitative forestry management. This tradition was based on the collection of quantitative information on trees and forests past measuring sizes and volumes. The results of field studies were compiled in tables, which organised the various tree size categories and served as a tool to calculate growth rates and loss rates which made it possible to predict sustained yield. Some authors have described the German scientific forestry tradition as 'bookkeeperish' and based on a set up of rigid rules producing artificial, even-aged, monocultural forest plantations.¹⁵

The French forestry tradition, although scientific, was more diverse and left room for more traditional forms of wood management. Due to economical and political pressures the French forestry schoolhouse was concerned with the conservation of coppices and uneven aged mixed stands but likewise with the creation of fifty-fifty anile loftier forests by converting coppices and mixed stands. Even so, the conversion of coppices and mixed stands into forestry plantations conflicted with the interests of the French h2o authorities and the charcoal industry. This produced much debate and controversy betwixt foresters and other involvement groups, only a compromise was reached and, in the end, a moderately conservative forestry practice emerged. The French practice was characterised by a flexible approach to forests with attention for broadleaves, coppices, mixed stands, and a natural development of forests including natural regeneration. At the same time wood plantations managed on scientific principles were as well established in France and its colonies.¹⁶
Both Continental forestry traditions were blended in the colonial context of Bharat subsequently the establishment of the Indian Forestry Service. Nonetheless, when the British created the Forestry Service there were hardly whatsoever people in the Empire who had directly experience with the Continental scientific traditions. Information technology is therefore no surprise that the authorities turned to Brandis to organise the newly established service, which he modelled afterward forestry departments in Germany. In order to fill the college echelons of the Forestry Service Brandis recruited forestry officers from Frg, amongst them William Schlich, who was to get the founder of forest science in Great Britain and Berthold Ribbentrop. These two Germans were preferred for high office over local forest officers for the fact that "the thorough professional grooming which Dr Schlich and Mr Ribbentrop had received in their ain land, had been about useful to them in India".¹⁷ This 'usefulness' was of course the scientific grooming in forestry, which they had brought with them from Frg. In 1881 Schlich succeeded Brandis as Inspector General of Forests in India, a post he held for 4 years before an other German forester, Berthold Ribbentrop, succeeded him.¹⁸
Lower forestry personnel was initially composed of selected civil servants or military officers who were thought to "possess a natural bent to the work" in the forests.¹⁹ Their task mainly consisted of acquiring command over the forests and preventing unauthorised felling past the local population. However, it was soon felt that the training of these people was not adequate and that something had to be washed to turn them into proper foresters. Because a forestry schoolhouse did not exist in India and the expertise to create ane was lacking, arrangements for the training of foresters were made with the Imperial Forestry Schoolhouse at Nancy in France and with forestry schools in Frg. In 1867 the first students from Bharat were sent to Germany and France, simply later on 1871 no more students were sent to Federal republic of germany because information technology was cheaper and more than user-friendly to concentrate all education in France.^twenty
The Scientific forestry practice that these foresters imported from Germany and French republic was extremely reductionist in nature and did not seem to take much account of varying environmental conditions. This led to the belief that a directly transfer of forestry practice from the Temperate Zone to tropical forests would non crusade any serious problems. However, foresters initially disregarded the fact that ecology weather between Europe and India vary considerably and that this requires different management regimes. Only practice taught European trained foresters that their methods had to be modified to make it work under the monsoon and mountain weather condition of India. In improver the diverseness²¹, large extent and mixed nature of the Indian forests required a more flexible approach to forestry direction. The European experience of German and French trained foresters and their encounter with the unlike ecology weather in Bharat composite together in the colonial context, creating a distinct Indian co-operative of scientific forestry. This type of forestry direction included measures to conserve the existing forests, countering perceived negative environmental effects such as desiccation, flooding, and soil erosion but also a desire to brand the forests assisting. The diversity and mixed nature of the forests likewise as the commercial objectives required a management regime favouring "the valuable commercial species and eliminating the less valuable and those interfering with the growth of the former".²² This was partly caused by the fact that the number of commercially interesting trees in Indian forests is pretty depression. For example, the so-chosen teak forests had only almost ten percent of teak trees. For this reason it was easier to increase the number of commercially interesting trees by ways of natural generation aided by cultural operations to suppress the growth of less favourable species. The variety and density of the Indian forests too every bit their large extent encouraged the apply of natural regeneration. Ribbentrop concluded that the "average cash revenue per acre is too insignificant" to justify clearance of the jungle and the creation of plantations.²³ The cosmos of forestry plantations was therefore less important, although a considerable number of teak plantations, especially in Burma, were created in places were formerly no forests existed.²⁴
However, there was a 2nd factor that produced a brand of forestry slightly dissimilar from the original German type. Brandis had recommended to establish village forests of the kind which existed in Germany and France. The local villagers would manage the forests attached to their villages, although control would not be entirely left to the communities in order to protect and preserve the productivity of the forests. The thought was that village forests would supply produce, such as burn down wood and structure material, to the inhabitants of the attached village. Nevertheless, the colonial government in India saw forest villages as interference with the chief objectives of the land forests to secure timber supply and to make a profit. This resulted in a policy to restrict access of the local population to the forests they had previously used equally mutual land.²⁵ The creation of scientifically managed forests and their commodification contributed to desperate changes in the Indian landscape and local ecosystems. In addition and probably more than pregnant, was the social disruption caused past exclusion of local people from the forests. With the introduction of scientific forestry the use of the forests was monopolised by the land, customary rights were taken away from local peoples and access restricted. This led to social protests right from the beginning of the introduction of scientific forestry effectually 1850. From that time onwards many episodes of resistance to colonial rule were linked to protestation against increasing state control over the forests.²⁶ To ban the communities from the forests and exit them out of the direction procedure planted the seeds for the social conflicts over forest access which endures to the present twenty-four hour period.

