Discussion Paper: New Zealand's Privatization of Forest Lands: Policy Lessons for the United States and Elsewhere?
Two forest policy questions are examined: 1. What particular problems in New Zealand's privatization of public forest lands (1985 to 1995) need thorough examination prior to proposing it in the United States or elsewhere? 2. What light does the New Zealand experience throw on the question of whether privatization and subdivision of forest lands is the solution to multiple use conflicts among forest land uses and users? A brief history of the origin and implementation of New Zealand's forest privatization policy is given, including the disestablishment of its national Forest Service. Two unique features of New Zealand made privatization especially appropriate there: the history of many government-operated businesses, and the great area and productivity of a very distinctive and differentiated forest type--radiata pine plantations. Nine objectives of privatization stated in New Zealand, 5 specifically on forestry, are analyzed. Six of the 9 were concluded to be successful in New Zealand. Possibilities of success in the United States are examined. As a solution for multiple-use problems, both positive and negative results of the policy are found. Finally, 6 tentative "lessons" are concluded that should be reviewed in countries where a similar policy is proposed: 1. Privatization should involve either leasing or fee simple sale of forested land primarily suited to rapid tree growth of commercially valuable species suitable for being managed for successive crops of timber at a profit, with covenants for regeneration after harvest. 2. Lands critical for recreational, aesthetic, or habitat values should remain publicly owned. 3. Lands on which re-investment of some of the income in regeneration is of questionable profitability should not be entered into the policy. 4. The policy could be successful in avoiding many but not all multiple-use conflicts for the managers. 5. In public forests retained for exclusively noncommodity uses, questions of the availability of some useful and valuable woods may require arbitration of conflicts. 6. Privatization doesn't solve the struggle to financially support park and wilderness and special wildlife habitat. For. Sci. 43(2):181-193.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
Document Type: Journal Article
Affiliations: Professor Emeritus, College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0324
Publication date: 1997-05-01
More about this publication?
- Forest Science is a peer-reviewed journal publishing fundamental and applied research that explores all aspects of natural and social sciences as they apply to the function and management of the forested ecosystems of the world. Topics include silviculture, forest management, biometrics, economics, entomology & pathology, fire & fuels management, forest ecology, genetics & tree improvement, geospatial technologies, harvesting & utilization, landscape ecology, operations research, forest policy, physiology, recreation, social sciences, soils & hydrology, and wildlife management.
Forest Science is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December.
2016 Impact Factor: 1.782 (Rank 17/64 in forestry)
Average time from submission to first decision: 62.5 days*
June 1, 2016 to Feb. 28, 2017
Also published by SAF:
Journal of Forestry
Other SAF Publications
- Submit a Paper
- Membership Information
- Author Guidelines
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites