The planet’s primary forests, such as those of Borneo, the Amazon and the Congo Basin, are still at risk from deforestation. This phenomenon, particularly acute in these regions, often finds its roots in colonial history, with practices of management and exploitation of natural resources which have lastingly shaped the territories and their populations.
Destruction in figures: the ravages of the 20th century
During the 20th century, half of the world’s forests were destroyed, and three major regions in particular were hit hard by deforestation: South America, West Africa and South Asia. -East. The phenomenon shows no signs of slowing down. In 2022, the European Union even passed legislation banning the import of certain products linked to deforestation, such as chocolate, coffee, palm oil and rubber, in response to growing pressure on forests tropical.
A long-standing dependence on raw materials
Certain consumer products, such as rubber, are at the heart of global industry, and their exploitation is closely linked to colonial history. Rubber, essential for making tires, bicycles and many other industrial products, is a prime example. Its production, which is based on the extraction of latex from rubber trees, particularly rubber trees, is closely linked to the exploitation of the colonies. The rubber industry is a legacy of the Second Industrial Revolution, when large European and American companies, such as Michelin, used the colonies’ natural resources to fuel global demand.
From the forest to the plantation: the colonial roots of rubber
The rubber tree, a tree native to South America, was introduced into the colonial territories by the colonial powers, in particular France, to establish plantations. This has led to the destruction of vast areas of primary forest to make way for monocultures. The Fordlandia project, launched in 1928 by Henry Ford in the Amazon, is an emblematic example. Ford negotiated a 10,000 km² concession with the Brazilian government to produce the rubber needed for its factories. This ambitious project ended in failure, in particular because of the opposition of the indigenous populations and a fungal epidemic that was devastating for the plantations.
Rubber plantations, often managed according to the Taylorian model of production, lowered production costs and accelerated the expansion of the rubber industry. This management method quickly spread in the English, Dutch and French colonies, particularly in Southeast Asia, to the detriment of tropical forests.
Taylorism applied to nature: exploitation of men and trees
Rubber exploitation is based on the application of Taylorism not only to workers, but also to natural resources. Colonized populations, such as Asian coolies and Brazilian seringueros, were considered cheap labor, their work being undervalued in an effort to reduce costs. Working conditions were often extremely difficult, with high mortality.
-Trees, too, were subject to a “scientific” organization of work. Planting costs were measured and minimized, without taking into account the human and ecological costs associated with the destruction of primary forests. Everything was based on an accounting evaluation of production costs and on the ideology of profit maximization, to the detriment of ecosystems and local populations.
Colonial heritage and the cheapization of life
The concept of “cheapization” of life, developed by Jason W. Moore, illustrates the way in which nature, including humans, has been exploited in the capitalist system. This process transforms natural resources such as soils, forests and humans into low-cost factors of production, contributing to ecological and social degradation.
Even today, many industries rely on the extraction of natural resources in countries of the South, with production costs that do not take into account the ecological impact. Rubber is just one example. Palm oil, sugar, coffee and cocoa are resources that have deep roots in colonial history and continue to impact the forests of the Global South.
Why remember this colonial past?
The exploitation of natural resources in former colonial territories continues to have repercussions, particularly on the environment and local populations. Colonial history helps us understand current economic dynamics and question the way in which these practices are perpetuated. When looking at contemporary issues, such as deforestation in the Amazon or environmental damage linked to resource extraction in Africa, it is essential to step back and ask: what are the historical responsibilities? How do these colonial practices continue to influence the dynamics of natural resource management today?
At a time when the ecological emergency is increasingly recognized, the example of rubber reminds us of the importance of understanding the historical links between former colonial empires and the management practices that led to this situation. If we are considering new forms of management, it is crucial to ask ourselves who has the legitimacy to decide on change and to recognize the value of the knowledge of local communities, who have always been the first to be affected.
Moctar FICUU / VivAfrik
Related News :