ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of the EUROPEAN PRESENCE in SOUTHEAST ASIA, 77Th - 79 Th CEN TURIES
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE EUROPEAN PRESENCE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, 77th - 79 th CEN TURIES by Peter Boomgaard (KITLV, Leiden, the Netherlands) ~ INTRODUCTION n the not so remote past Southeast Asia (further: SEA) was largely covered by tropical rain- forest. Even today, after msny centuries of land clearing, tropical rain-forero are a major 1feature of the landscape in a considerable part of the area. It is only a slight exaggeration to define SEA as that part of Asia where tropical rain-forests are, or at least used to be predominanr (see map 1). Statistics of fnrest cover for the period undcr considcration are not availablc, but the data presenred in tahle 1 convey an impression of the quantities involved at the end of this period. Table 1 Estirnated percentages of forest cover by area, for selected years.' ata wcrc rakrn from Boomgaard 1996,26, 166 (Indoncsia); Kummer 1991,23,45 6 (Philippincr, Tliailaiid), Duiiii 1975,l (Malaya): Andrur 1948.96 (Burma): Gourou 1951,25,30(Indo-China). l'he svcragc figure in thc last row is rny Own cdculrtian, bnscd "pon rhc data far thc areas represented in the tablc. As thcse data rcfcr to diflcrcnt ycars, 1 havc iakcn 1940 as a convcnicnr and plausible 'midpoinr'. Map 1 Thc Old World tropical rain-foresc formations Thc table presentr the earlicst data I could find for each region. Given the possible variation in forest cover world-wide, the data of most SEA regions rcflect relatively slight deviarions from the regional mean (62%). Malaya (85%) and IndoChina (47%) are somewhat further removed from the average petccritage of forest cover, and only lava (27%) is way out of line. 1 wuuld have prcfcrred separatc data on Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to one figure for the whole of Indo- China, but 1 was unable to find such data for 1950 or earlier years. Such a breakduwn would have shown a percentage of forest cover for Vietnam not far removed from that of lava, and pcrcentages for rhe other two regions in the neighbourhood of the regional mean. Map 2 and rablc 2 present data ori popiilation densities for various areas in SEA. Map 2 reflects the situation around 1940, and shows the reverse imagc of table 1, ridrnely high population densities in Java aiid [riorthern] Vietnam, and very luw densities in, for instancc, Malaya. This was to be expected, as population density ir inverscly proportional to pcrcentage of forest cover. It is somewhat more surprising to find broadly similar data in table 2, rcflecting thc situation aroiind 1600. The figures are, admitredly, rough estitnates, but there are no reasons to assume that rhey are far beside the mark. Popiilation dcnsities had, no diiuhr, increased considerably between 1600 and 1940, but lava and northern Vietnam were already characterized by -comparatively speaking- exceptionally high densities at the beginning of the seventeenth ccntury. Java, the central and eastern parts in particular, and northern Vietnam, espccially tiie Red River delta, were wet-rice prodiicing and exporting areas hefore the arrival of the Etiropcans. It seems likely that the natural cnvironment of these areas liad been attractive to hurnari settlers. 1 am referring to the fertilc alluvial soils of thr: Red River delta and to the fertilc volcanic soils of the upland and river valleys of Java, in combination with rainfall and tcmperatures thar are neitlier too high nor tcm low. Both areas have a marked monsonn climate, Area Population density per km* Indonesia (without Java & Bali) 2.9 - Java & Bali 40.7 Philippines 3.2 Malaya 3.4 - ~ ~~ ~ ~~~p - Rurriia 4.6 Siam (Thailand) 4.3 Cambodia-Champa 4.5 Vietnam (North & Ccntral) 18.0 Total SEA 5.8 Table 2 Estimated population densities (pcr km>)by area around 1600.2 with an original vcgctation more attractive to hurnans than that associaied witli dic Iiurriid tropical climate to be found in most othcr parts of SEA.3These conditions marle for rathcr high population densities, which were conducive to state formation. The states, in turn, stimulared or even coerced more people to form permanent settlements. Taking the two tables and the two maps togcthcr, it secms plausible to regard SEA as a fairly horri<igcrieous area, both now and in the past. Population growth-ratcs wcrc low to very low between 1500 arid 1800 or 1850, but startcd to pick up speed during the nineteenth century. However, even in 1940, after a century or more of relatively Iiigh growrh-rates, SEA was still characterized by a high proportion of forest cover (62%). It does not seem too wild an assuinliti<iiithat that percentage must have been 80 or 90 at thc bcginning of rhc pcriod to be dcalt with herc. Jnva arid northcrn Victnam were the main exceptions to the riilr thar low populatiun dcnsitics and high