Founded in 1819 with a population of merely 200 people (Geographical Association, n.d), Singapore was almost entirely covered by intact rainforests. Today, Singapore has become one of the world’s richest countries with high living standards, and a population of 5.7 million as of 2020 (Statista, 2020). Over the years, large areas of tropic lands have been transformed by urbanization and industrialization through deforestation and expansion of agriculture. Hence, forestry management has become a very important issue globally and despite its small size, the development of forestry in Singapore has an extremely important role to play in its economy. Despite contributing only 0.03% to the GDP as of 2019 (Worldbank, 2020), which is relatively low in absolute terms, Singapore’s forest is still one of the richest biodiverse countries providing a high level of resources (Brand studio, 2020). Introduced by Megan Raby in American Tropics, she hints that preserving tropical biodiversity creates substantial economic value, as “tropical nature could be transformed into a source of salvation instead of suffering to address critical economic and social problems at its root” and “understanding of the tropics’ biological diversity was essential towards a sustainable global development”(Raby, 2017). With such importance, the development of forestry has been featured in policies since colonial times. This paper, thus, aims to examine the policies and changes in forestry development during Singapore’s colonial period. It argues that at specific points in time, the vision of forest development evolved to satisfy humans through economic gains and development. While economic developments affected the forest sectors in Singapore, the colonial government displayed the resurgence of preservationist attempts to sustain economic development by conserving selected forests due to the threat of overconsumption. 

 

During the early years of the colonial period, Singapore was made up of lowland tropical forests, mangroves, and freshwater swamps covering 82%, 13%, and 5% (Corlett, 1991) of the island respectively in Fig.1. With a rapidly growing population in Fig.2, the development of forestry was exploited and centralized to economic purposes such as agricultural expansion by clearing large forest areas to cultivate cash crops like gambier and pepper for exports (Barnard, 2016). Thus, total production of gambier rose from 22,000 pikuls to 80,000 pikuls from 1836 to 1848 while pepper plantations produced a total of 30,923 pikuls in 1848 (Jackson, 1965). Due to agricultural expansion, extensive deforestation and destruction were recorded in Alfred Russel Wallace’s journal writings, a British naturalist who observed “wood-top hills” in Singapore in 1854 (Wallace, 1869). This implied that most hilltops were left with isolated patches as large areas of forests were cleared. The main purpose of his writing was to convince readers of the effects of deforestation on biodiversity in Singapore. Although his tone and word choices were direct and neutral when journalizing his observations, in Dispelling the Darkness, Van Wyhe a British historian brought up the concern of Wallace suffering from memory loss in his subsequent years, affecting some of the accuracies of his writings in terms of places and dates (Van Whye, 2013). However, focusing on his content, certain facts remain relevant. For instance, Wallace’s writings were consistent with accounts made by Sir James Brooke, a British empire builder with his discovery of the expansion of gambier plantations as forest trees were being destroyed by fire and cutting through unregulated manner in 1839 (Lum & Sharp, 1996). Thus, Wallace’s observations were considered historically significant due to the consistency of accounts. 

Alarmed by the extensive ruination of natural forests in 1883, needs for conservative efforts were raised. This was evident as the colonial government commissioned Superintendent of Botanic Gardens, Nathaniel Cantley to study the forests in Straits Settlement. Publishing a forest report in 1883, Cantley predicted that 93 percent of the natural forests would be destroyed by 1883 (Cantley, 1883). Lacking forest regulations, Cantley urged for the creation of afforestation of wastelands, reforestation, forest reserves, and forest department (Cantley, 1883). This was viewed as “the beginning of an effective policy of conservation and land utilisation” (Burkill, 1959), displaying government’s conservation efforts due to the threat of overconsumption. Published by the colonial government, it is important to note the intentions behind its publication. However, as it as also published during the period where natural forests faced extensive destruction, a realistic expression was provided of what was happening at that point in time, making it credible. With forest regulations set in place, efforts were made by increasing forest reserves around the island as seen in Fig.3, resulting in 11.7 percent of the island being filled with forest reserves (Wee and Corlett, 1986). 

Although efforts were made to ensure regeneration and conservation, forest reserves were also managed for exploitation except Bukit Timah (Corlett, 1988). The colonial government maximised the production of lucrative tropical products such as timbers and tree resins (Peluso, 1995) through the creation of “industrial forests” for economic growth. Evident in Wallace’s writings, lands that were not cleared for agriculture, were made for harvesting lucrative products like timber (Wallace, 1869). Wallace's writings aligned with the statement “there’s no argument for forest so strong as a forest department paying dividends” during the 4th British Empire conference in 1935 (Troup, 1940). The purpose was to encourage colonial governments to view forest departments with importance to economic purposes. Although the statement was released by British officials, it displayed no biases as its intention was purely justifying the “production” of timber by financial results. Further supported by John Furnival in Netherlands India, forestry was often treated by the government as a source of income (Furnival,1939). With timber being one of the first few profitable industries, forest lands were taken to transform into sustainable commercial trees through silviculture in Singapore (Rush, 1991). Thus, conservation efforts slowly evolved its way towards satisfying human needs by sustaining economic development through preservationist practices. 

