Firefighters worked to dampen hotspots in Pōrangahau in Central Hawke's Bay after a large fire in a young pine plantation. Photo / Fire and Emergency New Zealand.
By Alexa Cook of RNZ
Rural communities worried about the fire and pest risk from forestry are hoping a series of meetings with rural National MPs will result in legislation changes to better protect them.
A huge forestry fire near the Central Hawke’s Bay village of Pōrangahau last week took days to extinguish, and was the main talking point on Thursday, during a timely visit from National MPs Mike Butterick and Carl Bates.
About 30 farmers, local firefighters, community members and forestry managers gathered at Pōrangahau’s Country Club to air their concerns and discuss solutions with local MPs.
Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick began by referencing a 2019 report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that highlighted a 71% increase fire risk by 2040.
“That’s the reality and 2040 is knocking on the door,” he said.
When he asked Pōrangahau’s Chief Fire Officer, Peter Hobson, to share his thoughts on the fire risk, he didn’t hold back.
“The scale is going to be something we haven’t seen before... and Fire and Emergency NZ has no money so I’m not quite sure where it’s going to go,” Hobson told the crowd.
He said while they have a good crew of volunteer firefighters, they needed more. And also explained that if last week’s fire was during a hot dry summer, then it could have been “unstoppable”.
“You could evacuate people and that’s about all you could have done.”
Local farmer James Hunter challenged Butterick on what could be done if the risk is known, and the fires can’t be stopped.
“It’s friggin’ nuts. What are you wanting to do by coming to talk to us about something that is unstoppable?”
Butterick said the meetings were about listening to locals and finding solutions. A solution that many were calling for is mandatory regulations and legislation for forestry owners to put fire protections and mitigations in place.
“They’ve planted the risk, they’re the ones who are exposing these communities – they’re the ones who should be made to put something in place that allows them to control the fire in windy conditions.
“Don’t do this stuff and make a sh*tload of money at our cost,” said Hunter.
Butterick responded by asking the room if there should be regulations introduced that are audited.
“That would be on farm as well because a lot of fires do start on farmland. Would everyone be up for a required plan? Is that a good idea?”
Many in the room nodded, with one woman saying it was a “no brainer”.
Another concern raised was around funding the fire service so it could better respond to the increasing risk.
Local volunteer firefighter Lou Bird queried how firefighters were funded to fight forestry fires.
“As a homeowner, I pay a fire levy... as long as I carry insurance. What is the contribution of forestry companies to firefighting?” he asked.
Butterick said that depended on if forestry blocks were insured or not.
“In 2024 it was $1.94 per $100 sum insured... but if you’re not insured then it’s zero.”
Pete Hobson told RNZ the fire risk from forestry had been a looming issue for years.
“We’ve been aware of it coming ever since forestry started getting planted around the district... and wondering what was going to happen.”
While he was pleased to see some wholesale planting of forestry halted, he believed more could be done to limit the spread of trees that were left to grow and not actively managed.
“If more forestry goes in... there’s a lot of forestry now linking up so you won’t be able to contain it in just one block. It’ll burn right through.
“I don’t think enough was thought out about the risk and the potential mitigating things that could have been put in place for forestry guys to lower risk,” he said.
Currently, there are different rules for different types of forestry. So areas of trees that are locked up for carbon farming don’t have to meet the same standards as plantation forestry that is destined for harvesting.
“That was an oversight that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen. People think they are doing the right thing and saving the environment, but the other factors haven’t been taken in into account,” said Hobson.
Mangaorapa farmer Sam Stoddart owns a 745ha sheep and beef farm near Pōrangahau, which has 8500ha of forestry running along one border.
Stoddart told RNZ that deer and pigs coming out of the forestry and on to his farm was a “huge problem”, as they’re eating crops and destroying biodiversity. A thermal drone over his land near the forestry border revealed nearly 300 deer grazing.
The numbers were so large that Stoddart said local hunters couldn’t keep on top of them, but the deer can’t be shot on a larger scale using helicopters, because of rules around the poison used for possums, brodifacoum.