The type of scientific forestry that reached Uk was an impoverished one because elements like village forests and even the most basic environmental and ecological considerations were ignored in favour of a limited number of fast growing species which resulted in an impoverishment of wood ecosystems. The interest of the colonial country was mainly economic and not ecological or social. It was this type of hard nosed scientific forestry do aimed at commercial objectives that was after introduced in Britain by returning foresters. Equally volition exist discussed in a subsequent department, these foresters became teachers at the newly created institutions for the grooming of senior forestry officers for the colonial forestry services in Bharat and other parts of the Empire and United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.

Dehra Dun and Coopers Colina

The successful dissemination of scientific forestry in India and beyond was to a big extent the result of the establishment of a forestry school on the subcontinent. Colonel Frederic Bailey of the Purple Engineers, who had headed the Indian Forest Survey, established a forestry school at Dehra Dun and became its first director in 1878. The main objective of the school was to prepare Indians for the executive charge of country forests and information technology was organised forth the lines of the German forestry schools and included two theoretical exams in forestry theory, engineering and management and a two twelvemonth practical.²⁷ In 1907 a research establish was added to the Dehra Dun schoolhouse, which became a breeding footing for British foresters whom afterward filled the ranks of the British Forestry Commission and academy forestry departments. Experienced foresters were as well transferred from India, to help establish forestry departments in other parts of the empire, with the Indian experience usually serving as the model.²⁸ Nonetheless, since the Dehra Dun schoolhouse was initially only intended for Indian forestry officials, students for higher offices in the forestry service connected to be send to Germany and France for their preparation. In order to bring the education of foresters entirely under British supervision, the leaders of the Indian Forestry Service, Brandis, Schlich and Ribbentrop pressed for the establishment of a forestry school for the preparation of senior forestry officers in Britain.²⁹

Schlich (eye) amid students during field piece of work in Germany, ca. 1890

When Schlich left the Indian Forestry Service in 1885, he returned to Great britain and established a forestry training college at the School of Military machine Engineering at Coopers Hill in Surrey. In 1905 Coopers Hill was eventually closed and Schlich moved to Oxford to go director of the newly established Oxford Forestry Plant at the University. Schlich profoundly influenced British forestry with his teaching and the publication of a five-volume handbook, Schlich's Manual of Forestry, which was used as a textbook at British universities until the late 1930s.³⁰ Even so, Schlich was certainly non the but forester returning from Republic of india who influenced the orientation and direction of British forestry.

