• Forestry Home
• Illegal Logging
• Indigenous Forestry Unit
• East Coast Forestry Project
• Crown Forestry
• Permanent forest sink initiative
• Forest Resources
• Wood Processing
• Montreal Process
• Publications
  • Forestry Production & Trade Statistics
  • National Exotic Forest Description (NEFD)
  • Wood Supply Forecasts
• 13th World Forestry Congress
• Timber and Wood Products Procurement Policy
• Forestry Contacts

1. Background

1.1 Background

Prior to the arrival of humans in New Zealand the majority of the land area (estimated at 75 percent, Purey-Cust) was covered with forest. Two successive waves of colonisation have seen that figure decline to around 25 percent of the land area supporting indigenous forest and about 6 percent supporting planted forest.

The first wave of colonisation saw the arrival of Polynesian people around 1000 years ago. This was followed by the arrival of European people about 200 years ago. These two groups of people each had a dramatic impact upon the forest cover.

The first colonisers used fire as a tool for a range of purposes, resulting in widespread removal of forest, particularly from the drier eastern side of the both main islands. Whether this was deliberate removal or accidental is open to debate, and in terms of this study is not relevant. What is relevant is that by the time the second wave of colonisers arrived the forest cover had been reduced to around 50 percent of the land area.

The arrival of European settlers saw the removal of large tracts of forest throughout the country with the notable exception of the western parts of the South Island and areas of remote or difficult terrain. In addition to the complete removal of large areas of forest, modification of significant areas of remaining forest occurred through the selective removal of timber of sought-after species, and the introduction of a range of animals and plants. Much of the forest that was totally removed was cleared to allow the development of agriculture. Timber production was very much a secondary driver of forest destruction to demand for agricultural land. The notable exceptions to this were the kauri forests of Northland where timber demand drove forest destruction.

These colonisation processes have given rise to the current distribution and quality (from a timber potential viewpoint) of the remaining indigenous forests. The majority of remaining forests are located in areas remote from infrastructure, or areas of higher altitude and difficult terrain.

This pattern of change has occurred almost regardless of land ownership. The same forces with similar results have modified all Crown, freehold and Māori title forest. Even the National Parks and other early reserves do not escape this change pattern.

Until the 1970s there were few controls upon the removal of indigenous forest. Such controls as did exist were motivated by concerns of soil erosion and water quality rather than the intrinsic value of the forest. With the emergence of concerns for the environment in the 1970s, removal of indigenous forest came under increasing scrutiny. This resulted in pressure on Central Government to protect indigenous forest. Initially this pressure was focused on publicly owned forests that led to the cessation of harvesting in Crown forest. Firstly, kauri in the 1970s, then podocarp forests in the North Island in the 1980s and in more recent times all Crown owned forests in the South Island have had all harvesting and management activities halted.

In the 1990s the pressure moved to control harvesting in privately owned forests. This led to the Forest Act being amended in 1993, requiring all harvesting of private indigenous forest to be approved by a Government Agency (currently Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) and to be carried out in a sustainable manner. Sustainability is a complex issue but for the purposes of indigenous forest management it is defined in the legislation.

Privately owned forest includes forest on Māori land with the exception of SILNA land. SILNA lands were land given as compensation under the South Island Landless Natives Act (1906). These lands are located predominantly in Southland and Stewart Island, with smaller areas located on the West Coast, Otago, Marlborough, and Nelson. The SILNA lands were exempted from the 1993 Amendments to the Forests Act, thereby allowing the continued unsustainable harvesting of indigenous timber from these lands.

With the exception of SILNA land, the amended Forests Act requires the extraction of indigenous timber from privately owned land to take into account the existing merchantable volume within the forest, and the ability of that forest to replace any volume removed.

1.2 Introduction

Collectively Māori have under their control, in various forms of ownership, significant natural assets including significant indigenous forest areas. Many of these assets are not used, for the economic benefit of the owners, or are only partially used, for a wide range of reasons.

The objective of this study is to examine the indigenous forest assets owned by Māori, their potential to yield a harvest of indigenous timber, and how they might be developed into economic assets.

Some parts of this report are by necessity generic in nature, and are applicable to all indigenous forests, not just those owned by Māori. It is necessary to have an understanding of these issues so that the potential to develop Māori owned forests can be put in perspective.

The initial part of the study determines the physical location and extent of the forest areas. These have been impacted on by many factors over the past few hundred years, and where appropriate these factors have been brought into the discussion.

The next part of the study examines the potential of the identified forests to produce a harvestable volume of timber, within the current legislative framework. Again a number of issues impact upon this. Some of these can be quantified while others are either subjective or will change through time. The study considers the implications of these issues as they impact on the present productive capability of the forest. In completing an analysis of this nature there is by necessity a need to make some arbitrary cut-offs or assumptions.

The outcome of these parts of the study is to determine the potential for a harvest of indigenous timber from Māori owned forest resources. From here the study looks at what benefits may be delivered to the owners and the wider community from such a harvest, and also considers issues that could impact upon the delivery of these benefits.

The final part of the study explores the factors that can increase or decrease the likelihood of the development of a sustainable harvest of timber from Māori resources and considers what assistance is required to develop such an industry.

It is important to note that this study focuses exclusively on the North Island, as the research shows the extent of Māori land in the South Island, that supports indigenous forest with any commercial potential, and is not part of the SILNA lands, to be almost non-existent.

