Forestry is a major industry in New Zealand, but the practices involved contribute to the damage left in the wake of cyclones and major weather events.
After 2023’s Cyclone Gabrielle, the Government revised slash management rules, ruling that forestry owners will have to remove slash if it’s over a certain size.
They’re now consulting on a proposal to further amend the standards due to cost, uncertainty, and compliance issues.
Mark Bloomberg and Steve Urlich authored a piece for the Conversation titled “We are one bad rainstorm away from disaster – why proposed changes to forestry rules won’t solve the ‘slash’ problem”, and in it they say the proposed changes fail to adress the core reasons for slash and sediment discharges.
Dr Mark Bloomberg, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the University of Canterbury’s School of Forestry, joined Kerre Woodham to break down their thoughts.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Very interesting. Opinion piece in the Conversation caught my eye
titled we are one bad rainstorm away from disaster. Why
proposed changes to forestry rules won't solve the slash problem.
The government revised the standard slash management rules in twenty
twenty three after cyclone Gabriel, but it's now consulting on
(00:32):
a proposal to further amend the standards because of cost,
uncertainty and compliance issues. The authors of the peace believe
the proposed changes fail to address the core reasons for
slash and sediment discharges. One of the authors, Dr Mark Bloomberg,
an agent Senior Fellow in the School of Forestry at
the University of Canterbury, joins me, now a very good
(00:55):
morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, good morning, Carrie.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Do you have any answers to what will address the
problem of slash and sediment discharge?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah? I think, and I'd emphasized too that there's been
a number of disastrous storms, you know, over the last
fifteen to twenty years, and our research was based on
the Queen's Birthday storms of twenty eighteen in particular, they're
all different. All these storm events have had differences. So,
you know, the lessons we drew from twenty eighteen cycling
(01:33):
Gabrielle as post a further set of questions. You know,
So there is that caveat. But if you look at
almost all the prosecutions of the forestry companies over the
last fifteen years for harvesting and slash sediment, it's either
two things. One. In some cases the practices just weren't
(01:54):
very good. But in the cases we examined, we were
looking at literally hundreds or even thousands of hectors that
have been clear felt one place, and it was you know,
our contention is, whenever you harvest on this kind of country,
there's always going to be a degree of landsliding and
(02:15):
slash triggered. But if you do it on a big scale,
you know, at the big of the mess.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, and so they were allowed to clearfel. They were
given consent to cleofel. So you were saying, are you
saying the problem is in the permission being granted to
plant there and then harvest there.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah. And the thing with forestry is, you know, you
make a decision thirty or forty years ago and it
comes back to haunt you. You know, at the time
these forests are planted, it was the best and quickest
and most cost effective solution to it to the massive
devastation from from cyclone Bowler when it was at nineteen
eighty eight, she had a good idea. Yeah, but you know,
(02:58):
we we based a lot of our thinking on the
decisions by the Judge dwy and he made it very
plain that he couldn't rule on the fact that these
big plantings were done, and that because big planings were done,
they had to be clear felt all at once on
a massive scale. He said that was outside the scope.
(03:19):
But in his judgments he made it very plinny. He
thought that the scale of the of the clear telling
was a was a big factor in the scale of
the of the of the disaster.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
When it comes to getting rid of that slash. The
Greens have been blamed for introducing a policy that says
it can't be burned within the forest and it was
difficult to reach. But I've seen nothing that says the
Greens actually introduced legislation like that. They they haven't wanted
it to be burned.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
But yeah, look, I'm probably going to be a little
bit out of my swim lane. I've sort of done
real corost management for a few decades now, but you
tend to see very little burning of slash in working
forest these days, not least because it's dangerous from a fire.
Has a point of view. Yeah, The problem on the
(04:13):
East Coast was normally when we harvest a forest there's
some pretty poor material that will go into you from
open paper and East Coast or Disbone Maria didn't have
that market, so a lot of that would at least
historically estayed on the hill. So so Disban East Coast
(04:34):
has had more wood on the hill after harvesting than
a normal operation, say down in Canterbury where I work,
really good.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Yeah that looks just because it's uneconomic. I mean, isn't
I mean, as you say, it's a long term prospect.
So forty years ago there might have been a pulp
and paper mill that you could sell the chip to.
Forty years on it comes time to harvest. Isn't that
just tough titty for the forestry company? Do you have
to take it away? And when you planted, you thought
(05:03):
you'd be able to sell your buy product. Can't now,
But it's still your responsibility.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Yeah, And I think that's what the previous set of
rules under the National Environmental Standard attempted to put in place.