The Scottish connection

Scotland had been the centre of forestry in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland since at least the second one-half of the 18th century. It was around this time that plantation forestry became fashionable, stimulated by new tree species introduced from North America. The emergence of forestry plantations as a cadre aspect of Scottish forestry was also associated with patriotism, good taste and to a higher place all improvement of the Scottish landscape, i.east. the aim to make ameliorate use of the land in order to make more profit.³¹ In 1854 the Scottish Arboricultural Society was established by a group of landowners and foresters who were adamant to "place Scottish forestry on a sounder basis equally an important section of rural industry".³² That sounder basis was thought to be forestry scientific discipline as information technology had adult on the continent and in the colonial context. In order to promote the thought of scientific forestry the Scottish Arboricultural Society invited prominent Indian woods officials to deliver talks about forestry exercise, forestry policy, and forestry education on the Indian subcontinent.
In 1872 Hugh Cleghorn, the offset Inspector General of Forests in Republic of india, was elected as president of the Scottish Arboricultural Society. He delivered several speeches on forestry in India and Britain to the full general meetings of the Society during his presidency between 1872 and 1874. In his acceptance voice communication Cleghorn praised forestry in Scotland and England but concluded that the small-scale-scale forest estates in Britain were predominantly ornamental with additional aims of producing forest to meet local demands and generating an additional income from the sale of timber. Although Cleghorn did not doubt the skills of Scottish foresters, he concluded that professional training was needed in social club to make them fit for service in India and other parts of the British Empire.³³ During his second term equally president, 1883-85, his voice was often heard advocating the establishment of a school of forestry in Edinburgh. This time non only for training of foresters for the colonial service simply also for improving forestry in Britain, particularly in Scotland.³⁴
Another abet of forestry teaching in Scotland was Colonel F. Bailey, the first managing director of the Indian Forestry School in Dehra Dun. In 1885 he delivered a paper on the Indian forestry school at a coming together of the British Association at Aberdeen. In this newspaper he did not direct press for the creation of a forestry schoolhouse in Uk but he gave a detailed account of the school at Dehra Dun and how it was organised.³⁵ This was clearly meant to expose Scottish foresters, landowners and academics to the simply example of a forestry school inside the British Empire and to encourage them to plant a similar school in Scotland.
The list of Indian forestry celebrities visiting the Royal Scottish Aboricultural Club is incomplete without Dietrich Brandis. In 1887 he delivered a newspaper to the full general meeting of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Gild in which he encouraged and backed the introduction of scientific forestry in Scotland and the establishment of a forestry school:

Ever since I heard of the plan to establish a woods school in Scotland, I have been of stance, and have given expression to this opinion whenever I have had the opportunity, that as soon equally the desire gains ground amidst proprietors in Scotland to obtain for their estates the services of wood-managers and foresters who have received a more systematic professional training than is attainable at present, they will observe the needful means and take the needful steps for the establishment of a forest school.³⁶

Brandis, Cleghorn and Bailey had all been high ranking officers in the Indian Forestry Service and therefor the most visible. However, subsequently about 1870 foresters who had served in Republic of india returned to Britain bringing back the new ideas of scientific forestry which they disseminated further as they continued to work in forestry in Britain. Forbes described this procedure in his book The Development of British Forestry published in 1910:

Since nigh 1860, when Cleghorn and Brandis inaugurated the Indian Forestry Service, a minor stream of continental trained foresters … has been returning from information technology. Whatever the exact practical results of this inter-mixture of British and Anglo-Indian ideas may have been, there is footling doubt that fresh ideas were instilled into British foresters and proprietors, and a wider noesis of forestry every bit an industry instead of a hobby resulted.³⁷

The efforts of these foresters returning from India continued with the want of Scottish foresters and landowners to amend their forests. It encouraged them to create university lectureships and forestry courses for the education of professional scientifically trained foresters who would assist to increase the revenue from estates in Scotland. By the late 19th century, two academy courses and a grade for working foresters were being established in Scotland and run by foresters with a colonial background.

