Forest owners endorse adaptive, evidence-based change

The New Zealand Forest Owners Association (NZFOA) says the latest set of changes to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry (NES-CF) are an important step toward a more nationally consistent and risk-based framework for managing forestry activities across New Zealand.

NZFOA chief executive Dr Elizabeth Heeg says the changes, due to come into effect on 4 June as part of the wider Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms, better align regulatory oversight with the site-specific risks associated with New Zealand’s diverse forestry landscapes.

“Forestry operates across highly variable terrain and environmental conditions,” Elizabeth says. “Regulation needs to reflect those differences rather than assume every site carries the same level of risk. 

“Ensuring there is a nationally consistent framework remains of critical importance to forest owners, but not at the expense of applying identical rules regardless of landscape, erosion profile or catchment sensitivity. Durable environmental outcomes require regulation that is consistently applied and reflects actual environmental risk across different forestry environments.

“A forest in rolling hill country, for example, presents different risks to steep land above a sensitive catchment. The updated NES-CF is better equipped to recognise those differences and risks.”

Elizabeth says the NES-CF changes are emblematic of an evidence-based approach to environmental management, particularly on steep and erosion-prone land.

“Forest owners have seen how differing interpretations of environmental rules between regions can create uncertainty, duplication of rules and cost burdens without improving environmental outcomes,” she says. “The latest changes strengthen the ability to focus regulatory requirements where environmental risk is higher, while allowing decisions to better reflect site-specific conditions. This is a more practical and targeted approach to managing environmental risk.”

The reform will also provide more certainty for forest owners, contractors, councils and communities.

“Forestry is planned over years – often decades. Decisions about planting, roading, harvesting and replanting rely on regulation that is clear, grounded in evidence and workable in practice,” Elizabeth says. “Greater national consistency will provide more certainty around how forestry activities and environmental risks are managed across the motu.”

The Association says the introduction of a Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessment framework is a practical example of a more risk-based approach being applied in practice. It recognises assessments developed and relied on, by the sector and by councils. 

“Post-Cyclone Gabrielle, the sector has been adapting management practices for higher-risk environments, particularly around slash management, erosion risk, harvest planning and decision-making on more complex sites,” Elizabeth says. “The proposed framework reflects ongoing work to continually improve how harvest residue risk is identified and managed across different environments and terrain types.

“It enables higher-risk sites to be identified more consistently, so management efforts can be focused where they are most needed, while still allowing for different approaches depending on the nature of the land and the level of environmental risk involved.”

Elizabeth says it’s important that forestry regulation has scope to evolve as science, operational experience and changing climate conditions shape what best practice looks like in the field.

“Forestry needs a system that supports long-term investment, protects the environment and keeps people safe, while allowing practices to continue improving over time,” she says. “That is particularly important in higher-risk environments, where operational decisions can involve steep terrain and complex conditions and where managing the safety of people working on the ground is integral to how work is planned and carried out.

“Forest owners support regulation that can adapt as science, data and operational experience evolve. But as always, the detail of how these changes are implemented will be critical to whether they achieve their intent in practice.”

Source: NZFOA