Wilding Conifer Rules

A. Region wide rule - Occupiers of a site must destroy all pest conifers present on land they occupy, unless the land they occupy falls within a named pest conifer operational area, urban areas or areas of high intensity land use (as determined by an authorised person), or unless there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement.

‘Clear land’ is defined as parts of the region that are currently clear, (or infestations are at a low or very low density), but highly susceptible to wilding conifer spread if a seed source becomes established. Although the majority of wilding conifer spread is predictable, a characteristic of spread (particularly in highly susceptible areas) is also the occurrence of random, irregular, long distance spread into areas previously unaffected. This rule provides an early intervention trigger for these vulnerable or susceptible areas. Further, protected ‘specimen’ conifer trees named in District Plans (made under the Resource Management Act) may be exempt from this requirement, on a case by case basis.

Example: A landowner has a QEII covenanted block of native forest on his land. He notices several Larch and Douglas fir saplings emerging in the forest. The farmer is required to control these before they produce seed.

B. Region wide rule - From 1 July 2024, occupiers of forest plantations (greater than 1 hectare), outside of named pest conifer operational areas, are liable for the costs of removal of any new wilding conifers present (i.e. subsequently occurring) on adjoining land (where that land is clear of any infestation of wilding conifers as of 30 June 2024 and it is being actively controlled). This requirement is limited to adjoining land within 200m of the forest plantation property’s boundary and the adjoining occupier must be taking reasonable steps to control wilding conifers elsewhere on the property. This obligation will be on written direction from an authorised person, following a complaint from an adjoining affected neighbour, and where there is evidence that wilding spread has occurred from the planted forest to an adjoining property. A negotiated agreement between the Management Agency and the two occupier parties is an alternative way to achieve this agreement.

• Reasonable steps: means an occupier is proactively managing wilding conifers and using approaches, methods and tools advocated in the National Programme’s Best Practice Guidelines for managing wilding conifers.
•  Evidence of spread may include (but is not limited to):
  • That the wilding conifers are the same species as those in the forest plantation.
  • That the source forest plantation trees were of cone-bearing age on 1 July 2024, and
  • The likelihood of other seed sources located on the complainant’s land causing the spread

Example: A farm in the Howard Valley adjoins a TDC forestry block. The farmer has had issues with pine trees seeding on to his property for some years, but has not ignored the problem and is actively managing the control of the wilding pines on his land right up to his boundary with the plantation forest. His land needs to be relatively clear of pines for this rule to apply and it is clear to an Authorised Council officer that control work has, and is being done. As of the 1 July 2024, any new seedlings from the TDC forestry block that occur within a 200 m margin on the farmer’s property are required to be controlled by the TDC forestry manager. The method of control can vary depending on the circumstance.

The process for Council staff is the same as when assessing gorse boundary issues

C. Region wide rule - Occupiers must destroy any pest agent conifer on their land, on direction of an authorised person, where an adjoining occupier is taking reasonable steps to control wilding conifers on their land and that evidence of wilding spread is clearly attributable to the pest agent conifer(s), or there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement.

Example: A Douglas fir shelter belt is creating a wilding conifer issue for a neighbouring farm. A meeting takes place with the landowner that has the shelter belt, the affected land owner and a Council officer to discuss the issue. An agreement is reached to keep the trees trimmed over the next five years so that fewer cones are produced. It is also agreed to interplant macrocarpa trees among the Douglas fir trees. After five years, the Douglas fir trees will then be felled, leaving the macrocarpa trees as replacements.

Example: A Douglas fir shelter belt is creating a wilding conifer issue for a neighbouring farm. The two neighbours catch up and come to an agreement that the owner of the shelterbelt will help their neighbour control the wildings in the next door paddock once a year. Council staff don’t get involved.

D. Operational area rule - Occupiers must destroy any pest conifers on their land where the property is located within one of the four named operational areas that has received prior control, or there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement. This rule does not imply any obligations on occupiers of planted forests of species not listed as pest conifers and does not apply until a property has received initial and maintenance control, as described below.

Example: Its 2027 and Project De-vine has been controlling wilding pines on a private property with the support of some national funding and the landowner. They have visited the property 3 times over the years and are now only finding the odd seedling. The landowner is now required to continue the control as the seedlings appear. 

E. Operational area rule - Occupiers within any of the four named operational areas must destroy any pest conifers on their land within 200m of an adjoining property boundary, where the adjoining property has previously been cleared of pest conifers through prior control and the adjoining occupier is also taking reasonable steps to control pest conifers within 200m of their property boundary. This is a Good Neighbour Rule (GNR) and will apply unless there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement.

Example: A neighbouring farmer to Nelson Lakes National Park is within an operational area but is having to control wilding conifer seed which is sourced from a strip of wilding pine trees growing on DOC land. These pine trees are growing right up to the boundary fence and are about 400 metres wide in places. Under the new good neighbour rule, there is an obligation for DOC to clear a 200m strip of these pine trees back from the boundary, while-ever the farmer has a strip clear on his property of 200m back from the fence into his property.