University courses

In Apr 1877 John Croumbie Brown, a botanist who had just returned from South Africa, addressed the Town Council of Edinburgh and the board of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Club, advocating the establishment of a forestry school and arboretum in Edinburgh. Brown considered that it was most desirable to create a forestry schoolhouse in the Scottish upper-case letter because of its academy, the proposed cosmos of an arboretum, the numerous tree nurseries and, almost importantly, its central location with regard to the many forest estates in Scotland. He argued that a lectureship of forestry exist established at the Academy and that money had to be raised for this purpose. Croumbie Brown's accost was subsequently published and this pamphlet was widely circulated amid members of the Royal Scottish Aboricultural Society, politicians and academics and probably stimulated the events that led to the establishment of a forestry lectureship at the University of Edinburgh.³⁸
Five years subsequently Dark-brown's voice communication the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Order decided to organise an international forestry exhibition in Edinburgh with the aim to raise money for the creation of a lectureship in forestry at the university. The exhibition was opened in July 1884 and virtually all timber producing counties of the world were represented, showing their woods products and the latest equipment used in forestry operations. The exhibition was a tremendous success and generated a great deal of interest and brought the developing forest service in Bharat and the demand for college forestry teaching to attention of a wider public in Britain. Nevertheless, the exhibition did non succeed in raising sufficient funds to establish a lectureship in forestry at the University of Edinburgh.³⁹ In May 1885 the British Parliament appointed a Select Committee with the task "to consider whether by the establishment of a forest schoolhouse or otherwise, our woodlands could be rendered more remunerative".⁴⁰ In its final study the Select Committee recommended the creation of a forestry schoolhouse or a academy grade in forestry, but the Government undertook no action. Nonetheless, in August 1889 William Sommerville, who was heavily influenced by the famous German forester Robert Hartig, was appointed Lecturer in Forestry at the University of Edinburgh, the kickoff of its kind in Great britain. The lectureship was established through grants made by the newly established Board of Agriculture and the Imperial Scottish Arboricultural Guild.⁴¹ In 1891, Somerville left Edinburgh on his appointment every bit Professor of Agronomics at Durham College of Science, and was succeeded by Colonel Bailey.
Bailey was on leave from Republic of india when the lectureship became vacant in 1891 and, being in the country, the Academy invited him to take up the position. He accepted the lectureship and during the side by side twenty years Bailey consolidated the forestry department. Afterward Bailey's retirement in 1910, Edward Percy Stebbing was appointed to the Chair in Forestry, which he held for more than than 40 years, until he finally retired in 1951. Stebbing had served as a forester in the Indian Forestry Service and in East Africa, and was educated at the Royal Indian Engineering College at Coopers Hill and in France, which made him well acquainted with continental and Indian forestry.⁴² During his forty year career at the Academy of Edinburgh Stebbing rose to the rank of professor and created two additional lectureships in the forestry department. More than important was that his experience with scientific forestry made the Academy of Edinburgh a convenance footing for the next generation of foresters who were to bring together the newly established British Forestry Commission after the Offset Globe War. The near famous graduates from that period are probably Mark Anderson and Henry G. Steven. Both men were in the forefront of British forestry because of their empirical arroyo, something they were trained in under Stebbing. In the 1920s Steven and Anderson joined the newly established enquiry branch of the Forestry Commission and in the 1950s both men became Professors in forestry at respectively, the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh.⁴³ These two foresters were no exceptions since well-nigh university lecturing positions in forestry in Uk were filled with one-time Indian Forestry Service employees. For example, the Imperial Forestry Constitute in Oxford attracted Troup and Champion, who had both conducted pioneering research at Dehra Dun, every bit professors. Through these academy courses scientific forestry imported from Bharat gained a permanent foothold in the United Kingdom.

