Latest news with #SteveUrlich
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Can't see the sheep for the trees: 10 years, 100,000 hectares and $900m of foreign forestry conversions - mapped.
Purchases of entire farms by overseas investors require government approval. The Herald used the information released with these government decisions to map the land. Overseas purchases make up about a third of the total conversions of farms to forestry - the other two-thirds were converted by Kiwis. During the last decade only seven farm-to-forestry applications made to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) were declined. In these seven cases, Ministers were not convinced there was enough benefit to New Zealand. In the same period of time, foreign forestry investors have spent at least $897 million on farmland in Aotearoa, and probably much more: the value of 20 large purchases has not been disclosed. Nearly 23,000ha of the land was bought within the last four years by a single overseas investor, with a disclosed sale price of $219.6 million. That investor was Ingka Investments Forest Assets NZ, owned by Ingka Group, the largest franchisee of IKEA stores. One of the concerns about increasing forestry is the impact it has on land and communities -particularly from slash and other debris left behind after harvesting. The devastation following Cyclone Gabrielle highlighted the dangers and damage forest slash can cause. Dr Steve Urlich, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management at Lincoln University, said the Government tightened the national rules around slash removal in 2023 but is now proposing to relax them with changes to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry. Beef and Lamb New Zealand, the industry organisation representing sheep and beef farmers, said farm sales and conversions have happened at an 'alarming rate' for a decade, and when good farming land is planted out in trees it affects jobs and exports in the meat sector. In May, Federated Farmers launched its 'Save Our Sheep' (SOS) campaign, calling for urgent action to support New Zealand's sheep industry. Former Federated Farmers chairman Toby Williams says sheep farming is at a crossroads Photo / Supplied Forestry advocates point to the economic benefits of forestry and wood processing, including $6 billion in export value and 40,000 jobs. Forestry is New Zealand's fifth largest export earner according to the New Zealand Forest Owners Association (NZFOA). Chief Executive Elizabeth Heeg previously told the Herald, 'We are known for our ability to manage forests effectively, and with good environmental outcomes.' To buy sensitive land, which includes any non-urban land larger than 5ha, an overseas investor must show how their investment will deliver tangible benefits to New Zealand – such as job creation, increased export revenue or environmental improvements. Benefits may also include increased public access, protection of historic heritage or alignment with other government objectives. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) says the benefits must be proportionate to the sensitivity of the land and the nature of the investment. The OIO cannot consider any detriments when making its decision, aside from those that relate to water bottling. Investors buying land already planted for forestry, or land to be used for forestry, or more than 1000ha of forestry rights in a calendar year, must still apply through the OIO. They can also on-sell the land and forestry rights to other overseas buyers, who must also apply for consent. In these cases, no benefit to New Zealand needs to be demonstrated, only whether the land will continue to be used for forestry. The Government has moved to limit forestry conversions and its 'farm-to-forest' ban is set to become law later this year. Only 6319 hectares have been approved since the new policy was announced and 2024's 11,794 ha was already well down on the 2022 peak of 27,788 ha.
Scoop
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Slash And Forestry Management Changes Proposed
Less than two weeks remain for the public to have their say on sweeping proposals to change many aspects of the RMA, including how forestry and slash are managed. Under proposed changes to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry (NES-CF), councils would be more restricted in their ability to set harder controls. Other proposals would require all forest harvests to have 'slash mobilisation risk assessments' as part of their harvest management plans, and/or change requirements around slash removal. Consultation on the proposed NES-CF runs until Sunday, 27 July 2025. The SMC asked experts to comment. Previous expert reactions on proposed RMA changes around housing are available here. Dr Steve Urlich, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management, Lincoln University, comments: 'Stabilising hill country is a national emergency as intense rainfall occurs more frequently. Recent cyclones and atmospheric rivers have led to loss of life, profound economic and infrastructure damage, and ecosystem degradation. 'Extensive erosion can occur on pastoral hill farms and clearcut forests. Cyclone Gabrielle highlighted public concern on the damage and dangers of forest slash. 'The Government tightened the national rules around slash removal in 2023, but is proposing to relax these due to cost and compliance issues. 'However, the proposals will not effectively reduce the risk to downstream communities and environments from slash and sediment. 