There is a clear need for such safeguards.<\/p>\n
Commercial forestry is one of New Zealand\u2019s most valuable industries<\/a>, generating billions of dollars in export earnings and supporting thousands of jobs. So, it needs a regulatory framework that provides certainty for long-term investment and operational decisions.<\/p>\n But it can also have significant impacts<\/a> on waterways, infrastructure, ecosystems and downstream communities if activities are not carefully managed, with recent years having provided some stark examples<\/a>.<\/p>\n With the new rules now in effect, there are genuine questions over whether they strike the right balance \u2013 or might simply ease regulatory burden at significant ongoing environmental cost.<\/p>\n A solution in search of a problem?<\/p>\n The government says<\/a> the reforms will make forestry regulation more consistent across New Zealand while reducing compliance costs. They are also intended to focus regulatory effort on higher-risk activities and locations.<\/p>\n Key changes include narrowing the circumstances in which councils can impose stricter local rules, replacing some prescriptive slash-management requirements with a risk-based assessment process and reducing planning requirements for afforestation and replanting.<\/p>\n When proposed last year as part of the government\u2019s wider resource management programme, the amendments quickly drew criticism<\/a> from environmental groups and others<\/a>.<\/p>\n Critics argued the reforms did little to address the scale of modern clear-fell harvesting<\/a> \u2013 known to raise the risk forestry-related damage \u2013 or increasing severe storms<\/a> that exceed the \u201cone-in-20-year\u201d threshold on which many forestry rules are based.<\/p>\n There were also concerns about limiting councils\u2019 ability to introduce stronger local safeguards, allowing forestry activities in high-risk areas and enabling more industry self-regulation, despite recent cases<\/a> highlighting its flaws.<\/p>\n There are now concerns this narrowed set of rules will not effectively reduce the the risk of slash and sediment entering waterways in heavy storms, as disastrously occurred<\/a> during Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023.<\/p>\n There also remain serious questions around the evidence base for the reforms \u2013 and the process through which they were developed.<\/p>\n For instance, the government\u2019s regulatory impact statement<\/a>, used to assess the costs, benefits and rationale for the amendments, made no reference to an independent 2024 review<\/a> of councils\u2019 use of forestry rules.<\/p>\n The review, which the responsible ministers had received, found most councils had not set about developing their own stricter rules and instead were relying largely on older planning provisions.<\/p>\n This finding is important because it was at odds with the reforms\u2019 premise that stringent council rules have been imposing unnecessary costs and uncertainty on foresters.<\/p>\n Damage from forestry slash left in headwaters and gullies deemed as unsafe to remove in M\u0101rahau, near Motueka, following a storm in July 2025. In its submission<\/a> on the reforms, the Environmental Defence Society argued a better solution would have been to require councils to develop stronger and more consistent protections for vulnerable rivers, lakes, estuaries and communities.<\/p>\n That proposal was not pursued. Instead, the amendments constrained the circumstances in which councils can impose stricter rules, largely limiting them to areas classified as severely erosion-prone.<\/p>\n Yet forestry-related risks do not neatly align with such definitions, as damage from landslides, slash and sediment can still occur in other landscapes \u2013 particularly during intense rainfall.<\/p>\n What the reforms leave out<\/p>\n Compounding concerns about the reforms is a government-imposed \u201cplan stop<\/a>\u201d that bars councils from making any planning changes until the end of 2027.<\/p>\n This move, designed to prevent councils from spending time and money on plan provisions that may not survive under a new resource management system, is likely to further curb local efforts to manage forestry-related risk.<\/p>\n More realistically, it may be the 2030s before councils are able to revisit these issues. By then, the new system will still be bedding in and proposed local government reorganisation<\/a> may have further delayed action. <\/p>\n As well, councils could be required to compensate land owners for tougher rules by a proposed \u201cregulatory relief<\/a>\u201d regime.<\/p>\n The reforms are also notable for what they leave out.<\/p>\n They came with little discussion of how forestry risks are managed in comparable overseas jurisdictions<\/a> \u2013 or even whether New Zealand\u2019s regulatory settings remain fit for a future of more frequent and severe storms. At a time public finances are already under pressure<\/a>, these damaging events are only growing more costly.<\/p>\n To address this risk, the forestry consultation process could have led to stronger standards to safeguard steep headwater catchments and gullies that can generate large volumes of slash and sediment. These opportunities were ultimately missed.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/file-20260604-57-2boqh0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n Provided by author, via Tasman District Council., CC BY-NC-ND<\/a><\/p>\n