NZ’s new forestry rules promise consistency. Will they also increase environmental risk?

by bpckle | Jun 5, 2026 | In the Media

One of the most important changes to New Zealand’s environmental regulations in recent years came into force this week.

Yet outside policy circles, the forestry sector and a handful of councils, few people are likely to have noticed.

The government’s freshly-amended National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry set bottom-line rules for activities ranging from afforestation and harvesting to slash management and erosion control.

There is a clear need for such safeguards.

Commercial forestry is one of New Zealand’s most valuable industries, generating billions of dollars in export earnings and supporting thousands of jobs. So, it needs a regulatory framework that provides certainty for long-term investment and operational decisions.

But it can also have significant impacts on waterways, infrastructure, ecosystems and downstream communities if activities are not carefully managed, with recent years having provided some stark examples.

With the new rules now in effect, there are genuine questions over whether they strike the right balance – or might simply ease regulatory burden at significant ongoing environmental cost.

A solution in search of a problem?

The government says the reforms will make forestry regulation more consistent across New Zealand while reducing compliance costs. They are also intended to focus regulatory effort on higher-risk activities and locations.

Key changes include narrowing the circumstances in which councils can impose stricter local rules, replacing some prescriptive slash-management requirements with a risk-based assessment process and reducing planning requirements for afforestation and replanting.

When proposed last year as part of the government’s wider resource management programme, the amendments quickly drew criticism from environmental groups and others.

Critics argued the reforms did little to address the scale of modern clear-fell harvesting – known to raise the risk forestry-related damage – or increasing severe storms that exceed the “one-in-20-year” threshold on which many forestry rules are based.

There were also concerns about limiting councils’ ability to introduce stronger local safeguards, allowing forestry activities in high-risk areas and enabling more industry self-regulation, despite recent cases highlighting its flaws.

There are now concerns this narrowed set of rules will not effectively reduce the the risk of slash and sediment entering waterways in heavy storms, as disastrously occurred during Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023.

There also remain serious questions around the evidence base for the reforms – and the process through which they were developed.

For instance, the government’s regulatory impact statement, used to assess the costs, benefits and rationale for the amendments, made no reference to an independent 2024 review of councils’ use of forestry rules.

The review, which the responsible ministers had received, found most councils had not set about developing their own stricter rules and instead were relying largely on older planning provisions.

This finding is important because it was at odds with the reforms’ premise that stringent council rules have been imposing unnecessary costs and uncertainty on foresters.

In its submission on the reforms, the Environmental Defence Society argued a better solution would have been to require councils to develop stronger and more consistent protections for vulnerable rivers, lakes, estuaries and communities.

That proposal was not pursued. Instead, the amendments constrained the circumstances in which councils can impose stricter rules, largely limiting them to areas classified as severely erosion-prone.

Yet forestry-related risks do not neatly align with such definitions, as damage from landslides, slash and sediment can still occur in other landscapes – particularly during intense rainfall.

What the reforms leave out

Compounding concerns about the reforms is a government-imposed “plan stop” that bars councils from making any planning changes until the end of 2027.

This move, designed to prevent councils from spending time and money on plan provisions that may not survive under a new resource management system, is likely to further curb local efforts to manage forestry-related risk.

More realistically, it may be the 2030s before councils are able to revisit these issues. By then, the new system will still be bedding in and proposed local government reorganisation may have further delayed action.

As well, councils could be required to compensate land owners for tougher rules by a proposed “regulatory relief” regime.

The reforms are also notable for what they leave out.

They came with little discussion of how forestry risks are managed in comparable overseas jurisdictions – or even whether New Zealand’s regulatory settings remain fit for a future of more frequent and severe storms. At a time public finances are already under pressure, these damaging events are only growing more costly.

To address this risk, the forestry consultation process could have led to stronger standards to safeguard steep headwater catchments and gullies that can generate large volumes of slash and sediment. These opportunities were ultimately missed.

Concerns also remain over a new process for assessing risk from slash which relies heavily on industry-led assessments, and provides limited scope for councils to decline or call for independent scrutiny by geotechnical experts.

Ultimately, the issue is larger than forestry regulation alone. As climate change intensifies rainfall and erosion hazards, the stability of New Zealand’s hill country becomes a matter of economic resilience as well as environmental protection.

Steve Urlich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Kerbside parking is great for drivers – but terrible for everyone else. Could we get rid of it?

by bpckle | Jun 5, 2026 | In the Media

It may seem like it’s impossible to find a car park on the street.

As a recent Grattan Institute report makes clear, Australia actually has an oversupply of parking, both on streets and in parking lots. Across five of the state capitals, most postcodes have more on-street spaces than there are registered cars.

That’s great for drivers, given most on-street parking outside the inner city is free and has no time limit. Many spaces are used by locals with a driveway or garage who find it more convenient to park on the street.

The problem is, abundant street parking comes at a cost. Streets jammed with parked cars look bad – and remove space for bikes, e-bikes and scooters.

Is it too late to change course? No.

The rise and rise of kerbside parking

If you look back at the street designs by 19th-century planning pioneers, you immediately notice something very different from today’s city streets.

Back then, there was no kerbside parking. Streets were largely shared spaces, where walkers, horse coaches, trams and early bicycles mingled. Of course, this was when motor vehicles were just emerging.

As car ownership surged in the 1920s and ‘30s, city centres began to struggle with parking shortages, double parking and endless cruising for spaces. The problem was summed up by Nebraska journalist Henry Allen Brainerd in a letter to his city newspaper:

What a pity that the builders of large business blocks could not have looked ahead at the time of building and seen the need for parking space in the larger cities of the world.

Since then, many cities around the world have heeded that advice, requiring parking spaces to be provided everywhere – along city streets, in suburbs, under apartment blocks and in parking lots.

What’s wrong with kerbside parking?

Many people see kerbside parking as a simple fact of life. But it was a choice, and it comes with real costs.

For one, parked cars look bad. A pretty street loses appeal if there are endless lines of parked cars. There’s a reason real estate ads don’t include cars. People find it stressful or boring to be in monotonous streetscapes characterised by heavy traffic and parking.

Road space is limited. Drivers are using a public road to park their private cars.

Worse still, kerbside parking makes it much harder for other types of transport to share the road. In recent years, there’s been huge growth in micromobility – think bikes, e-bikes and scooters.

But the road space available hasn’t changed much. Too often, riders are forced onto skinny bike lanes that end abruptly, or have to try and ride in the narrow space between parked cars and moving vehicles.

As micromobility booms, the pressure on scarce road space will only intensify as riders demand wider segregated paths. The only way this could happen in densely populated areas is if there was less kerbside parking.

Could we really reduce kerbside parking?

What would happen if authorities banned on-street parking? Given the oversupply of parking, most drivers would be able to park off-street, such as at shopping centres, offices and parking lots. These would need better sharing arrangements.

With road space freed up, it would be possible to make many streets much more pleasant – and include safe two-way paths for riders.

In areas where these lanes aren’t needed, the freed-up space could be used for trees and plants to help cool cities and soak up rain. Other options include EV charging stations and expanding outdoor dining, as many areas did during the COVID years.

In practice, a ban on kerbside parking couldn’t be universal. Some spaces would have to be reserved for people with disabilities, emergency services, deliveries, ride-hailing and car-sharing.

But would it be political suicide?

There’s almost always a backlash when authorities try to wind back kerbside parking.

Resistance usually comes from drivers, residents and business owners, who worry that less on-street parking will lead to more traffic, less business and even a drop in property prices.

The opposite is true. When high streets are made more friendly to bikes and other forms of micromobility, businesses generally make more money, not less, and property values can go up. People who prefer driving or have no alternative also benefit from less traffic, making it more likely they can visit the business.

Overseas examples show it can be done

In many European nations, authorities have worked to make streets less centred on cars and parking.

Established models of reducing car parking include Woonerven (living streets) and Fietsstraten (cycling streets) in the Netherlands, as well as car-free or car-lite neighbourhoods such as Vauban in Germany and Hammarby Sjöstad in Sweden. If cars are permitted at all, they are treated as guests.

Even in the car-friendly United States, there are examples such as as Culdesac Tempe near Phoenix, a car-free development without kerbside or household parking. My colleagues and I have dubbed this “Robin Hood planning” – taking from cars and giving to people.

If this is possible in the US – the land of automobility – it should be possible in Australia.

Read more: What can our cities do about sprawl, congestion and pollution? Tip: scrap car parking

Dorina Pojani has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN), the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), and iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre. She is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU).