Latest news with #ResourceManagementAct
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Business
- Scoop
One Bad Rainstorm Away From Disaster: Why Proposed Changes To Forestry Rules Won't Solve The ‘Slash' Problem
Article – The Conversation Even when forestry companies fully comply with current standards, slash discharge and erosion can happen. New rules must set size and location limits on clear-felling. 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 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. Why the courts convicted 5 forestry companies 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% of plantation forests are on red land. A further 17% are on orange (high susceptibility) land. But in the Gisborne district, 55% of commercial forests are on red land. This is why trying to manage erosion is such a problem in Gisborne's forests. Key findings from the forestry cases 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. The court concluded that: 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. Regulations are not just red tape 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. Disclosure statement Mark Bloomberg receives 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. Steve Urlich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Scoop
21 hours ago
- Business
- Scoop
One Bad Rainstorm Away From Disaster: Why Proposed Changes To Forestry Rules Won't Solve The ‘Slash' Problem
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 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. Why the courts convicted 5 forestry companies 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% of plantation forests are on red land. A further 17% are on orange (high susceptibility) land. But in the Gisborne district, 55% of commercial forests are on red land. This is why trying to manage erosion is such a problem in Gisborne's forests. Key findings from the forestry cases 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. The court concluded that: 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. Regulations are not just red tape 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. Disclosure statement Mark Bloomberg receives 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. Steve Urlich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Minister not impressed with council
Resources Minister Shane Jones has challenged the West Coast Regional Council to explain why it exists if it cannot approve mining consents in a reasonable timeframe. He also repeated his warning to Local Democracy Reporting that the country's regional councils are on borrowed time under the coalition government. West Coast goldminers have appealed to the minister over long delays as consent applications are processed by environmental consultants in the North Island. Some miners — including a regional councillor — have waited for more than a year for the go-ahead, and the council recently shut down a gold mine that had been bulk-sampling and waiting 17 months for consent to mine. Prominent mining adviser Glenys Perkins this week told the minister that her family has put off expanding the gold mine on their farm and hiring two more workers because a consultant wants a drain monitored for a year before granting consent. Mr Jones told LDR he was not impressed with the council's performance. "If the council cannot perform this core role, of issuing resource consents in a timely fashion, what is its purpose? "What other role does it have down there?" It was distressing to hear of obstacles being placed in the way of miners when the government was trying to grow exports and the West Coast was "riddled" with all sorts of mining opportunities. "I feel I've acted with a great deal of credibility and supported the Coast, so why can't local government on the West Coast support me? "Why are local bureaucrats importing people from other parts of New Zealand to protract, delay and undermine the agenda of our government?" That agenda was to promote growth in the regions, boost economic resilience, generate jobs and dig the country out of the post-Covid fiscal hole, Mr Jones said. Regional council chief executive Darryl Lew defended the council's record, saying consents staff have been under pressure with high numbers of consent applications including complex ones leading to hearings that were taking up large amounts of staff time. External consultants have been hired to ease the workload, but he now believed it was time to hire more staff, he said. Shane Jones said he did not know the fine details of the council's hiring practices, but he judged politicians on their results and outcomes. "And the politicians and bureaucrats of the West Coast Regional Council, they owe a high level of duty to that element of the community that's ready to risk their money and take their equity into these enterprises." Processing resource consents and enabling the economy were core business for regional councils, Mr Jones said. "But regional councils in my view have reached a very low ebb." Regional councils had been invented to administer the Resource Management Act, and with the abolition of that Act, he believed they did not have a future, Mr Jones said. "Which is why after the next election there will be local-government rationalisation and the very strong stance we're taking is that there is no longer a purpose for regional councils and I am happy that the prime minister sees that such a development should be a priority, if not for this government then the next." With the RMA split into two new Acts, people working for regional councils would no doubt end up playing some kind of role in a reformed level of regional governance, the minister said. There were already examples of regional and district councils being fused together (in unitary authorities) and after the election there would be a host of options. Councils would need critical mass and a capital base to cope with changing weather, and higher expectations from the community about how to adapt to climatic challenges, the minister said. "I accept a lot of council leaders may be reluctant to openly identify options that might spell their demise, but I just want them to know after next election, we'll do that on their behalf." — Lois Williams, Local Democracy Reporter — LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Request Made For Retrospective Consent Regarding Wastewater Discharge To Go Before Environment Court
Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) has applied to the Otago Regional Council (ORC) to have its resource consent application to discharge treated wastewater to Shotover River be directly referred to the Environment Court, in accordance with s87D of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. QLDC already asked for public notification of the resource consent application when it was first submitted to Otago Regional Council (ORC) on Thursday 1 May 2025, which means the public will have an opportunity to make submissions on the application if they wish to do so. QLDC General Manager Property & Infrastructure, Tony Avery said that given the nature of the consent sought and its relation to the highly valued Kimi-ākau Shotover River, QLDC believed direct referral to the Environment Court would provide the most efficient and robust approach to the situation. 'Shotover River is a significant natural resource and comes with considerable cultural and community values. As such, we believe it is beneficial for the evaluation of and decision on Council's application to be made in an experienced and well-resourced Court,' said Mr Avery. 'If approved, the request would mean ORC would no longer be the first instance decision-maker on the application, as the Environment Court would take that role. The usual process, including public notification, submissions timeframes, and assessment of the application would still be under ORC's jurisdiction. The Environment Court would follow a process that would fully uphold public participation principles, which would include the right of submitters to appear, be heard, and be parties to Court assisted mediation, which is free of charge to all participants. An important benefit of the direct referral process is that the Court can properly test evidence in a manner like cross examination which is not available under the protocols of a Council hearing, assisting the decision-maker to fully evaluate expert evidence. Furthermore, referring the matter to the Environment Court would result in a faster decision, ensure access to the necessary resourcing in a cost-effective way, and provide a simple process that the public can engage with and take part in if they wish to. Rights of appeal would remain intact. Ultimately, direct referral of the application would help to provide an efficient and comprehensive decision from a neutral arbiter already well acquainted with the matter through enforcement order proceedings lodged by Otago Regional Council (ORC). QLDC's formal request for direct referral of the resource consent application now sits with ORC to approve or decline. ORC will still be required to provide an assessment of the application and a report, which will include a summary of public submissions, before the matter is heard by the Court. If ORC declines the request, ORC would remain the decision-maker in the first instance, and a Council hearing would be held. The resource consent application to discharge treated effluent to Shotover River was submitted to ORC on Thursday 1 May 2025 and seeks retrospective consent for the discharge that commenced on 31 March 2025 under emergency powers, in accordance with s330 of the RMA.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Talk of axing regional councils 'unhelpful'
Environment Canterbury's chairperson says he's open to talking about the future of regional councils, but the current chatter is unhelpful. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Resources Minister Shane Jones have suggested regional councils could be abolished as part of the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms. Speaking at Wednesday's (June 25) council meeting, Canterbury's regional council (ECan) chairperson Craig Pauling said the recent commentary was unhelpful. ''There has been some discussion over the last week on scrapping regional councils, and I don't think the conversation in the way it is happening is very helpful,'' Mr Pauling said. ''But it is a conversation which needs to happen and we have been doing it. ''We agree the current structure and funding is unsustainable, but it is not simple and it is just about scrapping regional councils and creating unitary authorities. ''As a regional council, our job is to strike a balance between environmental and economic considerations, along side our treaty partners.'' Mr Jones, a New Zealand First MP and Minister for Regional Development, repeated his warnings to Local Democracy Reporting this week that regional councils are on borrowed time. "Regional councils in my view have reached a very low ebb." With the abolition of the Resource Management Act, he said he believed regional councils did not have a future. 'Which is why after the next election there will be local government rationalisation and the very strong stance we're taking is that there is no longer a purpose for regional councils." With the RMA split into two new Acts, people working for Regional Councils would no doubt end up playing some kind of role in a reformed level of regional governance, the Minister said. The Prime Minister has said there were too many layers of government and the question would be considered as part of the RMA reform. There are 11 regional councils throughout New Zealand, which are tasked with managing natural resources such as land and water, supporting biodiversity, providing regional transport and building resilience to natural hazards and the effects of climate change. In some parts of the country these roles are taken on by unitary authorities, which combine the functions of a local and a regional council. Mr Pauling said debate around the role of regional councils is not new. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum, which represents local mayors, has been exploring what the future of local government could look like and ECan has a workshop planned for next month. Speaking to Local Democracy Reporting last month, Mr Pauling said he saw a future for separate district and regional councils. ''There needs to be a partnership between local, regional and central government and we (ECan) are good at bringing people together. ''If you are in Kaikōura, your main focus is Kaikōura, but at a regional level my focus is Canterbury.'' A single regional plan has been signalled as part of the RMA reform. ECan is already working on an integrated regional plan which would bring together seven regional plans, four river plans, the 10 District Plans and the various spatial plans developed by local councils. Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has expressed support for establishing a unitary authority. However, North Canterbury mayors Dan Gordon (Waimakariri), Marie Black (Hurunui) and Craig Mackle (Kaikōura) have previously expressed support for Environment Canterbury continuing to have its regionwide functions. It is unclear how public transport and other Greater Christchurch issues would work, if the Christchurch City Council became a unitary authority. The future of local government was the subject of a review led by former Waimakariri District Council chief executive Jim Palmer and presented to Government in 2023. The panel proposed a greater role for regional councils. Local Government New Zealand has also been pushing for changes. By David Hill, Local Democracy Reporter ■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
