Indigenous Forest Management in 21st-Century New Zealand: Towards a ‘Postproductivist’ Indigenous Forest–Farmland Interface?

Abstract

The critique of indigenous forest management in New Zealand in this paper contextualises the discussion in light of recent Eurocentric debates on the transition towards ‘postproductivist’ and ‘multifunctional’ agricultural and forestry regimes. The research findings confirm recent criticisms of Australian writers with regard to the direct transferability of the notion of a transition towards postproductivism developed by European researchers and also lend support to Holmes's (2002) notion of productivist and postproductivist occupance. Long-standing productivist demands continue to be made on New Zealand's indigenous forests, especially from economically marginalised stakeholder groups who depend on the continuation of logging for economic survival. We argue that the tension between the recent adoption of a ‘postproductivist’ conservation policy at government level and the continuing ‘productivist’ attitudes among some stakeholder groups explains why the protection of remaining indigenous forests continues to be contested. The New Zealand findings also provide further evidence for those persons criticising the implied linearity and dualism inherent in the Eurocentric postproductivist transition model. We argue that processes at the New Zealand forest–farmland interface support Wilson's (2001) notion of a territorialisation of productivist and postproductivist territories into a ‘multifunctional’ territory. From a social constructionist perspective, the results highlight the fact that a clear separation into productivist and postproductivist occupance may not be easy to conceptualise as our view of agricultural land as ‘productivist’ territory and unlogged or sustainably managed indigenous forest as ‘postproductivist’ territory is largely based on a Euro–American ‘deep green’ view of unaltered ‘nonhuman’ nature. This supports Mather's (2001) suggestion that postproductivism should be cast as part of a shifting mode of social regulation of forestry with particular stakeholder groups constructing images of nature according to their interests, and where western ideas of nature as a (postproductivist) wilderness embody cultural politics which arguably serve to marginalise the interests of indigenous communities.

“I’m not a greenie but…”: Environmentality, eco-populism and governance in New Zealand Experiences from the Southland whitebait fishery

“…Others have questioned the rhetorical bite of sustainability discourse in New Zealand. For example, Wilson and Memon have recently argued that despite their mandate to achieve sustainability and equity, new technologies of governance in forest management in New Zealand have yet to overcome deeply entrenched 'productive' and 'colonial' value structures about legitimate forms of forest management (Wilson and Memon, 2005). In sum, the literature is at best ambivalent about the potential for the RMA to live up to its ambitious promise to achieve representational equity and socio-ecological sustainability in the context of aggressive liberalization of New Zealand's productionoriented economy.…”

New cultural economies of marginality: revisiting the West Coast, South Island, New Zealand

“…[means that] only within the context of national development can a successful solution to the problems of the West Coast be arrived at' (p. 280). The reference here is to the unpopular and progressive appropriation of regional landscapes, particularly lowland and subalpine forest, for conservation purposes (Wilson and Memon, 2005). Thirty years later, almost 90 percent of Coast land is in the national conservation estate, and in the local discourse of marginality, notions of metropolitan control, even 'theft', of local resources are prominent.…”

“…As a largely symbolic act intended to satisfy metropolitan voters, this change occurred despite the West Coast Accord (an agreement in 1986 between government, regional interests, the timber industry and conservationists to maintain a West Coast indigenous forest industry). The abolition of the Accord, referred to locally as the end of 'the indigenous era', was formalised in 2002 (Wilson and Memon, 2005).…”

“…The Accord went a considerable way to confirming a metropolitan conservation view that 'West Coast forests [are] New Zealand's heritage' (Salmon, 1980, p. 26). Its significance for Coasters was that four-fifths of regional forests were to be 'locked up' in the conservation estate; however it also seemed to guarantee permitted continued logging of about 8 percent under a sustainable yield regime (Wilson and Memon, 2005). 7 A regional state-owned enterprise, Timberlands West Coast, was established to implement this regime.…”

Frameworks for risk communication and disease management: the case of Lyme disease and countryside users

“…anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, drug use and dog-fouling). Additional hazards are associated with the postproductivist countryside being an environment for a range of amenity and leisure activities and simultaneously a site of production [13]. Of course, the public is protected from many countryside operations (e.g.…”