But look again, I'm a bit out of my swim lane.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
That's okay, I'm just it's just a fascinating one because
we don't seem to have learned anything, and we're going
to have to and we're going to have to start
taking on board lessons very quickly because we can't do
this every.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Winter, yeah, or even every fifth or sixth winter. Yeah,
you know, I mean you did ask what I thought
they should do. I think the general principle and forest
management of steep lands, and you'll see this anywhere in
the world, is that you spread your beds if there's
going to be coming out of your clear fell, if
you cut an area and stage it over ten or
(05:59):
fifteen years, then the chance that you get caught by
that bad storm with a whole lot of grounded slashes
is reduced. So just about anywhere actually that I've seen
except New Zealand. You know, no way would you be
doing hundreds and thousands of hectories I clear fell on
this kind of ground, you'd be you wouldn't do it. So,
(06:22):
you know, any risk just about any risk can never
be eliminated, but you can always mitigate it, you can
always reduce it. And that's that's why I think, you know,
we wrote what we wrote.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
So basically it's the forestry companies will do what they
do to make a buck. They can't be expected to
stop felling mature trees. It's up to the resource consent
process to say, no, this is silly. You can't you
can't clear because it's already been cleared up the road,
or you can't clear on the scale.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah. Yeah, there's a problem here, isn't it. I mean,
we're on some of the most you know around it
because the East Coast is some of the most unstable
and dangerous country you could you could possibly have from
a landslide point of view. And so so the first
question is, you know, can we actually run a conventional
business on it in terms of forestry, And you know,
(07:19):
I'm going to stick my neck out and say no, no,
it's too tricky. There's too many problems. So you know,
we've got to set it up in the way where
the forestry companies can make a reasonable buck, but with
with with guidelines and guardrails so that they can make
that buck without you know, triggering these these slash disasters.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
And so yeah, in some cases, sorry.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Somewhere, so it's somewhere in the governance chain. Yeah, we
have to recognize that these large clear fells have had
to stop.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
And in some cases, would it be you know, if
you had a limitless pocket book, would it be make
economic sense to buy the land back from the foresters,
plant it with the natives, and let it sit.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah. Look, I've got to say natives aren't always the
solution some places, in some areas that need to be
retired out of pine production. Other areas, if you're careful,
you can still do pine production, because don't forget you know,
it's about livelihoods. This land was farmland. It was brought
out of farmland and put into trees. And one argument
(08:30):
was by doing that, you wouldn't just take away livelihoods
for the people in the community. So we have to
be mindful that if we plant natives, what's the livelihood
where's the livelihood pay off apart from planting them? And
I'm not saying they wouldn't be livelihoods, but you know,
we need to know where they are.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
And that's a fair question. And I thank you very
very much for your time. Dr Mark Bloomberg one of
the authors of an opinion piece in The Conversation. If
you are wanting to read more, Edic Fellow at the
University of Canterbury.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen line to
News Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Very interesting. Opinion piece in the Conversation caught my eye
titled we are one bad rainstorm away from disaster. Why
proposed changes to forestry rules won't solve the slash problem.
The government revised the standard slash management rules in twenty
twenty three after cyclone Gabriel, but it's now consulting on
(00:32):
a proposal to further amend the standards because of cost,
uncertainty and compliance issues. The authors of the peace believe
the proposed changes fail to address the core reasons for
slash and sediment discharges. One of the authors, Dr Mark Bloomberg,
an agent Senior Fellow in the School of Forestry at
the University of Canterbury, joins me, now a very good
(00:55):
morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, good morning, Carrie.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Do you have any answers to what will address the
problem of slash and sediment discharge?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah? I think, and I'd emphasized too that there's been
a number of disastrous storms, you know, over the last
fifteen to twenty years, and our research was based on
the Queen's Birthday storms of twenty eighteen in particular, they're
all different. All these storm events have had differences. So,
you know, the lessons we drew from twenty eighteen cycling
(01:33):
Gabrielle as post a further set of questions. You know,
So there is that caveat. But if you look at
almost all the prosecutions of the forestry companies over the
last fifteen years for harvesting and slash sediment, it's either
two things. One. In some cases the practices just weren't
(01:54):
very good. But in the cases we examined, we were
looking at literally hundreds or even thousands of hectors that
have been clear felt one place, and it was you know,
our contention is, whenever you harvest on this kind of country,
there's always going to be a degree of landsliding and
(02:15):
slash triggered. But if you do it on a big scale,
you know, at the big of the mess.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, and so they were allowed to clearfel. They were
given consent to cleofel. So you were saying, are you
saying the problem is in the permission being granted to
plant there and then harvest there.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah. And the thing with forestry is, you know, you
make a decision thirty or forty years ago and it
comes back to haunt you. You know, at the time
these forests are planted, it was the best and quickest
and most cost effective solution to it to the massive
devastation from from cyclone Bowler when it was at nineteen
eighty eight, she had a good idea. Yeah, but you know,
(02:58):
we we based a lot of our thinking on the
decisions by the Judge dwy and he made it very
plain that he couldn't rule on the fact that these
big plantings were done, and that because big planings were done,
they had to be clear felt all at once on
a massive scale. He said that was outside the scope.
