Green Colonialism in Zimbabwe, 1890-1980 By Vimbai Kwashirai

emotive language about the consequences of woodland exploitation: deforestation, soil erosion, and threats to wildlife. This study analyses the history of exploitation and conservation of Zimbabwean teak, which is also called mkusi or Baikiaea plurijuga and its associated species, in northwestern Matabeleland from 1890 to 1980. Timber exploitation was among the top three colonial economic activities in Matabeleland, along with ranching and tobacco cultivation. Concessionaire capitalists and forestry officials dominated the exploitation and conservation, respectively, of the Zambezi teak woodland, or gusu. On one hand, capitalists sought to extract as much commercial hardwood timber as they could; at the same time, foresters restricted tree felling. The study shows there was conflict and accommodation between exploitation and conservation and the two interest groups involved. Conflict arose when timber firms such as the Rhodesia Native Timber Concessionaires (RNTC) demanded increases in the quantity of commercial trees cut every year while foresters pushed for minimum exploitation. Reconciling the two stakeholders was difficult, and at various times they either clashed or accommodated each other through dialogue, persuasion, and compromise. The two dominant players on the scene were the Forestry Service and the RNTC. There was also conflict and accommodation between foresters and Africans. Foresters and other government officials blamed African methods of farming and food gathering in part for the destruction of the gusu. But foresters depended on ultracheap African tenant labour in the practice of conservation, which for the most part involved fire fighting and prevention. A major stumbling block for the Forestry Service in conserving the gusu against African and settler demands was the absence of a Forest Act in sixty out of the ninety years of history examined. A Forest Act was enacted in 1949. During those ninety years, 1,057,000 acres were exploited and 900,000 acres were conserved for future purposes. This history is informed primarily by written evidence from foresters of the time: Henkel, Sim, Wilkins, and Kelly-Edwards, in particular.