The Forestry Commission

The real breakthrough of scientific forestry in Britain came with the establishment of the Forestry Commission. During the First Globe State of war Britain was cutting off from its overseas timber supplies and had to rely on its own woodlands and forests. The war reduced forest cover in Britain to less than five percentage of its total country surface, the lowest ever known, and Britain'south dependence on strange supplies of timber during times of war became a major business concern. In society to rebuild stocks and create a strategic timber reserve the Forestry Act of 1919 was passed and the Forestry Commission was established.⁴⁴ The Forestry Commission was organised along the lines of the well-proved concepts of country forestry in India and continental Europe. This concept included the establishment of a corps of scientifically trained foresters, country purchase of land for creating forestry reserves and forest management according to working plans. Timber reserves had to be established as soon as possible and scientific forestry was believed to be the nigh constructive method of creating the new plantations. The type of plantations chosen was that of even aged, unmarried species, loftier forests with a management regime based on statistical tables to calculate growth rates and loss rates which made it possible to predict how much timber could exist harvested.⁴⁵ The new plantations were normally established on bare ground in upland areas and were made up of not-native fast growing conifer species, mainly Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) and Norway spruce (Picea abies).⁴⁶ It is of import to note that United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland was late in adopting scientific forestry and that early debates nigh scientific forestry took mainly place in the colonial context placing the imperial centre somewhat at the fringes of imperial forestry.
After the 2d World War forestry was farther mechanised with the introduction of large scale ploughing and the awarding of bogus fertilisers. This allowed foresters to create uniform forests on an unprecedented scale in Britaint and to prepare soils which were previously useless for forestry.⁴⁷ By doing and then forestry was turned into a scientific standardised production operation in which efficiency became the criterion. The need for efficiency and fast growing plantations became even more pressing after the and so called Zuckerman Study removed the strategic objectives from British forestry policy in 1957. Following the Zuckerman Report an inter-departmental Cabinet Working Party fix to review forestry policy concluded:

...although a measure out of subsidy may exist justified on social grounds it would not be to our general advantage, or accord with our policy of increasing liberalisation of trade, to foster the product of raw materials for British industry at anything other than truly competitive prices… .⁴⁸

It was this new reality that forced the Forestry Commission to evidence that forestry in Britain could make a profit.
The concentration on a express number of species planted as monocultures driven by strategic and economic pressures contributed to drastic changes in the British mural. Big geometric blocks of conifers appeared in he landscape, forestry roads were bulldozed on hillsides and drains were dug beyond the moors.⁴⁹ Although the mural and social conditions are different in United kingdom, it is striking that, like in India, Forestry Commission officers were casting a very reductionist eye on woods ecosystems and the landscape by post-obit specific political and economic objectives. In this process access to the forests by the local population and tourist was ofttimes restricted and objections to forestry because of its impact on the landscape were ignored for a long time. Foresters disregarded many of the social and environmental implications of their actions and dismissed the value of traditional woodland practices, which were regarded as unscientific and outmoded.⁵⁰ These were just revived with the ascension of popular resistance to commercial forestry plantations, the creation of community forests and introduction of conservation direction during the last decades of the 20th century. Perhaps British foresters and conservationists should plough once more to India to learn from the experiences of the long-standing social protest movements confronting modern forestry in that p3rt of the world.

