Proposed regulatory change continues to come at us. The Resource Management Reform consultation commenced on 29 May 2025 and will close on 27 July 2025.
The proposed new and amended national direction is part of the Government’s push to enable primary sector growth and development.
The Government is seeking feedback on whether changes should be implemented under the existing RMA or under new resource management legislation. Package 2: Primary Sector can be found on the Ministry for the Environment’s website. Supplementary information on proposed changes to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry (NES-CF) can be found here.
FICA is currently assessing how to respond to this and is exploring options to jointly submit with FOA. FOA has a dedicated environment committee with specialist/experts in environmental management and we have successfully worked with FOA on other submissions including the ACOP.
NES CF proposed changes what it means for contractors
From an earthwork and harvesting contractor’s perspective, the proposed changes to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry (NES-CF) introduce key amendments to stringency provisions and slash management regulations.
Biggest Changes
1. Stringency Provisions (Regulation 6)
Councils’ Ability to Impose Stricter Rules: Previously, councils could introduce more stringent rules related to forestry activities to protect freshwater under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM). The proposed amendments restrict this ability—councils can now only apply stricter regulations if:
The risk of severe erosion from forestry activities is high.
There is significant adverse environmental or infrastructure impact that cannot be managed under NES-CF.
Erosion risk mapping at 1:10,000 scale or 1m² digital elevation model has identified high-risk areas.
Repeal of Regulation 6(4A) – Afforestation Controls:
Councils will no longer have broad discretion over afforestation rules. This change is designed to reduce regional inconsistencies, making regulations more predictable for forestry operators.
2. Slash Management Regulations (Regulation 69(5-7))
Risk-Based Slash Mobilisation Assessment: Instead of a blanket requirement to remove slash based on dimensions (e.g., 2m long logs with ≥10cm diameter), forestry operators will now conduct a Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessment (SMRA).
If low risk → Slash can remain.
If moderate risk → Managed through existing forestry practices.
If high risk → More stringent management or consent required.
Criteria for assessment: Erosion susceptibility, slope, proximity to waterways or infrastructure, and other geotechnical factors.
3. Change in Slash Size Thresholds (Alternative Proposal):
If the risk-based approach is not adopted, the regulations may instead shift to removing logs over 3.1m in length with ≥10cm small-end diameter (SED) instead of the previous 2m LED threshold.
Pros and Cons
Pros
✅ Reduced Compliance Burden – Contractors won’t need to remove slash unless a risk assessment identifies a genuine hazard.
✅ More Flexibility in Slash Management – Foresters can manage slash differently based on site-specific conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
✅ Predictability and Reduced Regional Variability – Repealing 6(4A) prevents councils from creating conflicting afforestation rules, simplifying investment and operations.
✅ Reduced Safety Risks – Less requirement for workers to retrieve slash from hazardous terrain unnecessarily.
Cons
❌ Potentially More Paperwork – Contractors must complete risk assessments as part of harvest management plans, adding an extra step.
❌ Resource Consent Requirement for High-Risk Sites – If a site is classified as “high risk,” foresters might need to apply for a consent, increasing costs and approval time.
❌ Enforcement & Monitoring Uncertainty – Councils must evaluate risk assessments accurately, which could lead to inconsistencies in enforcement.
❌ Ambiguity in Slash Definitions – Terms like "sound wood" and "cutover" have been confusing in past regulations—improvements are proposed, but practical interpretation may still vary.
What This Means for Contractors
Less unnecessary slash removal: The risk-based approach allows contractors to prioritize removal only in high-risk areas.
New requirement: The Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessment will be embedded in the Harvest Management Plan, meaning planning documentation will need updating.
Afforestation operations streamlined: Councils lose authority to introduce stricter afforestation rules—a win for forestry companies looking for consistency.
Potential need for more consent applications: In high-risk areas, removing slash could require a resource consent, adding administrative workload.
