POSTWAR AFFORESTATION Figure 4 Difference between the wartime afforestation and the postwar afforestation

Conclusion

There is a fundamental difference between the wartime national afforestation campaign and its postwar counterpart (Figure 4). It is the presence/absence of ‘others.’ In the wartime afforestation campaign, the ‘other nature’ of the overseas colonial territories is present in relation to ‘our nature’ of the Japanese mainland, even if the former is marginalized as a mere resource to be exploited. In the postwar afforestation campaign, however, the ‘other nature’ of the ex-colonial territory is completely absent. The narrative of forest conservation is solely aimed at Japanese nature, not at any other nature. Although Japan lost most of its colonial territory by its defeat in World War II, that does not mean Japan had lost any environmental linkages with other Asian countries. On the contrary, as noted above, since the 1960s, Japan has again started to import tropical timber from Southeast Asian countries and South Pacific islands. As Knight (1997) criticizes, Japan has on one hand imported a great quantity of tropical timber and triggered deforestation in Southeast Asia and South Pacific islands to provide resources for its own demand, while on the other hand it has practiced a selfish, nationalistic forest conservation policy within its own country.

This situation is exactly what the wartime forestry experts had envisioned. The executive director of the Japan Forestry Association, Hayashi, says in his discussion of tropical forestry in 1942, “Recently people have misgivings about the disaster because of over-cutting in Japanese forests. Therefore, I propose to rest Japanese forests for a while and to seek other ways to make it up in other areas” (“Discussion on the future of the forestry in Greater East Asia,” Sanrin, No.711: 38). The wartime forestry experts were aware of the colonial relationship between Japanese forests and overseas forests, and dared to exploit other natural areas.

However, postwar forestry officials or forestry experts do not seem to be aware of it. They speak of/for only Japanese nature.

Western “other” nature – Japanese “our “ nature – (hidden “other” nature)

Overt category Covert category

Figure 5 The visible and invisible others in the postwar forest conservation

Despite the existence of actual transactions with other natural areas, their environmental gaze eventually returns to ‘our nature.’ According to the Forestry White Paper 2000 edited by the Forestry Agency, the Japanese government has been contributing to the problems of the global environment such as desertification and global warming. However, there is no proposal to make linkages between ‘our nature’

and ‘other nature.’ The ongoing project of ‘Forest creation by the nation’ jointly organized by the Forestry Agency and the National Land Afforestation Promotion Organization still remains within the same context of the ‘Nation’s Forests’ noted above. It aims to raise domestic forests for the sake of the Japanese nation.

We cannot find any ‘others’ in that project despite actual ‘contributive’ linkages with tropical forests in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, etc.

Therefore, the problem of the postcolonial relationship between ‘our nature’ and ‘other nature’ in contemporary Japan is not the presence/absence of others, but the visibility/invisibility of others. In other words, the problem is not the ontological structure of the others’ absence, but the epistemological mechanism making the others invisible (Figure 5). The postwar afforestation campaign is an epistemological apparatus that makes our gaze converge on Japanese nature, and turns our eyes away from the hidden other nature through various events, activities, and discourses. In order to break through such an epistemological mechanism, we need encounters with the other hidden nature. Such an encounter with the other hidden nature will not be realized via universalized ecological environmentalism or exclusionary national environmentalism. Criticizing the processes of the nationalization of nature, and at the same time looking for the possibility of constructing an alternative nature emancipated for others, is the task of ‘the social construction of nature.’

Acknowledgment

This paper was originally presented at the 99th Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers at New Orleans in 2003. I would like to thank all the participants of ‘Geographies of Nature’

session for their fruitful comments on my presentation.

Notes

1) Demeritt (1994) criticizes Cronon’s explanation as an ecological essentialism. Furthermore, some articles in Antipode Special Issue (1994: 26-2) make critical comments on this problem. My introduction was partly inspired by those comments though not quoted in detail.

2) I remember an episode of environmental conflict over the temperate rainforests of Clayoquot Sound in 1993 (Braun 2002: 68-71).

Braun pays much attention to the mode of representation of forests in that conflict. When a protester was caught by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was dragged to the waiting bus, he cried out “Here I stand for the wild things…I speak for the wolves, the trees, and eagles” (Braun 2002:69). On this ethical statement, Braun raises questions: “Why was it this man, rather than someone else, who spoke for nature? …And does not ‘speaking for’ nature presuppose a ‘nature’ to be spoken for? If

nature is ‘without voice,’ as the man claimed, who decides the words in which nature speaks?” (Braun 2002: 71). These are the decisive questions to consider the representation of nature. It is the postcolonial power relationships between the majority of whites and the minority of First Nations that makes it possible for this man to speak for nature like this. However, despite the similar forms of the discourses, it is not the same power relationships as with the Canadian case that make it possible for Kitamura (1998) to “speak for” nature.

3) It is since the late 1950s that some ecologists and scientific researchers have advocated conservation of the virgin forests in Japan (a famous biologist, Tatsuo Kira, advocated conservation of the virgin forests at the Nature Conservation Society of Japan and the Ecological Society of Japan co-symposium on nature conservation in 1959). However, was only after the designation of Mt.

Shirakami and Yakushima Island as World Natural Heritage Sites in 1992 that ordinary Japanese people have become interested in the conservation of virgin forests in Japan.

4) April 3 is the celebration day in honor of the legendary Emperor Jimmu. That day was called “Jinmu Tennō Sai” (Emperor Jimmu Feast), and was a national holiday before 1945. Although Emperor Jimmu is considered to be the first emperor of Japan, he is, in fact, an imaginary character in Japanese ancient myth.