(03:19):
But in his judgments he made it very plinny. He
thought that the scale of the of the clear telling
was a was a big factor in the scale of
the of the of the disaster.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
When it comes to getting rid of that slash. The
Greens have been blamed for introducing a policy that says
it can't be burned within the forest and it was
difficult to reach. But I've seen nothing that says the
Greens actually introduced legislation like that. They they haven't wanted
it to be burned.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
But yeah, look, I'm probably going to be a little
bit out of my swim lane. I've sort of done
real corost management for a few decades now, but you
tend to see very little burning of slash in working
forest these days, not least because it's dangerous from a fire.
Has a point of view. Yeah, The problem on the
(04:13):
East Coast was normally when we harvest a forest there's
some pretty poor material that will go into you from
open paper and East Coast or Disbone Maria didn't have
that market, so a lot of that would at least
historically estayed on the hill. So so Disban East Coast
(04:34):
has had more wood on the hill after harvesting than
a normal operation, say down in Canterbury where I work,
really good.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Yeah that looks just because it's uneconomic. I mean, isn't
I mean, as you say, it's a long term prospect.
So forty years ago there might have been a pulp
and paper mill that you could sell the chip to.
Forty years on it comes time to harvest. Isn't that
just tough titty for the forestry company? Do you have
to take it away? And when you planted, you thought
(05:03):
you'd be able to sell your buy product. Can't now,
But it's still your responsibility.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Yeah, And I think that's what the previous set of
rules under the National Environmental Standard attempted to put in place.
But look again, I'm a bit out of my swim lane.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
That's okay, I'm just it's just a fascinating one because
we don't seem to have learned anything, and we're going
to have to and we're going to have to start
taking on board lessons very quickly because we can't do
this every.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Winter, yeah, or even every fifth or sixth winter. Yeah,
you know, I mean you did ask what I thought
they should do. I think the general principle and forest
management of steep lands, and you'll see this anywhere in
the world, is that you spread your beds if there's
going to be coming out of your clear fell, if
you cut an area and stage it over ten or
(05:59):
fifteen years, then the chance that you get caught by
that bad storm with a whole lot of grounded slashes
is reduced. So just about anywhere actually that I've seen
except New Zealand. You know, no way would you be
doing hundreds and thousands of hectories I clear fell on
this kind of ground, you'd be you wouldn't do it. So,
(06:22):
you know, any risk just about any risk can never
be eliminated, but you can always mitigate it, you can
always reduce it. And that's that's why I think, you know,
we wrote what we wrote.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
So basically it's the forestry companies will do what they
do to make a buck. They can't be expected to
stop felling mature trees. It's up to the resource consent
process to say, no, this is silly. You can't you
can't clear because it's already been cleared up the road,
or you can't clear on the scale.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah. Yeah, there's a problem here, isn't it. I mean,
we're on some of the most you know around it
because the East Coast is some of the most unstable
and dangerous country you could you could possibly have from
a landslide point of view. And so so the first
question is, you know, can we actually run a conventional
business on it in terms of forestry, And you know,
(07:19):
I'm going to stick my neck out and say no, no,
it's too tricky. There's too many problems. So you know,
we've got to set it up in the way where
the forestry companies can make a reasonable buck, but with
with with guidelines and guardrails so that they can make
that buck without you know, triggering these these slash disasters.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
And so yeah, in some cases, sorry.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Somewhere, so it's somewhere in the governance chain. Yeah, we
have to recognize that these large clear fells have had
to stop.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
And in some cases, would it be you know, if
you had a limitless pocket book, would it be make
economic sense to buy the land back from the foresters,
plant it with the natives, and let it sit.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah. Look, I've got to say natives aren't always the
solution some places, in some areas that need to be
retired out of pine production. Other areas, if you're careful,
you can still do pine production, because don't forget you know,
it's about livelihoods. This land was farmland. It was brought
out of farmland and put into trees. And one argument
(08:30):
was by doing that, you wouldn't just take away livelihoods
for the people in the community. So we have to
be mindful that if we plant natives, what's the livelihood
where's the livelihood pay off apart from planting them? And
I'm not saying they wouldn't be livelihoods, but you know,
we need to know where they are.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
And that's a fair question. And I thank you very
very much for your time. Dr Mark Bloomberg one of
the authors of an opinion piece in The Conversation. If
you are wanting to read more, Edic Fellow at the
University of Canterbury.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen line to
News Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.