Once again, note the causes that the author gives at the end of the report. He does not attribute everything to deforestation.

The author does not assume a worst-case scenario, like you do. And he does not say that deforestation is the only reason for temperature and rainfall decrease.

“The temperature has risen a few degrees over a period of about a century and quarter in the hill country stations, while rainfall has declined significantly at some stations. These changes seem to be a result of the interaction of both global and local factors. Although some of these changes would have been a result of global warming, land use change would also have contributed to regional disparities.”

Summary

1. Global and local factors
2. Global warming
3. Land use change

Try harder Off the Cuff! As I said, the key word here is statistics. Even though there is a decline, only statistics can indicate the extent of the decline. In the absence of such statistics, your assumptions about deforestation amount to nothing.

“I am looking hard, but I see no statistics to back up your claim. If you can provide statistics, then you will have made a point” you wrote

Looks like you are very myopic indeed. I am afraid corrective lenses wont be able to help you with this sort of Myopia.

Intellectual Dishonesty seems to be deeply ingrained with you.

Wasn’t it you who quoted the Scholarly Report?

That Scholar from the Peradeniya University has given the conclusions in the report you quoted AFTER studying statistics. That is why he is writing about TRENDS

The claim about Rainfall and Temperature rise is not mine, it’s in the University don’s report that You Quoted.

Having difficulty in reading?

Hope you understand how a Scholar arrives at Trends or is that too much to expect from you ?

If you don’t know what a Trend means, Analysis of Statistics would be way out of reach of your intellectual capacity or the lack of it.

You are now trying in vain to contest the report you yourself quoted.
Hyperbole at it’s best

I am looking hard, but I see no statistics to back up your claim. If you can provide statistics, then you will have made a point. Your argument is essentially this:

Because event A has happened, event A has happened in the worst way possible

My argument is this:

Event A has happened, but no conclusion can be drawn to imply that it has happened in the worst way possible.

Please provide statistics for the following:

Resulting in Low Rainfall
Higher Temperatures
Higher Evaporation of surface water (due to elevated temperature)
Reduced water volume of rivers
Reduced inflow to down stream Reservoirs
Reduced hydro power generation
Reduced water collection in down stream Agricultural Reservoirs
Reduced water availability for Cultivation
Reduced Crop Yields due to lower availability of water
Reduced water availability for Human consumption

If you cannot provide statistics, then it is logical to assume your argument is based on unproved assumptions. On the other hand, if your argument is based onunproved assumptions , then the possibility exists that such assumptions are in fact wrong.

You are just trying to play Hide & Seek.

Please tell us what you understand by the following extract from the report quoted by you.

The forest cover in the hill country river catchment areas of Sri Lanka has been reduced to isolated patches on hilltops and a handful of reserves above the 1524 m (5000 ft) contour. Most of the land that was under forest cover at the turn of the nineteenth century is now covered with plantation crops.

I understand it as an EXTENSIVE Destruction of Catchment Area of Rivers.
Resulting in Low Rainfall
Higher Temperatures
Higher Evaporation of surface water (due to elevated temperature)
Reduced water volume of rivers
Reduced inflow to down stream Reservoirs
Reduced hydro power generation
Reduced water collection in down stream Agricultural Reservoirs
Reduced water availability for Cultivation
Reduced Crop Yields due to lower availability of water
Reduced water availability for Human consumption

Alpha, can you contest anyone of those statements using Logic or Science? If you can, please provide your reasons for EACH of the above that you reject.

If you cannot dispute the above, is it not destruction?
How can it be termed Exaggeration?

This is another extract from the same report “During the period of large-scale deforestation in the hill country, the climate also underwent changes as exemplified by rainfall and temperature trends. However, these trends are not uniform everywhere in the plantation areas of the hill country. The temperature has risen a few degrees over a period of about a century and quarter in the hill country stations, while rainfall has declined significantly at some stations.”

Hence how do you propose to maintain the charge that you made which is copied below?

“The above report mentions nothing about damage to the pre-existing agriculture of the time.” and your previous comment “I am pretty sure that you are exaggerating the rest of the so-called destruction.”

Copying from “scholarly sources” is useless, unless you possess the Intelligence to interpret them.

If you have ever visited a Tea Estate or have even seen one with an observing mind you could not have failed to note that there is No Undergrowth under Tea

Absence of Undergrowth on a slope results in continuous soil erosion.
When such erosion takes place over an Area in excess of 111336 ha (the figure in 1878 and today its 2010) that erosion is Massive.

What are you interested in, a TRUTHFUL discussion or Hyperbole?