Summary and conclusions

Scientific forestry was outset transported to Bharat from Continental Europe considering of a lack of expertise in the British Empire. It was for this reason that the Indian Forestry Service employed German foresters and send forest officers for their education to Germany and France. Back in Bharat the French and German language forestry traditions were blended and transformed under political and economic pressures, and had to be adapted to the monsoon environment, creating a distinctive Indian branch of scientific forestry. This branch of forestry ignored ecological and social realities in favour of fast growing pure stand forests and plantations managed with statistical tables in order to satisfy the economic objectives gear up past the government. This type of forestry was introduced to Britain by retired foresters from the Indian Forestry Service, who subsequently became involved in forestry education in Britain.
In Great britain, in particular in Scotland, a forestry exercise existed which had its roots in estate forest management, but this tradition was not regarded as being scientific. By the mid-nineteenth century landowners wanted to become more than profit out of their estates and viewed the introduction of scientific forestry as the means to do so. This coincided with the first scientifically trained foresters returning from India who lobbied for the establishment of forestry schools for the preparation of officers for the colonial forestry service. It was in this context that the desire to brand better use of Scottish forest estates and demands of forestry in the empire came together and resulted in the institution of forestry courses at universities in Scotland and at Oxford. Retired colonial foresters taught these academy courses, reinforcing the link between the Scottish forestry scene and colonial forestry. The real breakthrough of scientific forestry in United kingdom came only subsequently the establishment of the Forestry Committee in 1919, fifty years subsequently the cosmos of the Indian Forestry Service. The arrangement and practice of Indian forestry was copied without much modification and large monoculural plantations managed on scientific principles appeared in the British landscape. Elements similar the social functions of forests and fifty-fifty the virtually basic environmental and ecological considerations were neglected in favour of fast growing monocultural plantations. The interest of the British Regime, similar its colonial counterpart in Indian, was mainly economic and strategic and that would dominate forestry policy in the United Kingdom for nigh of the twentieth century.

Notes

1 Jan Oosthoek, An Environmental History of Country Forestry in Scotland, 1919-1970 (Ph.D. diss., Academy of Stirling, 2001), 21-22.

2 Marking L. Anderson, A History of Scottish Forestry, vol. 2 (London: Nelson, 1967), 319, 329.

3 Berthold Ribbentrop, Forestry in British India (Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1900), threescore-62, 72-76.

4 Cleghorn shared the postal service of  Inspector Full general of Forests in India with Dietrich Brandis.

5 Hugh Cleghorn, 'Accost Delivered at the Twenty-get-go Almanac Meeting', Transactions of the Purple Scottish Forestry Order, seven (1875), 206.

6 Eastward.P. Stebbing, The Forests of Republic of india, vol. one (London: The Bodley Caput Ltd., 1922), 61-62.

7 Ramachandra Guha, 'Forestry in British and Mail-British India. A Historical Analysis', Economic and Political
  Weekly, Oct 29 (1983), 1883-84.

8 Richard Grove, Environmental, Climate and Empire. Colonialism and Global Ecology History (Cambridge: The White Horse Press, 1997), 5-6, 11-xx.

ix John M. MacKenzie, Empires of Nature and the Nature of Empires. Imperialism, Scotland and the Environment East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1997), 44, 70

10 Sir Richard Temple, 'Lecture on the Forests of India', Transactions of the Scottish Arboricultural Society, ten (1881), 17.

eleven R.C. Milward, 'The Indian Forest Service: Its Origin and Progress', The Empire Forestry review, 26 (1947), 184

12 Due east.P. Stebbing, The Forests of India, Vol.2 (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1923), 4, 42-43; Hartig Stiftung, Biographien Beduetender Hessischer Forstleute (Wiesbaden: Georg Ludwig Hartig Stiftung, 1990), 633.

thirteen Ramachandra Guha, 'Forestry in British and Postal service-British Bharat', 1886.

14 Milward, The Indian Forestry Service, 188.

15 Orazio Ciancio and Susanna Nocentini, 'The Forest and Man: The Development of Forestry Thought From Modern Humanism to the Civilisation of Complexity. Systemic Silviculture and Management on Natural Bases', in: Orazio Ciancio (ed.), The Forest and Man (Florence: Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, 1997), 42-43

sixteen Ciancio and Nocentini, 'The Forest and Man', 43-46.

17 Dietrich Brandis, 'The Proposed School of Forestry', Transactions of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society, 12 (1890), 73

18 Hartig Stiftung, Biographien Beduetender Hessischer Forstleute, 637-639.

xix Frederic Bailey, 'The Indian Forest School', Transactions of the Imperial Scottish Arboricultural Order, 11(1887), 155.

