Marlborough Sounds forestry practices called into question in Environment Court case

Forestry harvesting and earthworks in parts of the Marlborough Sounds have been used as an example of bad practices in a court case.

The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has claimed in the Environment Court that national forestry standards (NES-PF) fail to protect the coastal marine environment from the effects of sedimentation that come with forestry harvesting.

Sediment clouding the water was known to cause marine pollution, damaged marine biodiversity, reduced water quality and exacerbated climate change effects.

The society said allowing harvesting and earthworks on erosion-prone land, as the national standards did, was a breach of the Resource Management Act.

The society pointed to forestry in high-erosion parts of the Marlborough Sounds as an example in its court case.

A report prepared for the Marlborough District Council’s environment and planning committee this month said the NES-PF only permitted harvesting if certain regulations were complied with.

That included ensuring there were no adverse effects on aquatic life, the council’s strategic planner Kim Lawson said.

In Marlborough, it was recognised that the environment in the Sounds was sensitive, which meant forestry planting, harvesting and earthworks were not allowed within 200 metres of the coastal marine area.

Lawson’s report said it was unclear why the council had been listed as a respondent in the case.

“Apart from EDS using Marlborough as an evidential example in support of its case, the NES-PF are Government regulations, and the council has no power to change them if they are found to be in breach of the RMA and inconsistent with its statutory purpose.”

Lawson said the council, which instructed barrister John Maassen for the case, thought the proceedings were misconceived and had procedural issues to address “in the first instance”.

“The nature of the claim sought is essentially a judicial review type claim, it's a claim against the validity of a government document,” Lawson said.

“So the more appropriate forum for that is the High Court.”

In an affidavit to the Environment Court, the EDS argued sediment effects should require “assessment” through a resource consent – but currently no resource consent was required under the NES-PF in low, moderate or high erosion areas.

However, Lawson said under the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan, forestry in the Sounds was a “restricted discretionary activity” which meant it actually did require consent.

EDS chief executive Gary Taylor said the organisation thought the legal position regarding harvesting operations is unclear.

“Declaration proceedings are designed to clarify the law, without being as confrontational as other legal proceedings can be,” Taylor said.

“We were hoping the council would approach the proceeding in a constructive way.”

While Taylor was limited on what he could say given it was before the courts, Marlborough had been used as an example in the proceedings because they had been approached by a number of local residents concerned about logging operations.

“What I can say more broadly, is that in a climate changing world there are questions about whether the framework in the NES-PF is still fit for purpose,” he said.

Meanwhile, in a statement released in January, Taylor said a major cause of marine sediment was from harvesting activities undertaken by plantation forestry operations.

“This is particularly so during the approximately seven year ‘window of vulnerability’ post clear fell harvesting on high erosion risk land,” he said.

Taylor said during and after high rainfall events, which were becoming more regular, harvesting on steep land was more susceptible to landslides and erosion.

“This generates sediment that runs off into the receiving marine environment, smothering aquatic life. In the Marlborough Sounds, this pollution is resulting in significant adverse effects on marine flora and fauna.”

Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air.