Your claim was that the British destroyed the agricultural industry in SL.

This is what you said:

” “Off the Cuff said,

February 13, 2010 @ 2:39 am

My contention is that the destruction that was done to the Existing Agricultural economy in order to establish that Tea economy does not compensate for the destruction done. “”

—————————–

The above report mentions nothing about damage to the pre-existing agriculture of the time. You have added your personal conclusion to the argument:

“As a Result of Denuding Forest cover in catchment areas, Rivers get less water
With lower volume of water, down stream reservoirs get less water for irrigation and power generation
With less water Agriculture produces lower yields
There is no UNDERGROWTH in a Tea Plantation which results in Soil Erosion (any Tamil who worked in an estate will confirm it)
Loss of top soil makes the land unsuitable for cultivation.”

You have merely made the contention that deforestation leads to soil erosion. However, the extent of the soil erosion can vary greatly… you have not proved that such soil erosion had any significant impact on the agricultural economy of SL. In fact, clearing away forests for cultivation would actually increase the size of the agricultural economy, not decrease it. Less water does not lead to lower agricultural yields; ever heard of dry farming? In any case, why don’t you post the levels of annual rainfall in SL during the British times, in the Hill Country, over a large number of years…. let us see if there is a significant decline. If there is not, then you have no case. Also, there was never any famine or other such disaster in SL during the British time.

Like I said before, your claim that the British destroyed the agricultural industry is false. And you do not have any scholarly sources to back up your claim. Adding your own conclusions to a report about deforestation is rather dishonest.

It appears your dishonesty in extracting what you wanted and leaving out the sections that reinforces what I said about Denuding the Forests in the river catchment area AND then Fraudulently accusing me by stating I am pretty sure that you are exaggerating the rest of the so-called destruction. is degrading to say the least. I have copied the full abstract below for reference and I believe no other “SCHOLARLY” reference would be required.

The forest cover in the hill country river catchment areas of Sri Lanka has been reduced to isolated patches on hilltops and a handful of reserves above the 1524 m (5000 ft) contour. Most of the land that was under forest cover at the turn of the nineteenth century is now covered with plantation crops.

The districts of Kandy, Matale, Nuwara Eliya, Badulla, Ratnapura and Kegalle are the main hill country plantation areas. Within a period of less than half a century most of the forests in the hill country were cleared for plantation crops. Shifting cultivation was responsible for deforestation in the drier parts of the hill country. At the time of the British conquest of the hill country, the population of the whole island was not more than 3/4 to 1 million and they had settled in isolated villages at elevations below 1066 m. Subsistence agriculture was the main occupation of this predominantly rural population. During the first phase (1830-1880) of the plantation industry, large tracts of mostly forest land were cleared for coffee cultivation. By 1878, the extent of the coffee plantations reached its maximum of 111336 ha most of which was situated in the wet zone hill country.

The second phase of plantation agriculture began as the coffee industry was completely wiped out by a leaf disease. Most of the abandoned coffee plantations and the remaining forests were converted to tea, rubber and cinchona estates. The first two crops managed to survive price fluctuations in the world market, while the latter collapsed because of over production. During the period of large-scale deforestation in the hill country, the climate also underwent changes as exemplified by rainfall and temperature trends.

However, these trends are not uniform everywhere in the plantation areas of the hill country. The temperature has risen a few degrees over a period of about a century and quarter in the hill country stations, while rainfall has declined significantly at some stations. These changes seem to be a result of the interaction of both global and local factors. Although some of these changes would have been a result of global warming, land use change would also have contributed to regional disparities.

As a Result of Denuding Forest cover in catchment areas, Rivers get less water
With lower volume of water, down stream reservoirs get less water for irrigation and power generation
With less water Agriculture produces lower yields
There is no UNDERGROWTH in a Tea Plantation which results in Soil Erosion (any Tamil who worked in an estate will confirm it)
Loss of top soil makes the land unsuitable for cultivation.

Do you agree to the above? Please give your reasons if you do not agree.

You wrote “The British simply destroyed the forest cover in the Hill Country. Read the link I gave above from Peradeniya”

Did you read it?

Alpha, thank you for providing the link to the above document
Quirk of fate that it proved the depth of your dishonesty

This is part 1 ….more will follow

- The British did not destroy the agricultural economy of the island

- The British are responsible for massive deforestation in the Hill Country

- The native S. Lankans have continued deforestation even after the British left

- Most S. Lankans relied on subsistence farming to earn a living, before colonial times

- It was the British and other colonials who made it possible for S. Lankans to move beyond the barriers of caste/class and thereby achieve a higher economic/social status

I cannot find any credible references in regards to the impact on agriculture, as per the introduction of tea by the British.

