From: Raymond Czaplewski:S28A Date: ## 09/17/96 08:25 ## Previous comments: From: James Maxwell:R02A Date: ## 09/17/96 08:03 ## Interesting 3.5 pages. FYI. Previous comments: From: Sue Ballenski:R02A Date: ## 09/05/96 08:09 ## Previous comments: From: Susan L. McHenry:R05A Date: ## 09/03/96 09:27 ## Previous comments: From: KATHY ROCHE:R05F13D56A Date: ## 09/03/96 08:54 ## Privitization ideas. KR Previous comments: From: CINDY DEAN:R06F14D06A Date: ## 08/28/96 07:04 ## fyi. Previous comments: From: CATHY HUMPHREY:R06F14D06A Date: ## 08/27/96 16:28 ## fyi Previous comments: From: REX HOLLOWAY:R06F14D06A Date: ## 08/27/96 08:19 ## Short, and interesting. Previous comments: From: Mauragrace Healey:R6/PNW Date: ## 08/26/96 11:40 ## Attached is a 3+ page article titled "Privatizing forest land in New Zealand: for the U.S.?" It explains the shifts in control of federal forests lands in that country since the early 1980s, and outlines why such a proposal may not work in the U.S. This article appeared in the August 1996 edition of Forestry Research West, a publication of the research arm of the Forest Service. Of special note: Bob Williams spent a month or two in New Zealand studying this issue. FYI and networking.
Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
UA-content-id: <BGG-SYKZOJ>
Message-Version: 2
End-of-Header:
EMail-Version: 2
UA-Message-ID: <BGG-SYKZOJ>
End-of-Protocol:
The following article appeared in the August 1996 publication of Forestry
Research West. Copies are available from the four western Experiment Stations
of the Forest Service (USDA).
Privatizing forest land in New Zealand: for the US?
By Sherri Richardson and George Stankey,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
There has been much talk on the political front in the United States about
restructuring the management of public lands, including the National Forests.
Among the various alternatives being discussed is the idea of privatization;
conveying these lands and the resources they hold, to the private sector. Many
reasons are cited for this, including an ability to increase the economic
return from these lands and the ability to make their management more
responsive to local concerns and needs.
In New Zealand, the idea of privatizing public lands has moved beyond the
debate stage and is now a reality. Around the world, natural resource managers
and researchers are watching this effort closely to learn if it will indeed
prove to be successful and what the impacts on the forests, communities, and
economy will be. Two such interested persons are Roger Clark, Manager of the
People and Natural Resources Program at the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research
Station's Forestry Sciences Lab in Seattle, and George Stankey, Research Social
Scientist with the program in Corvallis, Oregon.
"We've heard talk at various political levels, from the counties to Congress,
about the 'New Zealand' model, but in fact, not many people understand fully
what New Zealand did, or perhaps more importantly, why they did it. However,
when you understand the background and context of the experiment, the idea that
we could import that model uncritically to the U.S. is highly questionable,"
they explain.
Defining the New Zealand model
What exactly is the New Zealand model and would it work in the United States?
Clark and Stankey have been interested in examining alternative institutional
arrangements for natural resource management, making research and the efforts
undertaken in New Zealand important to understand. Many of that Nation's
environmental controversies mirror those in the U.S., and the historical manner
in which resource management and research have been conducted also are similar
to that in the U.S. Thus, the experience of the New Zealanders could hold
important lessons for the U.S. as we struggle to deal with similar issues.
Between 1970 and the early 1980s, New Zealand found itself in an increasingly
difficult economic situation. For example, inflation had risen to nearly 14
percent per annum. A report by the International Monetary Fund had concluded
that for all intents and purposes, New Zealand was bankrupt. The country's
standard of living had slumped to 91st out of 105 major countries, a collapse
from 1954 when it was ranked second in the world. Then, in 1984, with a change
in government, a decision was made to begin dramatic governmental reform. This
included a decision to increase the return on a number of state-owned assets;
this was to be achieved through conversion of several governmental enterprises into so-called "State-owned Enterprises" or SOEs. This included organizations
such as Air New Zealand and New Zealand Post; it also included the New Zealand
Forest Service. The intent was to treat these activities as private sector
businesses and to require them to perform profitably. This overall
restructuring of government was grounded in free-market principles,
deregulation, and user pay; it also foresaw an end to subsidies and other
protective mechanisms, such as tarifs.
New Zealand Forest Service is dissolved
In this dramatically rapid change, the 70-year-old New Zealand Forest Service
was dissolved, replaced by the Forestry Corporation. A key feature of this
reorganization was all indigenous forests were taken from the forestry agency
and placed under administration of the also newly created Department of
Conservation.