'Extensive harvesting on gully heads often results in large volumes of slash and broken trees being left to the elements. This is because of self-assessed health and safety risks. 'The Government needs to amend the national rules to: Limit the size of clearcuts to <20% of catchment size. Retire gully heads, overly steep faces, and deep incised gullies. Prevent new plantings in these extremely high-risk areas. Require forest roads and skids to be engineered to withstand 1-in-100 year rainfall events 'The last point will be expensive, but the human, financial and ecological costs are currently intolerable.' No conflicts of interest. Dr Nathanael Melia, Senior research fellow, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington; and Founding Director of Climate Prescience, comments: 'It is a positive move that the proposed amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry) Regulations (NES-CF) is open to consultation and seems to finally offer movement in the right direction. I have been aware of slash mobalisation following extreme rainfall since the 2018 Tolaga Bay Queen's Birthday Storm. It's 2025, and we are still discussing possible legislation to address these issues. 'The too-long, didn't read version is: MfE are suggesting that they may like to consider asking forest harvest operations if they wouldn't mind taking a second look in some cases before clearing the slope, please. 'It's good to see the action required being based on a site's Erosion Susceptibility Classification rather than a set of blanket rules that would restrict the industry's good actors. However, there is nuance here, some types of erosion that harvest can exacerbate are classed as 'low risk-no further action'. Others deemed more serious suggest 'further assessment required', but with seemingly no mandate for these assessments to be independent and free from conflicts of interest, I fail to see how this is helpful. 'Other recommendations suggest that harvest planners 'should' use past rainfall observations to assess slash management needs. This reflects that these recommendations are to be self refereed, based on estimates from recorded events rather than this new extreme climate we are in, and require zero material action. Other predictive measures of slash mobilisation are mentioned and put in the too hard basket. Worse, slope features physically present and observable that are consistent with active erosion that 'channel landslide to waterway' are considered not measurable, not a predictor of risk, and only of some consequence. 'The bibliography suggests that all the relevant material is known, but only the non-confrontational evidence is used in this draft. The good news is that this is open to consultation; however, there is a risk that these weak suggestions will be seen as red tape by some operators, who will want to lobby for a less restrictive environment. Meanwhile, there are very few independent experts to argue for higher standards required to keep slash away from the public and our sensitive environment.' No conflicts of interest. Mark Bloomberg, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Te Kura Ngahere New Zealand School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, comments: 'Firstly, I do not wish to comment in any way on the current situation in the Tasman region. The immediate focus there is protecting life and property, urgently mitigating dangerous situations and repairing flood damage. Commentary at this stage would be inappropriate. Part 2.2 of the Primary Sector discussion document. 'In the discussion document, the NES-CF regulations introduced in 2023 (regulations 69(5)–(7)) to manage slash on the forestry harvest cutover are considered 'costly to implement and not fit for purpose'. Proposed redress is to amend regulation 69 to require a slash mobilisation risk assessment (SMRA) for forest harvests as part of the existing harvest management plan, and/or amend regulation 69(5) to require all slash above an identified size to be removed from the forest cutover. 'These changes will not help. The problem is not 'slash' per se. The problem is the significant adverse effects of illegal discharges (slash, sediment, logging waste) from clear-felled forest lands. The proposals do not address the root causes of these illegal and catastrophic discharges from clear-felling sites on erosion-susceptible land. These root causes and their effects can be most directly avoided or mitigated by: Setting the activity status of clear-fell harvesting and matters for control or discretion in a way that allows regulators to properly regulate the risk from discharges, with no requirement for extra stringency in regional plans, i.e. the NES-CF should provide adequate stringency. Limiting the size and location of clear-felling coupes on erosion-susceptible land Developing a robust nationally-based standard for identifying and mapping landslide-susceptible areas, as well as landslide hazards and discharge flow paths downslope and downstream of clear-felling areas. There would need to be a major commitment by the government and the forestry industry to train, certify, and support a cadre of professionals capable of making these assessments.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Mark Bloomberg receives research and consultancy funding from the government's Envirolink fund and from local authorities and forestry companies. He is a member of the NZ Institute of Forestry and the NZ Society of Soil Science. He co-authored a recent article in The Conversation with Dr Steve Urlich of Lincoln University, which covers a lot of the same ground as the comments above.'