Forest Cover

When the British took over the island in the early in the early 19th century it is
likely that Sri Lanka’s forest cover probably was as high as 90%. Starting in
the 1830s the British cleared large tracts of forest mostly in the hilly central
region forest for cinchona and coffee and later for tea and rubber plantations.
In the 1880s after the British had spent fifty years clearing jungle for
plantations the forest cover was estimated to be around 80%. By the time the
Births left the island in 1948 the forest cover was down to about 54% to 50%.

—–

So if we go by statistics, the decline in forest cover by the British is from 90% to 50%, or 40%. On the other hand, the decline in the forest cover continued even after the British left:

“According to Data Ranking, SriLanka had forest cover of 30.0%
in 2000″

In fact, deforestation by the native Sri Lankan population continues today at an unprecedented rate:

“Between 1990 and 2000, Sri Lanka lost an average of 26,800 hectares of forest per year. This amounts to an average annual deforestation
rate of 1.14%.

The forest reserve of nearly 80% in 1886 was reduced to 70% in 1900,
44% in 1956, and is nearly 25% at present.

“The government has made its own contribution to forest clearance for
reasons that are connected to the war. To prevent the insurgents from
posing a threat to the safety of security personnel traveling on the main
roads in the north and east the government has cleared thousands of acres
bordering the roads in the war areas. More recently the government has
cleared jungle land to house IDPs from the war.”

The author is a Research Fellow at Global Vision. He is Senior Lecturer
in Geography, Peradeniya University and currently Visiting Professor
at Buffalo University, New York.

http://www.gvglobalvision.org/publications/Earth%20Day%202009.pdf

“Especially because as communication improved superior technology would get exported and imported”

So you are admitting that ancient Lankan engineering is not enough to take the country (economy) forward? Thanks. What you didn’t mention is that the British brought quite a lot of that superior technology to colonial SL.

“Have you forgotten that you have to use DATA at a point of time before the Agricultural industry was affected by Tea? So what do you think was the EXCHANGE rate for ‘Kahavanu’, ‘Masu’, ‘Ran’ and ‘Kahapanas’ or Portuguese currency the various monetary units used in SL in the 16 th century? I of course have no idea.”

According to you, self-sufficiency in food is the only valid economic indicator. In which case, if the British had not “destroyed” the agricultural economy, the quantity produced before pre-colonial times should equal the quantity produced after/during colonial times and therefore the exchange rate should be similar. Of course this is assuming that only the superior brick and mortar technology of Lankan engineering is used in any irrigation process.

” Income from Tea was ZERO at that time (no tea remember). So how do you start the comparison? ”

We can look at some of the technology which was used back then for planting and harvesting:

1. Water buffalo
2. Spades
3. Hoe
4. Men, women, and children

Now we can look at technology that is used in modern farming:

1. Tractor
2. Feed grinder/mixer/processor
3. Planters/Row units
4. Auger
5. Bale Processor
6. Skid Steers
7. Disc Mower
8. Rotary Mower
9. Aerial crop dusting

Which set of technologies will lead to increased GDP? The answer is pretty obvious.

“Remember that we were totally self sufficient in food
We did not import food but exported it
These are the two economic indicators that we know from that period”

That does not adequately describe the standard of living at the time. Even when people had slaves (e.g. USA) the slaves did not starve to death – they had enough to eat. Having enough to eat, by itself, does not describe the well-being of a society.

“What twisted logic did you use to classify a country exporting food as doing “Subsistence” farming? Probably you don’t understand the meaning of the word. Check it out.”

My source is WICKRAMAGAMAGE P, from the Department of Geography, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, SRI LANKA. Unfortunately, he totally contradicts your Mahavamsa fantasy about a self-sufficient Buddhist kingdom:

“”At the time of the British conquest of the hill country, the population of the whole island was not more than 3/4 to 1 million and they had settled in isolated villages at elevations below 1066 m. Subsistence agriculture was the main occupation of this predominantly rural population.”"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1615386

”
I wouldn’t know about the land, would you? Land was not measured by “Acres” in that period but by the extent of grain that is sowed, such as “Amuna”, “Pela”, “Kuruni” etc. Some would have owned more land than others or may be there were large tracts of State owned Land cultivated as common land or may be all land was state owned. Not that all this matters to the discussion in hand.”

Actually it DOES matter. You have forgotten all about the class system in place at the time.

