Infrastructure, development and primary sector national direction

Forestry is a large contributor to New Zealand’s economy, with the value of exports expected to reach $6.1 billion by 2026¹⁶ and the industry employing between 35,000 and 40,000 people in timber production, processing and the commercial sector¹⁷.  The Government has committed to growing and future-proofing the sector. To achieve this, it is proposing regulations to reduce inefficiencies and restore confidence to commercial forestry, including improving the regulations managing forestry slash.

Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry (NES-CF) are proposed to:

• restore confidence and certainty in forestry
• encourage more investment in productive forestry
• support increased forestry exports and economic growth
• support growing the forestry supply chain
• support land-use resilience.

^{16 Ministry for Primary Industries. 2024. Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) December 2024.}

^{17 Ministry for Primary Industries. Forestry and wood processing data | NZ Government. Accessed 16 May 2025.}

Regulation 6 of the NES-CF enables councils to make more stringent rules than the NES-CF in limited circumstances to protect sensitive or unique environments. This increases regional variation in forestry rules, which reduces certainty and consistency for the sector. Regulations 6(1)(a) and 6(4A) have been identified as having the  potential to undermine the effectiveness of the NES-CF. Stringency under regulation 6(1)(a) is currently enabled if the rule gives effect to an objective developed to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM). Stringency is also enabled if councils seek to have stricter provisions to control aspects of afforestation, including location (enabled under regulation 6(4A)).

The regulations introduced in 2023 (regulations 69(5)–(7)) to manage slash on the forestry harvest cutover are costly to implement and not fit for purpose. No national data currently available on the magnitude of the risk of slash mobilisation or on the amount of slash that has been reduced by these regulations. 

Regulations 69(5)–(7) require the removal of large defined slash from the cutover unless it is unsafe to do so. Application of the standard has resulted in practical issues for both foresters and councils. These issues include increased cost, and technical difficulty in retrieving and storing material, and measuring residual slash for compliance purposes. This is without any clear evidence of improved environmental outcomes or benefits.

The current regulations do not achieve a level of environmental protection in proportion to the slash mobilisation risk. This has generated significant cost and effort, with councils and foresters both struggling to understand, meet and monitor the regulations. More consents are required, and there are safety issues with removing smaller pieces of slash.

The NES-CF drafting creates some inefficiencies and increased costs for foresters and local authorities, as follows. 

• Regulations 10A and 77A require planning documentation that duplicates existing requirements. 
• Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 6 use the term “woody debris” where existing definitions for “slash” may already cover this term.
• The wilding tree risk assessment required at the time of replanting is unclear and not part of the assessment sheet submitted to local authorities. 
• A drafting error in regulation 71A(b) contradicts the policy intent behind it by including the word “not”. 

For further information on this topic, please refer to the Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: National Environment Standards for Commercial Forestry available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website).
 

This proposal contains a discrete set of amendments to create efficiencies in forestry operation and consenting, and provide clarity for users of the NES-CF. The proposal is for the following key changes to the NES-CF.

• Amend regulation 6(1)(a) to be more specific about the criteria for how councils can impose stricter rules than the NES-CF.
• Repeal regulation 6(4A) which enables councils’ broad discretion to have more stringent rules to control aspects of afforestation.
• Amend regulation 69 to require a slash mobilisation risk assessment (SMRA) for all 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. 
• Repeal regulations 10A and 77A (which, respectively, require afforestation and replanting plans) and repeal Schedule 3 (which sets out the requirements for these plans).
• Remove the undefined term “woody debris” from all forest planning requirements in Schedules 4, 5 and 6.
• Amend wilding tree risk and control regulations 11(4)(b) and 79(5)(b) to simplify wording and link the required activity to the notice requirement.
• Amend regulation 71A(b) to state that low-intensity harvesting is permitted if “any relevant forest planning requirement is complied with”. 

The proposed amendment of regulation 6(1)(a) would enable councils to consider making a rule in a plan more stringent only if:

• it is required to manage the risk of severe erosion from a commercial forestry activity in a defined area that would have significant adverse effects on receiving environments, including the coastal environment, downstream infrastructure and property
• the risk cannot be managed through the current rules in the NES-CF
• an underlying risk has been identified within the defined area through mapping at a 1:10,000 scale or using a 1 square metre digital elevation model.