Singapore was not the first colony facing the threat of overconsumption. Natural resources were also commodified to serve the British empire’s needs in India. Forests were cleared for cultivation and timber such as sal, teak and deodar were intensively exploited (Lawbuary, 1999). As Sal was mainly exploited for the use of railway expansion and other timber facilitating commercial demand, extraction of timber intensified overtime, resulting in a depleted resource base (Lawbuary, 1999). Expanding the empire more effectively, forest management was implemented through the formation of a forest department in 1864 and an Indian Forest act in 1878. This act established 3 categories of woodland, becoming the template for all colonies such as, reserved, protected, and village forests. Reserved forests brought strict state control over forest resources for long-term exploitations through annexing, while protection forests provided limited rights for the collection and grazing of forest products. Village forests provided general customary access rights. Strict state control aided the facilitation of scientific forestry developments with Dietrich Brandis, the “Father of Forestry in India” in 1864 (Saldanha, 1996), as he demarcated forests for management and working plans in India(Sagreiya, 1967). Though demarcation was a bureaucratic means of establishing different user rights and taxation levels, land was also separated from indigenous people and their livestock, suppressing traditional methods of agriculture by “shifting cultivation”, which eventually degraded colonies’ environment through soil erosion. Still, the act served as a model for forest policies in other colonies (Sagreiya, 1967). 

The act's influence on Britsh colonies' forest policies was evident in H.C Hill’s “Report of Forest Conservancy'' in 1900, as it stated “if a fair proportion of virgin forests are not kept as forest reserves like Malacca it would be disastrous”. This implied the influence of forestry management from other colonies being practiced in Singapore. Furthermore, attempts of conserving nature were evident as “forest protections came in the form of royalties and fees for forest produce in reserves” (Hill, 1900). With a pragmatic approach, silvicultural management was recommended (Hills, 1990) to balance forest protection and sustainable production. The government was receptive as professional forestry served as extraction of revenue (Jeyamalar, 2005). Although some language used for Hill’s report was made for economic means, this source is historically significant and not biased as he referenced his report to the forest conservation in Straits Settlement made by Cantley before 1882 (Hill, 1900), showing a perspective of both economics and conservative attempts. Further supported in Nature and Nation by Jeyamalar, she argued that British colonialism in Penang transformed forest management by monopolising forest produce through professional forestry such as silviculture, to serve commercial needs for empire expansion and ecological requirements. She further proved the influence of forestry by other colonies under the British empire as Hill’s policies were largely endorsed by the Indian and Burmese models (Jeyamalar, 2005). Although the Indian Forest department was seen as a model to emulate across Asia, doubts were also quickly raised due to the transferability of learned skills from India into other tropical regions. As stated by Henry Ridley in 1895, “you will see a great deal of India’s method being impracticable here”. Though practices could not be fully replicated, it is still apparent that there were some management patterns between colonies under the British empire through the exchange of knowledge and practices. For instance, the establishment of a new forest department of both Straits Settlement and Federated Malay Statement (FMS) in 1901 after Hill from the Indian Forest Service was commissioned to report and advise on the management of Malayan forests. This shows the influence of India’s forestry management which resulted in one of the biggest redirections in the Straits Settlement and FMS. 

During the late 1930s, commercial exploitation of forest reserves in Singapore slowly decreased. This was not due to conservative efforts displaying a strong protective argument but rather exploitation was no longer a proposition for economic gains due to a depleted resource base(Burkill 1959). Similarly, in Paul Warde’s Political Economics of Nature, he contends that economic developments may destroy its foundations due to limited natural resources especially during political and economic progression (Warde, 2018). In a nutshell, the government’s political will is vital towards conservation after analysing the development of forestry in Singapore during the colonial time. Although the policies were not entirely successful in protecting the ecology, there were still attempts of regeneration and preservation of selected forests. As forest reserves were viewed more as exploitation during the colonial period, the practice of increasing colonial revenue eventually outweighed the conservation efforts as the pressure to generate profits radically altered the very biological makeup of the reserved forests. Thus learning from history, the pragmatic attitude towards the development of forestry in Singapore makes conservation efforts more than an ecological project as the government needs to develop a need to balance both socio-economic and ecological requirements to prevent "over limiting" the limits of the environment.