Forest Corporation was left with the management of only the plantation forests,
composed almost wholly of exotic stands of radiata pine. Thus, literally
overnight, the management of New Zealand's forests changed, with 12 million
acres of indigenous forest now managed by the Department of Conservation--and
off limits to any timber harvesting--and the 1.3 million acres of plantation
forests now under management of a publicly owned corporation, which would be
required to operate according to free-market principles and in which managers
would be required to show a return on the investments, as would any private
business.
Rather than privatizing all the previously owned public forests, the
privatization action affected only the exotic plantation forests, which
represented only about 7 percent of all New Zealand forests and perhaps 10
percent of the forests previously controlled by the New Zealand Forest Service
before its dissolution into the Forestry Corporation.
Although the Forestry Corporation showed an almost immediate profit to the New
Zealand government, it was destined to be a short-lived institution. For a
variety of reasons, some explicit, others not, a decision was made to move the
plantation forests from management by a publicly owned corporation to full
privatization. Only 3 years after the creation of the Corporation, the
government announced plans to begin auctioning off the plantations to the
highest bidder. Today, those sales virtually have been completed; only a few
thousand acres remain under management of the Forestry Corporation, which
itself has been reduced to a skeletal staff. Purchasers of the forests include
both domestic and foreign owners.
The sales themselves have important caveats. Perhaps most importantly,
purchasers acquire the rights of access to the timber, not the land. Two key
reasons for this proviso can be cited. First, there are several pending claims
to many of the lands on the part of New Zealand's traditional people, the
Maori. There is an ongoing forum through which these claims are examined. New
Zealand officials concluded that retaining title to the land would expedite
resolution of any conflicts stemming from these claims. Second, there was a
concern that selling off New Zealand sovereign territory to foreign owners was
simply going to prove unacceptable to the people of the country.
Could forest management change in the United States?
In scarcely a decade, the management of New Zealand forests, both indigenous
and exotic, has undergone dramatic change. Could such a change occur here? Are
the conditions in place in the U.S. that would allow such a radical
restructuring of forest tenure and management to take place?
Obviously, any answer to such questions must be speculative. It is important to
understand, however, those underlying features of the New Zealand situation
that were present during this period of reform; from such an analysis, both
similarities and differences between the two countries might be observed.
First, as noted earlier, the extremely serious economic conditions of New
Zealand in the early 1980s gave rise to an especially heightened sense of
urgency that something had to be done and done quickly, less the situation
deteriorate to a catastrophic level. In many ways, the sentiment among many was
"How could things be any worse?" The Nation's plantation forests were seen as a
major source of capital; moreover, the history of a lack of any return to the
government on its investments in forestry led many to conclude that, at a
minimum, the restructuring would at least lead to an end in a flow of cash from
the national treasury to the agency.
Second, the increasingly acrimonious conflict between forest managers and the
environmental movement in New Zealand was seen as unproductive and inimical to
the national well-being. Breaking the nexus over timber harvesting was seen as
a crucial need. This was especially so with harvesting of New Zealand's
indigenous forests. Thus, in the decision to restructure New Zealand forest
management, the decision also was made to end any further harvesting of
publicly held indigenous forests.
A key message in this decision is that there was insufficient trust within
either the government or public at large to leave the New Zealand Forest
Service in charge of either the plantations (designated for commercial
production) or the indigenous forests (designated for conservation). As noted
earlier, a new government agency was established--the Department of
Conservation (DOC)--and given responsibility for management of the indigenous
forests.
Westminster system facilitates change
A third key element is that the particular form of government, founded on the
Westminster system, facilitated rapid change. Under the Westminster system, the
party in power holds sway (in U.S. terms) in both executive as well as
legislative terms. Thus, although there can be extremely contentious
discussions within the party, once a policy decision is arrived at, its
execution and implementation is virtually assured. The normal kind of "checks
and balances" between the executive (i.e., White House) and legislative
(Congress) with which we are familiar is not present in the same fashion in New
Zealand.
The move to privatization of the New Zealand forests, therefore, has
interesting implications for U.S. policymakers, but can hardly be thought of as
a simple template from which we construct a similar undertaking here. There are
major differences in the scales involved; the total area of New Zealand is
about the same as the state of Oregon.
The forest lands that were privatized--the exotic pine plantations--have always
been defined, in both legal as well as conventional terms, as being for
production; in the U.S., it is less easy to make a clear distinction between
those lands designated solely for production and those for multiple uses and
benefits. Moreover, these plantation forests stand in stark contrast in both
symbolic and visual terms to the indigenous forests; in this sense, they have
always been seen as "different" and perhaps even foreign. And, again, it is
important to note the differing political structure of the two countries; the
capacity for rapid and dramatic policy changes seems less likely in the
American situation than in the system of Westminster government in New Zealand.
For more information about the New Zealand experiment in forest management,
contact either Roger Clark, People and Natural Resources Program, Forestry
Sciences Lab, 4043 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105, Phone (206) 553-7817 or
George Stankey, People and Natural Resources Program, c/o Department of Forest
Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, phone (503) 737-1496.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0