The Government is mindful of the substantial damage to forestry land in Tairāwhiti/Gisborne during Cyclone Gabrielle and other high-rainfall weather events. It recognises the need to support extreme and unique circumstances. Generally, the NES-CF rules are sufficient to manage risk. However, there may be circumstances where NES-CF rules have not anticipated a new effect or its intensity, so more stringent rules are required.

The proposed amendments would require an assessment of evidence as it relates to the specific geologies and topographies, to demonstrate if there is a need for a more stringent rule based on hazard risk. 

A supplementary information sheet on these proposals is provided on the Ministry for Primary Industries website (see National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry | NZ Government)

Regulation 6(4A) of the NES-CF is proposed to be repealed, which would give councils broad discretion to set more stringent rules to control aspects of afforestation. Control of afforestation would be managed through the regulations, and councils would retain the ability to make more stringent rules for afforestation under the amended regulation 6(1)(a) and under other provisions of regulation 6 not proposed to change. This would include allowing more stringent rules where they:

• give effect to any of policies 11, 13, 15 and 22 of the NZCPS (regulation 6(1)(b))
• recognise and provides for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, from inappropriate use and development, or significant natural areas (regulation 6(2))
• manage separation-point granite soils, geothermal areas or karst geology identified in a regional policy statement, regional plan or district plan (regulation 6(3)(a) and (b)) 
• manage activities conducted within 1 km of the abstraction point of a drinking water supply (regulation 6(3)(c)).

Councils would also have discretion over afforestation on red-zoned land and could decline a consent.
 

The proposal is to amend regulations 69(5)–(7) to require an SMRA for all forest harvests, to assess and identify where slash needs more management. The SMRA enables slash mobilisation risk to be reduced to appropriate levels. The SMRA would be carried out in accordance with requirements set out in an SMRA template (refer to attachment 2.2.1), and will become part of an existing harvest management plan.

The intent of the proposed changes is that an SMRA will identify what further slash management actions will be required:

• where the risk of slash mobilisation is assessed as low, no further action will be required to manage slash on the cutover
•  where slash mobilisation risk is assessed as not low but the risks can be readily managed through accepted forestry practices, those practices will be included in the harvest management plan and only those practices will be needed to manage slash on the cutover
• where slash mobilisation risk is assessed as high, careful attention to assessing and managing risk will be required, either by removing most slash from the cutover or by mitigations agreed through a resource consent.

The SMRA template explains that the assessment criteria used to support regulations should be:

• of a high level of certainty as a predictor of risk
• backed by peer-reviewed evidence 
• measurable to a meaningful level of accuracy (ie, measurement methods must provide consistent results, thus minimising the potential for bias or subjectivity) 
• be available to all regulated parties.

Where a high level of slash mobilisation risk is identified, a resource consent would be required to manage slash on the cutover using the same consent status as would apply for any failure to meet the regulations. We seek feedback on whether, in circumstances where a high level of risk is identified, a permitted activity standard should be set for removal of slash on the cutover using different prescriptive standards. Foresters would still have the option to seek a resource consent where they had better options for managing slash mobilisation risk other than removing it from the cutover.

An alternative option to a risk-based approach is to change the size and volume thresholds in the current regulations. This option would amend Regulation 69(5–7) so that all slash that is sound wood greater than 3.1 metres with a 10-centimetre small-end diameter must be removed from the forest cutover. A residual amount of 15 cubic metres of material of this size might be left on the cutover. This option would allow a greater volume of forestry slash to remain on the cutover that might be at risk of mobilisation, while reducing the overly prescriptive regulation of low-risk sites.

The definition of cutover would be amended in both options to “the area of land that has been harvested”.

A supplementary information sheet on these proposals is provided on the Ministry for Primary Industries website (see National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry | NZ Government)

The proposal is to repeal regulations 10A and 77A (respectively, requirements for afforestation and replanting plans) and Schedule 3 of the NES-CF, which sets out the requirements for those plans.

The NES-CF already requires management plans where forestry quarrying, earthworks and harvest are carried out as permitted activities. Councils have discretion over the preparation and content of management plans if they choose to require them for resource consents, which many councils do. It is not clear what regulatory purpose the afforestation and replanting plans serve, or what actions councils should take in their compliance and enforcement role.
 