——-

Caste as we know it today appears to have been introduced to Sri Lanka by Prakrit-language-speakers from North India. Whether the similar Jā ti like separation of society existed prior to this invasion is unknown. There is evidence, in early historical chronicles, of the main vedic castes in the early Anuradhapura era, although it is possible that these categories were used as a literary convention. It has been posited by Bryce Ryan and others that the system as it exists in Sri Lanka is a preservation of that of early or pre-Vedic India, which bore little relation to the classic varna model.
The introduction of Buddhism in the 3rd century BCE blunted the edge of the system somewhat. However, there is a reference to King Dutugemunu Abhaya`s son, Saliya choosing to lose caste by marrying Asokamala, a Chandala or outcaste woman, in the 2nd century BC, indicating that caste taboos remained in place.
The later caste system seems to have evolved as much through waves of ethnic migration as by delineation by occupation. Also Sri Lankan monarchs seem to have overwhelmingly depended on South Indian manpower for functional needs such as menial tasks, weaving, crafts and ritual drumming.
Sinhalese Castes
================
As a result of the Mudaliyar class created by the British in the 19th century, the majority caste among the Sinhalese population now is the Goyigama. It appears that the Govigama comprise at least half the Sinhalese population. The traditional occupation of this caste is cultivation, and most members are still farmers in villages almost everywhere in Sri Lanka. In traditional Sinhalese society, they were the peasants but their status improved dramatically after the collapse of Sri Lanka`s traditional feudal system. Changes to land ownership concepts introduced by the Dutch liberated them from their bonds to the land. The Sinhalese system is divided between the Kandyan and Low country.

In the Kandy District of the highlands live the Batgama or Padu, another caste of agricultural laborers who have escaped the British period consolidation of the cultivator caste. Also untouchable Rodiya and the Kinnaraya who display the vestiges of a hunter gather tribe, were traditionally segregated from other groups because of their menial status. Living in all areas are service groups, such as the Hena or Rada, traditional washermen who still dominate the laundry trade the Berava, traditional temple drummers who work as cultivators in many villages and the Navandanna or Acari types are traditional artisans. The highland interior is home to the Vahumpura, or traditional makers of jaggery (a sugar made from palm sap), who have spread throughout the country in a wide variety of occupations, especially agriculture.
Southern Castes
===============
There are still major differences between the caste structures of the highlands and those of the low country, although some service groups are common to both. The southwest coast is home to three major castes other than the majority Goyigama common to both Low Country and Up Country, whose ancestors are believed have migrated from South India but who have become important actors in the Sinhalese social system: the Karave, the Durava and the Salagama.

These groups have exploited their traditional occupations and their coastal positions to accumulate wealth and influence during the colonial period. By the late twentieth century, members of southern castes, especially by the karavas, had moved to all parts of the country, occupied high business and academic positions. Formerly untouchable Rodiya and Kinnaraya are also found in the low country.

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2008/1/24067_space.html

———————–

So this is the part of the history you like to deny: the fact that most Sinhalese owned very little land, performed subsistence farming, and were able to improve their status only during colonial times!

“If you mean Bushels per Acre, I would have to ask you to provide the figures in the units used in SL, Kuruni per Amuna of land as I don’t know how to convert between the Western and SL systems.”

And yet, know that the amount of land owned by the average Sinhalese peasant was so negligible that it is a foregone conclusion how much land they owned!

”
Don’t put your intelligence (or lack of it) on public display by trying to “IMAGINE” with your puny knowledge, what a people whose expertise is recognized by professionals in the relevant fields would have done. I don’t know what your field of expertise is, but Engineering is not one of them. ”

Anyone can LOOK at the structures assembled and all he will see are mechanical devices made out of NATURAL materials. You don’t need an engineering degree for that.

“BTW the Agriculture that SL practiced is “Sustainable Agriculture” or to use the modern equivalent “Organic Agriculture” sans Pesticides and types of fertilizer which destroy the fertility of the land over time. Organic farming is the trend now isn’t it?”

The word is subsistence farming, as per the geology guy from Peradeniya.

”
Meet the points raised in my post “One by One” if you can justify the destruction of a self sufficient Agricultural economy which provided COMPLETE Food Security to the country and exported the surplus food, into an economy exporting a non essential item to the world and becoming a prisoner of a fickle global Tea market ”

The British simply destroyed the forest cover in the Hill Country. Read the link I gave above from Peradeniya. I am pretty sure that you are exaggerating the rest of the so-called destruction. Why don’t you provide a few scholarly references to back up your claims?