proportions of forcst covcr wrre tyliical fiir SEA :iroiind 1600. PRE-EUROPEAN TRADE iven the image presented here of many trecs and fcw pcoplr, onr could hc casily mided into thinking that sixicerith-ccritury SEA countries were self~contained G socictics cntirely hased on siihsistrncr production. Although subsistente production was, no doubt, the mainstay of these economies, trading links had existed for centuries between various regional centres in the area, and betwccn thc arca and the outside world. Chinese, Indian, and Arab merchants had visited SEA since time immemorial, and traders from the area itself had taken their rnerchandise to ports-of-trade abroad. Somc of the products froni SF.A even reached the Roman Empire, as was the case with cloves from the Moluccas, now part of Indoncsia. Adapred from Rcid 1988, 14. Rcid's figure for Java (4 rnillion) has been adjusred upwardr (ro 5 inillion). Sce e.g. Mohr 1938, nnd Gourou 1965 [19361. Map 2 I'opulation density in Southeastern Asia Roughly spcaking. SEA regions imported "indus~rial"cummndiries, and cxportcd products lrum thc primary srctor. lmports froiri Cliina and India were triainly ctirron and silk textiles, cerarnics, and copper coins, but also products such as liquor and lacquer-ware. SEA exported agricultural products, such as pepper, raw cotton, and betel-nuts. With coconuts and bananas, that werc also exported, wc enter a grey zone, hecausc it is unclear whcthcr these products had bccn harverted from cuitivated rrccs, thus firting the category of agricultura1 products, or whether they carne from wild trees, and should therefore be classed as forest products. This also applics to cloves and nutmcg. Many morc products, alrhough often traded in small quantities, wcrc genuine forcst products, mostly aromatic woods, and gums and resins. The cornmodities rnost frequently mentioned are bamboo, henzoin, brazilwood or sapanwood, camphor, damar, caglewood or gharuwood, lakawood, sandalwood, and tesk. Yroducts dcrived from wild aninlals -sornrtimes including the wholc animal, dead or alive- are often also categorized as forest products. ln the case of SEA we can think of bee's wax, birds of paradise feathers, (edible) bird's nests, civet, deer-hides, ivory, rhinoceros horn, and tortoise shell. With the latter wc straddle the bouridary betwecn land and sea, of which somc products, such as coral, pcarls, and various types of shell, were also traded. Finally, SEA cxportcd commodirics that had to be rnincd, surh as tin aiid gold.' If we are fairly well informed abur the trade between SEA and thc outside world, we do not know much about tradc flows within the area itself. Theoretically, ir could be assumed that regions witb roughly similar rcsource endowments, and tbercfore prcsiirnahly s;milar products, would not have much to trade. If we look at tradr data frorn the Philippines for the period 1586-1790, this seems to be confirmed. On average, betwccn 5 and 10% of total income from tariffs on imports in Manila came from ships from SEA.> One could object to the use of these data as a proxy for pre-1500 trade flows for two reasons. In the firt place, it is likely that these data underestimate goods importrd in small craft from Indonesia, but probably not by a large margin if expressed in terms of value of the cargo. Sccondly, there is the theoretical possihility that this trade was entirely generated by the Spanish prerence in Manila, but that is hardly likely. It seems, therefore, that we may ronrliide that intra-SEA tradc flows in the pre-contact period werc modest but riot rirgligitile. Rice was doubtlessly part of thc intcr-rcgional trade within SEA, if only hecause harvests in the various regions took place at differenr moments in time, thus enabling regions with a temporary shortage to import it from rcgionr where the harvcst had just finished. However, there were even then regions with a structural dd~cit,such as thc clovc and nutmeg producing islands, and regions, such as Ccntral and Eastern Java, with a strnctural surplus. Thus, in a number of regions relationships of mutual dependency had been established, prefigiirati<inr,su to speak, of a latrr, much mor? grnrral pattern nf ~~ecializationbascd on comparative cost advantage.6 Another item of inrer-regional trade was livestock, although probably not on a scale comparable to rice. Hidcs of cattlc and water-buffalo belong to the same category. Apart from agricultural aod livestock products, we also encounter less valuahle fcirrst products as items of inter-rcgional trade, siich as rirnher, rattan, and bamboo. Sometimes we even come across local 'industrial' producrs, such as local textiles, mats, and pottery. It is unlikely that the production or collection of the rrade items mentioned abve did much damage to the natural environmcnt, with the excrption of pepper, rice, and possibly timber. Pepper seems to have bcen grown in a way that exhausted the soil after some time.