The proposal is to remove the undefined term “woody debris” from forest planning requirements in Schedules 3(4)(2), 4(4)(2), 5(4)(2) and 6(4)(2)), and to remove the term “debris” from the heading of regulation 69. The regulations already contain defined terms (eg, “slash”) that cover woody debris.

The proposal is to amend wilding tree risk and control regulations 11(4)(b) and 79(5)(b) to simplify wording and link the required activity to the notice requirement.

The proposal is to amend regulation 71A(b) to read “any relevant forest planning requirement is complied with”.

For more details on the proposal, how the amendments are proposed to work and what they are expected to achieve, refer to the Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website.
 

Table 6 includes an overview of the anticipated impacts of the NES-CF proposal on various parties. More detailed information about the potential impacts of the proposal is included in the Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website.

Table 6: Overview of anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments to the NES CF

The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform considers the proposals to be consistent with the purpose of the RMA because they: 

• urther enable the use and development of natural and physical resources to develop, operate, protect and maintain commercial forestry, while managing effects on the environment by providing clear and nationally consistent rules 
• enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing as well as their health and safety, by:
  • making the regulations clearer for when councils can introduce more stringent rules than the NES-CF
  • introducing a new risk assessment approach for slash management that will reduce over-regulation of forestry harvest sites with low risk of slash mobilisation.

The proposed changes to the NES-CF are intended to clarify the rules for industry and councils. Amending regulation 6(1)(a) will ensure councils can apply stringency when required and where backed by evidence. Repealing regulation 6(4A) (which enables a rule in a plan to be more stringent or lenient than subpart 1 of Part 2 of the NES-CF regulations) may reduce the influence of tangata whenua on forestry management in areas over which they are kaitiaki, compared to the status quo. However, regulation 6(4A) has not been applied in any region, and this risk is further mitigated through the proposal to amend regulation 6(1)(a) to allow greater stringency if justified.

These proposals do not limit other ways Māori partnership and influence with local authorities can influence forestry regulation, including the ability to use other provisions of regulation 6 in the NES-CF. Repealing regulation 6(4A) is expected to lessen regulatory costs for Māori commercial forestry owners and/or management companies who could have been impacted by discretionary changes to permitted activities in some areas. This will give Māori with commercial forestry interests greater investment certainty by reducing the ability for councils to introduce plan rules that lead to regional variance.

The proposed change to slash management regulations will help protect Māori land and communities from the downstream impacts of slash but may impose greater costs on Māori land owners involved in forestry relative to other groups within the sector. This is because Māori land tends to be in lower capability land-use classes compared with general land – 65 per cent of Māori land is in Land Use Capability (LUC) 6 and 7 (compared with 50 per cent of general land) – and therefore is at higher risk for slash management. Consultation will better inform the potential impacts and any alternative options, including the use of site-specific risk assessments and different specified slash dimensions in the existing slash regulations (regulations 69(5)–(7)).

Consultation will be necessary to test whether iwi, hapū and other Māori groups have concerns about the proposal or any perceived impacts on sites of significance to Māori, marae, Māori land, land returned under Treaty settlements, or other matters of significance to Māori groups.

The proposals are unlikely to significantly impact Māori participation in commercial forestry.

Some Māori groups have been involved in the policy process. The Crown also has specific obligations relating to engagement that are intended to be met through this consultation.

Councils will need guidance to clarify the intent of the amended provision and ensure they are clear about what evidence is required to demonstrate the need for more stringent rules, the expectations for mapping affected land, and the SMRA as set out in attachment 2.2.1 of the proposed provisions

The SMRA guidance will identify the intent of the amended provision and confirm how to undertake an SMRA. That guidance is formally part of this statutory consultation. A draft SMRA can be found in attachment 2.2.1 and further information is available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website (see National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry | NZ Government). 

Regulation 6(4A) of the NES-CF was only introduced in late 2023 and, to date, no council has notified new council plan rules under it. Therefore, there is no need for implementation and monitoring on the effect of removing regulation 6(4A). 

We expect the minor changes to have only minor implementation needs. We also expect the proposals to reduce documentation requirements.