20 Ibid., 155-156.

21 In that location are nearly 1500 tree species in India compared to just 158 species in Europe.

23 Stebbing, The Forests of India, vol. 2, 578.

23 Ribbentrop, Forestry in British Bharat, 166.

24 Sir Richard Temple, 'Lecture on the Forests of India', p. 15; Saldanha, 'Colonialism and Professionalism', 204.

25 Indra Munshi Saldanha, 'Colonialism and Professionalism: A German Forester in India', Environment and History, 2 (1996), 206.

26 Grove, Ecology, Climate and Empire, 206.

27 Brandis, 'The Proposed Schoolhouse of Forestry', 72; Saldanha, 'Colonialism and Professionalism', 211.

28 Ribbentrop, Forestry in British India, 245.

29 Frederic Bailey, 'The Indian Wood Scool', 155-164; Stebbing, The Forests of India, vol two, 500-501.

30 Harold Grand. Steen, 'The starting time American Forestry Honour', Forestry Today, Spring (2000), 42-43.

31 Judith Tsouvalis & Charles Watkins, 'Imagining and Creating Forests in Britain, 1890-1939', in: Mauro Agnoletti and Steven Anderson, Forest History: International Studies on Socioeconomic and Forest Ecosystem Change (Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2000), 374-375.

32 Nairn, David, 'Notes on Highland Woods, Aboriginal and Modern', Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness, 17(1892), 191

33 Cleghorn, Hugh, 'Accost Delivered at the Twenty-first Almanac Coming together', 199-210.

34 Charles J. Taylor, Forestry and Natural Resources in the University of Edinburgh. A History (Edinburgh: Department of Forestry and Natural Resource, Academy of Edinburgh, 1985), iii.

35 Bailey, 'The Indian Forest Schoolhouse', 155-164.

36 Brandis, 'The Proposed School of Forestry', 76.

37 A.C. Forbes, The Development of British Forestry (London: Arnold, 1910), 252.

38 J. Croumbie Chocolate-brown, 'On Wood Schools', Transactions of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Guild, eight (1878) 225-232.

39 Mark Fifty. Anderson, 'Forestry Education in Scotland, 1854-1953', Scottish Forestry, 8 (1954), 116.

40 Quoted in: John D. Matthews, 'Forestry', Proceedings of the Regal Lodge of Edinburgh, 84B (1983), 146

41 Matthews, 'Forestry', 146-148.

42 Charles J. Taylor, Forestry and Natural Resource, pp. five-ten, 11, 25.

43 John D. Matthews, 'Henry Marshall Steven', Yr Book Of the Royal Social club of Edinburgh, 1968-69; Charles J. Taylor, 'Marking Anderson – Scottish Forester', Scottish Forestry 36 (1982), 297-303.

44 Donald Mackay, Scotlands Rural Land apply Agencies. The History and Effectiveness in Scotland of the Forestry Commission, Nature Conservancy Quango and Countryside Commission (Edinburgh: Scottish Cultural Press, 1997), 22-24; Marker Avery and Roderick Leslie, Birds and Forestry (London: T & A.D. Poyser Ltd., 1990), five.

45 Tsouvalis & Watkins, 'Imagining and Creating Forests', 381.

46 I.Grand. Simmons, An environmental History of Peachy United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland from 10,000 years ago to the nowadays (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Printing, 2001), 200-201.

47 Avery and Leslie, Birds and Forestry, 49-52, 58-59.

48 Cabinet Working Party on Forest Policy, Draft Report, p. 8. Public Record Part London, Forestry Commission Files, F18/815.

49 Oosthoek, Environmental History of State forestry in Scotland, 28.

fifty See for case comments in: I. Bailey Balfour, 'Forestry in Uk', Transactions of the Royal Arboricultural Society, 15 (1898), 55-77; Sir Roy Robinson, 'British Forestry', The Scottish Forestry Journal, 52 (1938), 26-77.

beardenmady1938.blogspot.com

Source: https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/6310/colonial_forestry.html?sequence=1

Share this post