5) The Japan Forestry Association has remained as a forestry industry-related organization, and is substantively separated from the national afforestation campaign.

6) In 1968, Japan marked the centennial of the Meiji Restoration. A lot of events, projects and festivals were conducted in observance of the Meiji Centennial by the national and local governments and private groups. NLAPC conducted the Meiji Centennial Memorial National Land Afforestation Campaign, which included memorial afforestation, construction of monuments, distribution of memorial leaflets, a poster contest, and the construction of forest parks (Nakashima 1999).

References

Berque, A. (1996). Chikyū to sonzai no tetsugaku: kankyō rinri wo koete (Philosophy of the Earth and existence: beyond environmental ethics). Tokyo:

Chikuma Syobo.

Braun, B. (2002). The intemperate rainforest: nature, culture, and power on Canada’s West Coast. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.

Cronon, W. (1991). Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company.

Demeritt, D. (1994). “The nature of metaphors in cultural geography and environmental history.” Progress in Human Geography 18:

163-185.

Gregory, D. (2001). “(Post)Colonialism and the production of nature.” In Castree, N. and Braun, B. eds. Social nature: theory, practice, and politics. Oxford: Blackwell. 84-111.

Ichikawa, T. (1984). Nihon no buna-tai bunka (Beech forest culture in Japan). Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.

Kawai, Y. (1942). “Shinrin shigen wo kakuho seyo” (Secure the forest resources). Sanrin, 710, 8-10.

Kitamura, M. (1995). Shinrin to nihon-jin: mori no kokoro ni semaru (Forests and the Japanese: approaching the soul of forest). Tokyo: Shōgakkan.

Kitamura, M. (1998). Buna no mori to ikiru (Living with the beech forest). Tokyo: PHP Kenkyūsho.

Kito, S. (1996). Shizen hogo wo toinaosu: kankyō rinri to nettowaaku (Rethinking nature conservation: environmental ethics and networks). Tokyo:

Chikuma Shobo.

Knight, J. (1997). “A tale of two forests: reforestation discourse in Japan and beyond.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, (N.S.), 3, 711-730.

Morioka, M. (1994). Seimeikan wo toinaosu: ekorojii kara nōshi made (Rethinking the view of life: from ecology to brain death). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo.

Murakami, R. (1934). “Airinbi no shūshi” (Purpose of Arbor Day). Sanrin, 618, 6-7 Nakao, K. (1934). “Airinbi no igi” (The significance of Arbor Day). Sanrin, 616, 5-9.

Nakashima, K. (1999). “Representing nature and nation: the National-Land Afforestation Campaign and the production of forests in 1960s~1970s Japan.” in Mizuuchi, T. ed., Nation, Region and the Politics of Geography in East Asia. Osaka: Osaka City University,

13-29.

Nakashima, K. (2002). “Nationalizing nature: discourses of fūdo and national environmentalism in modern Japan.” The Geographical Reports of Kanazawa University, 10: 115-125.

National Land Afforestation Promotion Committee. (1965). Kokudo ryokka undō jūgonen (Fifteen years of the National Land Afforestation Campaign). Tokyo: National Land Afforestation Promotion Committee.

National Land Afforestation Promotion Committee. (1982). Kokudo ryokka sanjūnen no ayumi (History of the thirty years of National Land Afforestation Campaign). Tokyo: National Land Afforestation Promotion Committee.

Ōe, S. (1992). “Higashi Ajia shinkyū teikoku no kōtai” (Alteration of the old empire with the new one in East Asia). in Ōe, S., Asada, K., Mitani, T., Goto, K., Kobayashi, H., Takasaki, S., Wakabayashi, M. and M. Kawamura eds. Kindai nihon to shokuminchi 1:

shokuminchi teikoku Nihon (Modern Japan and colonies 1: Japan, the colonial empire). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 3-31.

Sasaki, K. (1982). Nihon bunka no kiso wo saguru (Exploring the basis of Japanese culture). Tokyo: NHK Books.

Shidei, T. (1998). Shinrin 2 (Forests 2). Tokyo: Hosei Diagaku Shuppankyoku.

Sonobe, I. (1934). “Airinbi no raireki” (History of Arbor Day). Sanrin, 616, 10-15.

Sugawara, S. ed. (1996). Shinrin, Nihon bunka to siteno (Forests as Japanese culture). Tokyo: Chijin Shokan.

Tezuka, H. (1990). “Waga kuni no ryokka undō” (Afforestation campaigns in this country). In National Land Afforestation Promotion Organization ed., Ryokka no chichi, Tokugawa Muneyoshi ō (Father of afforestation, Uncle Muneyoshi Tokugawa). Tokyo:

National Land Afforestation Promotion Organization, 15-89.

Umehara, T. (1976). Nihon bunka ron (Japanese culture). Tokyo: Kodansha.

Umehara, T. and Yasuda, Y. eds. (1993). Mori no bunmei, junkan no shisō: jinrui wo sukuu michi wo saguru (Forest civilization, ideas of cycle:

exploring the path for saving humans). Tokyo: Kodansha.

Wada, K. (1934). “Airinbi settei no shūshi” (Purpose of the establishment of Arbor Day). Sanrin, 616, 2-4.

Watsuji, T. (1971). Climate and culture: a philosophical study. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press.

Yasuda, Y. (1991). Daijiboshin no jidai (The times of the god Dijiboshin). Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.