“We can harvest sheep and beef on the same country, but we can’t harvest venison. It’s a weird rule that doesn’t make sense,” said Stoddart.
Under the Animal Products Act, MPI rules mean that feral animals intended for sale to a game pack house by commercial operators cannot be hunted in areas where brodifacoum had been laid.
Deer and goats cannot be taken from within 2km from an operational boundary, and feral pigs cannot be taken within 5km of the boundary. The restriction remains in place for three years after the termination of poisoning.
Stoddart has 16 neighbours and two different councils using the poison within a 2km radius.
“Trying to get all those properties and councils to not use brodifacoum for three years is just impossible,” he said.
Stoddart asked Butterick whether the Government could look at changing the rules, because then he could afford to control the forestry pests by paying for helicopter culling if he could sell the venison meat.
“We can’t get over that hurdle to bring in choppers to harvest the deer,” he said.
The farmer wanted to see liabilities for all landowners, and was urging the Government to do more.
“There’s got to be regulations on water storage for fires and regulations or audits just as we get, for possum numbers. These guys have to be audited for deer, pigs and possums.
“The threat of TB coming back is huge.”
But he’s optimistic the MPs were listening. “I’m hopeful something will come out of this,” said Stoddart.
The forestry company which managed IKEA’s Pōrangahau forestry blocks, Forestry 360, was also at the meeting. Head of forestry operations, Blake Jones, defended the company’s management of its land in regards to fire risk and pest management.
“We’re doing about all we can. We’ve spent $270,000 in the last 12 months on pest control over about 15,000ha of forest,” said Jones.
He promised they’re listening to locals.
“We can certainly understand them - we have the same concerns. No forester wants fire and no forester wants invasive pests either.
“It’s something we are fighting to control on both sides of the fence..”
Jones said in 2023 Forestry 360 provided Fire and Emergency with a fire plan for the IKEA block near Pōrangahau village, detailing access tracks and water locations.
When asked if he’d support mandatory regulation for forestry owners around fire protection and mitigation, Jones was cautious.
“You don’t want to get bogged down in red tape if it’s not going to be effective, is our main concern.
“It’s very regionally specific, we don’t want really onerous controls forced on areas that don’t have a high fire risk.
“We could go and bulldoze 400m firebreaks around every forest, but that’s just not practical,” he said.
When asked about if mandatory regulations could be on the cards for forestry owners, Butterick was reluctant to commit, but insisted he was listening to communities’ concerns.
“I guess anything is possible.
“But I would pre-empt that by saying there are some really good forestry companies who are really responsible... that do put a lot of investment into managing the fire risk and pest risk,” he said.
Fire and Emergency’s Hawke’s Bay community risk manager Nigel Hall told RNZ the organisation was always talking to forestry owners in Hawke’s Bay and working with them to raise awareness and support for mitigation of the fire risk on their properties.
He said landowners were legally responsible for this risk, but Fire and Emergency offered support and guidance. Hall said forestry mitigation measures undertaken by owners included firebreaks, signage, and in some cases the establishment of their own trained and equipped fire teams.
“Nationally, we have formal agreements with major forestry companies that outline resource-sharing and joint responsibilities during fire events.
“Fire and Emergency has 15 service level agreements with forest owners, with three to be completed. Additionally, Fire and Emergency is a member of the Forest Owners Association Fire Committee,” he said.
Forest Owners Association chief executive Elizabeth Heeg told RNZ it was very conscious of both issues – pests and fire risk.
“Fire prevention is collectively a rural issue. That’s one of the reasons we’ve worked with Federated Farmers and gone to select committee earlier this year asking that Fire ad Emergency gets more support for the rural fire service,” she said.
Heeg insists that forest owners were investing in fire protections.
“If you’re not managing fire risk and you have a forest, you are dumb.
“That is your asset and it’s a community responsibility... if your forest burns down that is your asset gone up in smoke,” she said.
A Fire and Emergency NZ levy came into force this year, but only applies to insured forests.
-RNZ