Review finds no evidence of anti-forestry bias at Gisborne District Council

An independent review into Gisborne District Council's regulatory approach to the forestry industry has found it has "acted diligently and in good faith".

The review, released Monday, was commissioned by the council three months ago amidst criticism from industry players and central government that it was being too tough on forestry companies.

It was undertaken by a three-person panel, led by former National MP Chris Finlayson, KC.

Of particular concern was the council's use of enforcement orders - a tool under the Resource Management Act that regulatory bodies can apply to the Environment Court to use to instruct a respondent to carry out certain actions.

• Listen to Checkpoint to hear Chris Finlayson's interview after 4pm.

Foresty Minister Todd McClay raised concerns about the orders, and previously said the industry had come to him saying it faced decisions it considered "unworkable and costly" and were considering whether to remain in the region.

However the review found the council was following proper legal process, and the use of enforcement orders had improved forestry practises. The 80-page report provided a thorough analysis of the council's processes, framed by the panel's remit to examine whether these were fit-for-pourpose, reasonable and proportionate to the scale of risk faced by the region.

'GDC is anti-foresty... empty rhetoric'

At the outset, the panel addressed what it stated were "extravagant statements" made to it during its inquiry.

These statements included "GDC [Gisborne District Council] is anti-forestry"; "Forestry does not have a future in Tairāwhiti"; "Forestry companies don't concern themselves with environmental matters".

The panel unpacked these statements as examples of empty rhetoric or hyperbole.

For example, it pointed out that all companies it had spoken to for its inquiry had an appreciation of the environment and the need for their practises to address environmental concerns.

In total, the panel spoke with 12 representatives from six forestry companies. It also spoke to five industry bodies, as well as contractors and logging operators, and owners of Māori land forestry blocks and companies. These made up more than 100 interviews conducted for the review, with technical experts, and representatives from local councils as well as central government agencies included.

In regard to the council's relationship with the forestry industry, the panel stated that at no time had it discerned an "anti-forestry bias".

It stated that it was clear that the council and the forestry industry recognised the importance of commercial forestry to Tairāwhiti, and that the council had specific responsibilities to manage the impacts of that on the environment and community through a competent and transparent regulatory system.

Consenting process on-track

The panel found, overall, the council's consenting process was "generally very sound".

It highlighted two instances which raised concerns over its internal processes. The first was a job advertisement for a compliance officer who "could stand up" to the forestry. The advertisement was published on the council's website earlier this year. The second was the inclusion of enforcement orders as a KPI in the council's revised forestry strategy.

In the first instance, the job advertisement was taken down promptly and was found not to have been properly advertised. The panel said it was important the council avoided "this kind of misstep which conveys the wrong impression".

In the second instance, the panel made a similar observation, cautioning against the kind the wrong impression of impression that could result from a KPI around enforcement orders.

It also looked at the quality of communication throughout the consent process, and time frames for consent applications - which had been highlighted by some forestry companies as cumbersome.

The panel did not find major problems with the timeframes in Gisborne District Council's consenting process, and noted delays were often due to applicants and the need for more information.

It went on to say that "a number of submitters" complained about the amount of requests for further information from the council, however "those requests could be lessened if applicants took more care to address fundamental matters and presented their applications in a coherent and logical manner".

It also noted the problem appeared to be more widespread than in Tairāwhiti, with other councils indicating they struggled with the "low standard of many forestry consent applications".

Despite that, the panel also found Gisborne District Council wasn't without fault. It stated it needed to be "clear, concise and consistent" in its communications with applicants, however "some emails we read dealing with these issues are hardly models of clarity and GDC needs to lift its game".

Enforcement orders "costly" but shown to work

The inquiry also delved into the council's use of enforcement orders.

In the past three years, seven enforcement orders have been issued by the Environment Court directing companies to clean up forestry blocks in Tairāwhiti. Just last week, Summit Forests NZ was officially ordered to clean up a forestry block on the East Cape described by experts as "one of the worst" ever seen.

The panel found enforcement orders had "been more effective at shifting behaviour than previous approaches" when it came to improving forestry practices. However, they were a costly and time-consuming process for the council, which was already struggling to manage demand on its resources and staff.

The panel also stated that naming company directors in enforcement orders had been a top concern when it met with forestry company representatives.

On this, it acknowledged the seriousness of naming individuals and that it was step "which should not be taken lightly". It also found that the council had had "experienced considerable improvement in compliance" since it had begun doing so.

It also noted the council did not have a blanket approach to automatically naming company directors.

Government criticism of Gisborne council 'unfair'

Overall, the panel found the council's approach to the forestry industry had been justified and was proportionate to the risks associated with the geological characteristics of the region, such as the susceptibility of land to erosion.

It also highlighted that forestry practises had improved, though more work needed to be done.

Alongside this, it examined the role of central government in forestry in Tairāwhiti, and its decisions to weigh in on the council's approach to the industry.

Notably, the same week the council announced it had commissioned its independent review into consenting and compliance practises in August, the government appointed "a facilitator" to advise it directly on what was happening with the forestry sector in the region. Minister for Regulation David Seymour also contacted the council in May warning it's approach was potentally risking [investment by forestry companies.

On this point, the panel was clear central government had behaved improperly.

"It is unfair for the Crown to criticise GDC [Gisborne District Council] as it has in recent times," it said.

It also called on central government to address shortfalls in regulatory settings and legislation like the Resource Management Act that was adding to gaps and confusion around the consent process.

In regard to the management of slash, it stated "any uncertainty could be overcome by a conseting process which clearly covers slash discharge".

The Crown must come to the table

Chairperson Chris Finlayson directly addressed the importance of support and engagement from the Crown for the future of forestry and land sustainability in Tairāwhiti following the release of the report. This was particularly important as forests planted in the wake of 1988's Cyclone Bola were due to be harvested within the next five years.

"The Crown has known about the land-use challenges facing Tairāwhiti for decades and played a significant role in establishing the forestry landscape we see today," Finlayson said.

"It cannot now expect council, the forestry industry and local communities to resolve these complex and longstanding issues on their own. The scale of the challenge demands national leadership, appropriate investment and a coordinated approach to land-use transition.

"Central government must take responsibility for the policy settings, resources and solutions that sit within its control," he said.

Gisborne Mayor Rehette Stoltz said the panel findings confirmed the council's approach to forestry had been justified, but acknowedged it could also make improvements in areas like communication with consent applicants.

"The findings provide assurance that the fundamentals of our regulatory approach are sound," she said.

"They also identify areas where we need to improve, and we accept that responsibility."