RNZ News
27-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Bad rainstorm away from disaster: Why proposed forestry rule changes won't solve 'slash' problem
By Mark Bloomberg and Steve Urlich of During the past 15 years, there have been 15 convictions of forestry companies for slash and sediment discharges into rivers, on land and along the coastline. Photo: RNZ / Kate Newton Analysis - The biggest environmental problems for commercial plantation forestry in New Zealand's steep hill country are discharges of slash (woody debris left behind after logging) and sediment from clear-fell harvests. During the past 15 years, there have been 15 convictions of forestry companies for slash and sediment discharges into rivers, on land and along the coastline. Such discharges are meant to be controlled by the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry, which set environmental rules for forestry activities such as logging roads and clear-fell harvesting. The standards are part of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which the government is reforming. The government revised the standards' slash-management rules in 2023 after Cyclone Gabrielle. But it is now consulting on a proposal to further amend the standards because of cost, uncertainty and compliance issues. We believe the proposed changes fail to address the core reasons for slash and sediment discharges. We recently analysed five convictions of forestry companies under the RMA for illegal discharges. Based on this analysis, which has been accepted for publication in the New Zealand Journal of Forestry, we argue that the standards should set limits to the size and location of clear-felling areas on erosion-susceptible land. In the aftermath of destructive storms in the Gisborne district during June 2018, five forestry companies were convicted for breaches of the RMA for discharges of slash and sediment from their clear-fell harvesting operations. These discharges resulted from landslides and collapsed earthworks (including roads). There has been a lot of criticism of forestry's performance during these storms and subsequent events such as Cyclone Gabrielle. However, little attention has been given to why the courts decided to convict the forestry companies for breaches of the RMA. The courts' decisions clearly explain why the sediment and slash discharges happened, why the forestry companies were at fault, and what can be done to prevent these discharges in future on erosion-prone land. New Zealand's plantation forest land is ranked for its susceptibility to erosion using a four-colour scale, from green (low) to red (very high). Because of the high erosion susceptibility, additional RMA permissions (consents) for earthworks and harvesting are required on red-ranked areas. New Zealand-wide, only 7 percent of plantation forests are on red land. A further 17 percent are on orange (high susceptibility) land. But in the Gisborne district, 55 percent of commercial forests are on red land. This is why trying to manage erosion is such a problem in Gisborne's forests. In all five cases, the convicted companies had consents from the Gisborne District Council to build logging roads. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King In all five cases, the convicted companies had consents from the Gisborne District Council to build logging roads and clear-fell large areas covering hundreds or even thousands of hectares. A significant part of the sediment and slash discharges originated from landslides that were primed to occur after the large-scale clear-fell harvests. But since the harvests were lawful, these landslides were not relevant to the decision to convict. Instead, all convictions were for compliance failures where logging roads and log storage areas collapsed or slash was not properly disposed of, even though these only partly contributed to the collective sediment and slash discharges downstream. Clear-fell harvesting on land highly susceptible to erosion required absolute compliance with resource consent conditions. Failures to correctly build roads or manage slash contributed to slash and sediment discharges downstream. Even with absolute compliance, clear-felling on such land was still risky. This was because a significant portion of the discharges were due to the lawful activity of cutting down trees and removing them, leaving the land vulnerable to landslides and other erosion. The second conclusion is critical. It means that even if forestry companies are fully compliant with the standards and consents, slash and sediment discharges can still happen after clear-felling. And if this happens, councils can require companies to clean up these discharges and prevent them from happening again. This is not a hypothetical scenario. Recently, the Gisborne District Council successfully applied to the Environment Court for enforcement orders requiring clean-up of slash deposits and remediation of harvesting sites. If the forestry companies fail to comply, they can be held in contempt of court. This illustrates a major problem with the standards that applies to erosion-susceptible forest land everywhere in New Zealand, not just in the Gisborne district. Regulations are not just "red tape". They provide certainty to businesses that as long as they are compliant, their activities should be free from legal prosecution and enforcement. The courts' decisions and council enforcement actions show that forestry companies can face considerable legal risk, even if compliant with regulatory requirements for earthworks and harvesting. Clear-felled forests on erosion-prone land are one bad rainstorm away from disaster. But with well planned, careful harvesting of small forest areas, this risk can be kept at a tolerable level. However, the standards and the proposed amendments do not require small clear-fell areas on erosion-prone land. If this shortcoming is not fixed, communities and ecosystems will continue to bear the brunt of the discharges from large-scale clear-fell harvests. To solve this problem, the standards must proactively limit the size and location of clear-felling areas on erosion-prone land. This will address the main cause of catastrophic slash and sediment discharges from forests, protecting communities and ecosystems. And it will enable forestry companies to plan their harvests with greater confidence that they will not be subject to legal action. This story was first published on The Conversation .