An assumption is made that current priority control areas and programmes (included in the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme) will continue to be funded until the ‘back of each problem’ is broken (i.e. no coning trees remain on target properties) and responsibility for ongoing control can be transitioned (i.e. transferred) back to individual land occupiers to manage into the future. ‘Transitional criteria’ nationally at the time of writing were not fully agreed, however the following rules would not be implemented until an operational area had received initial control and up to 2-3 rounds of maintenance control (with varying years, i.e. typically 3-5 years, between control cycles, dependant on the species).

There are four pest conifer control operational areas in Tasman-Nelson which are the subject of this sub-programme. There are two rules:

• A ‘maintain the gains rule’ - to safeguard prior control and investment; and
• A ‘good neighbour rule’ (GNR) - for boundary management of pest conifers that prevents an occupier’s inaction on control work impacting their neighbour.

Specific rules applicable across parts of the region (as listed below):

• Mt Richmond Wilding Conifer Management Unit;
• Tākaka Hill community project;
• Abel Tasman National Park (ATNP) - Project Janszoon; and
• Golden Bay (including ATNP Halo) - Project De-vine.

Over the duration of this Plan, control is required within the above operational areas under current management, in the Tasman-Nelson region (as shown in Maps) and prior to cone bearing.

There are 12 conifer species declared pest conifers in the RPMP, as listed in Table 6. Ten individual species are designated pests in any regional situation while the wilding conifer sub-class of subjects covers two species, (Douglas fir and radiata pine) and their pest designations apply only when they occur in wilding states.

Explanation of the Rules

The purpose of these rules is in accordance with sections 73(5)(h), as outlined below:

•  Rule (a) places a general obligation on relevant occupiers to remove any pest conifer to prevent new infestations occurring. The principal objective is to provide the Management Agency with powers allowing it to focus on land which is ostensibly clear of wilding conifers to remain clear. Although the majority of wilding conifer spread is predictable, a characteristic of spread (particularly in highly susceptible areas) is also the occurrence of random, irregular, long distance spread into areas previously unaffected. This rule provides an early intervention trigger for vulnerable or susceptible areas. Exemptions may be sought under s. 78(2) of the Act (e.g. for protected ‘specimen’ conifer trees named in District Plans made under the Resource Management Act).
•  Rule (b) aims to ensure that forestry occupiers (of both plantation and permanent forests) are liable for (to pay and/or control) any new wilding spread of conifer seedlings from their forests onto immediately neighbouring land, from 1 July 2024 onwards, with the proviso that the land adjoining the planted forest was free of wilding conifers at this date. It is unreasonable for affected occupiers adjoining planted forests to have to clear wildings and/or pay for this control work (i.e. the ‘exacerbator pays’ principle). Implementation of this rule is based on the opinion of an appropriate council officer and must be backed with proof of spread occurring. The rule only applies where the adjoining occupier (making the complaint) is making reasonable attempts to keep their land clear of wilding conifers.

 A four-step process is followed to enact the rule:

Step 1: Complaint received by council.

Step 2: Complaint investigated by an appropriate Authorised Person (with powers of entry) to validate complaint.

Step 3: Meeting held between the parties to engage with them and to reach a negotiated agreement.

Step 4: If no agreement can be reached, RPMP enforcement provisions may be enacted.

A negotiated agreement between the forest occupier and adjoining occupier (and validated by the Management Agency) will be a binding way to meet this rule requirement, e.g. that the agreement documents which party will undertake and/or fund the required control, over what time period and what the access agreements are to carry out control work.

• Rule (c) is a ‘pest agent conifer rule’ which aims to prevent wilding conifer establishment across property boundaries principally through the control of conifer woodlots and shelterbelts (under 1 hectare in size) or individual trees that are determined, in the opinion of an authorised person, to be genuine sources of seed spread. The same ‘evidence’ criteria from rule b applies. This rule is triggered by a complaint made by a neighbour to the Management Agency, and that person must be taking reasonable steps to control pest/wilding conifers on their property. ‘Reasonable steps’ definition from rule b also applies.
•  Rule (d) is about ‘maintaining the gains’ of prior control work to ensure that the benefits of this control are not lost through inaction (or for any other reason) by any occupier. ‘Prior’ means any work underway from 1 January 2016 (when the national programme commenced) to the present day. ‘Control’ means any work funded all or in part through formalised or planned programmes (e.g. national, regional or local operations including environmental trust led initiatives, and as deemed valid by the Management Agency). This definition extends to include individual private property control programmes, on a case by case basis. ‘On their land’ refers to any property located within one of the mapped operational areas, provided there has been control undertaken on that property. The obligation applies anywhere on that property (hence a property wide obligation).
• Rule (e) is a ‘good neighbour rule’ designed to protect an occupier who has been taking reasonable steps (e.g. control work using best practice) on their property and is being impacted by pest conifer infestations on a neighbouring property (e.g. through inaction or unsatisfactory/incomplete control). The 200m distance is based on science that notes the majority of conifer seeds fall within this space from source trees. In practicable terms this is the only way to bind the Crown to meet its RPMP obligations, however the GNR is not limited in only applying to Crown land. A GNR generally seeks to manage the externality impacts arising from pests spilling over from one property to a neighbouring property that is free of, or being cleared of that pest.

Download the Pest Conifer Progressive Containment Area Maps. (pdf 2.7 MB)