1.3 Legislative Framework

This section provides a brief overview of the significant legislation that impacts on the ability of a forest owner to extract timber from their indigenous forest. The two key pieces of legislation are the Forests Act and the Resource Management Act.

Numerous other Acts and Regulations, such as the Health and Safety in Employment Act, also impact on an owner wishing to harvest timber, but these are generally more concerned with the management of the business than with the management of the forest.

The following discussion is therefore restricted to the implications of these two key laws.

1.3.1 Resource Management Act 1991

The single most influential law governing the physical management of natural resources in New Zealand is the Resource Management Act 1991, generally referred to as the RMA. When enacted, the RMA was seen as a revolutionary change from prescriptive management by local authorities and Government, to being an Act that empowered communities to manage their resources in the way they thought best. A key thrust of the Act was to allow people to manage resources to achieve agreed environmental outcomes, thus it was outcome driven not input driven, and was permissive in philosophy.

As with most legislation the devil is in the detail. The implementation of the Act over the past 10 years has seen a wide variety of approaches adopted by the different Authorities involved. These have ranged from very hands off to very prescriptive approaches.

For the owner of an indigenous forest, the RMA impacts on how they can manage their resource through matters such as the ecological and environmental significance that forest has both locally and nationally. Specific considerations under the RMA include the potential impact of activities on soil, water, landscape and Māori cultural values.

Generally the required performance standards the owner must meet are included in plans prepared by regional councils and unitary authorities covering management of soil, air and water in particular, and district plans prepared by district councils, addressing a wide range of issues, including land management and infrastructure.

The owner of an indigenous forest must conform to the requirements of these plans as well as the sustainable management requirements of the Forests Act.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry takes this into account when considering an application for a Sustainable Forest Management Plan or Permit. Its general requirement is that the application meets the requirements of the RMA as determined by Government in the Region/District in which the forest is located.

Ironically, an application under the Forests Act for a Sustainable Forest Management Plan or Permit actually commits the owner to ensuring the forest remains intact for the life of the Plan or Permit, whereas the RMA can allow the forest to be destroyed completely, provided this action conforms with the local District and Regional Plans.

Thus a Plan under the Forests Act can afford the forest a higher level of protection than the RMA. This may be a significant point when considering impediments to the development of Sustainable Forest Management Plans and Permits for the harvest of timber on Māori land as discussed later in this report.

1.3.2 Forests Act 1949

The Forests Act 1949, as amended in 1993 by the Forests Amendments Act (commonly referred to as the FAA), controls the harvest of indigenous timber from all privately owned indigenous forest with the exception of SILNA land.

The FAA sets out the process by which a landowner is able to apply to harvest timber, the controls that will be implemented, the volumes of timber that can be legally extracted, the information required when applying to harvest timber, and the documentation required to accompany timber harvested under the terms of the Act.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has available the detailed requirements of the FAA, but a brief overview of harvesting options is given here.

A forest owner is able to apply for timber harvest under several categories, with the three most significant in terms of this study being as follows:

• Personal Use - The owner of an indigenous forest can apply to harvest a small volume of timber from that forest for their personal use. This is restricted to a maximum of 50m3 once every 10 years. The timber or logs cannot be sold. This clause is included in the Act to allow for personal use of timber without the need to go through a complex inventory of standing timber. As the volume allowed is small, and the wood cannot be sold, this mechanism is of little interest to this study as a means of developing commercial management of Māori owned indigenous forest. It is however important for such matters as the restoration or repair of Marae.

• Sustainable Forest Managemment Permit - A Sustained Yield Permit allows the owner to extract an agreed volume of timber for the forest. The volume allowed under a Permit cannot exceed 250m3 of podocarp or kauri roundwood or 500m3 of hardwood roundwood, provided the volume does not exceed 10 percent of the standing timber on that landholding. Further the volume removed is all that will be permitted in a ten year period. After the ten-year period, no further harvest will be allowed unless it can be shown that the volume removed has been replaced by increment and recruitment. For a forest owner to operate under these provisions they must apply to MAF and have the permit approved. The process for obtaining a permit is not as difficult or expensive as for obtaining a Plan (as discussed below). It is appropriate for forest owners with smaller blocks who do not wish to manage their forest for harvest of larger quantities of timber.

• Sustainable Forest Management Plan - This allows the forest owner to apply for approval to harvest indigenous timber at a rate not greater than the ability of the forest to replace the volume removed, either annually or periodically. The most significant points about a Sustainable Forest Management Plan are that it requires sound inventory data on the forest; it is registered against the title of the land for a minimum of 35 years; it requires detailed management planning and implementation; and allows a harvest level up to the limit the forest can sustain. Clearly then, this is the most expensive option for timber harvest and requires a high level of commitment to the philosophy of sustainable management. It also offers the greatest level of harvest and is the most appropriate system for large areas of indigenous forest.

While there may be some potential for owners of smaller forest areas to seek Sustainable Forest Management Permits and hence generate some timber volume, the greatest hope of developing any significant economic opportunities based upon Māori owned indigenous timber lie with the Sustainable Forest Management Plans.

Within the context of this study, the focus needs to be on forest areas large enough and with sufficient timber volume to support approvals for Sustained Forest Management Plans. This will provide the opportunity to both justify the expenditure involved and to develop a business that is sustainable in the long term.

Contact for Enquiries

Policy Analyst - Forestry
Innovation and Research
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Tel: +64 4 894 0100
Fax: +64 4 894 0741
Contact this person