By Peter Clark*
In November last year WorkSafe NZ released an amendment to the Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forest Operations (ACOP).
This document clarified the duties of forest owners and contractors when it comes to managing the health and safety aspects of forestry work - refer to the new Section 18.
The Health and Safety Reform Bill is likely to become law in New Zealand later this year, replacing the current Act. This Bill further reinforces the role of the forest owner as a Person in Charge of a Business Undertaking (PCBU) in engaging contractors and workers to ensure that forestry work is planned, organised and carried out in a safe manner.
At PF Olsen we observe that some forest owners are adapting to these new requirements, whereas others are taking a more “hands-off” or “wait and see” approach, or are simply assuming their agent has these matters in hand.
The ACOP amendment makes it clear that forest owners cannot contract out of their liabilities under the current Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 simply by engaging an agent to manage their forest or harvesting operations. The forest owner needs to satisfy itself its agent really is managing the Principal’s duties as prescribed in the ACOP.
What we have learnt is that to meet the new legislative environment and to really make an impact on the goal of eliminating harm in the forestry workplace, real money has to be spent and real resources have to be committed.
As the CEO of PF Olsen I estimate that around 25% of my time in the past 18 months has been dedicated to health and safety management. In addition we have a dedicated, specialist Health and Safety Manager and a dedicated, specialist Environmental Manager. In addition, safety is integrated into almost all our business and communication processes – everyone’s involved. This investment goes a long way to giving forest owners confidence that PF Olsen is effectively discharging their principal’s duties.
A forest owner, as principal, will be expected to have an active and conscious role in recruiting a forestry manager who is suitably experienced, qualified and capable of fully discharging the principal’s duties (both in safety and environmental management). At a minimum, this is likely to involve, firstly an assessment of:
- what qualifications its key people have to manage health and safety and environmental risks, including those associated with roads and skid site engineering
- what, if any, independent certifications the manager holds for its processes and systems
- the track record of the manager and key safety and environmental statistics – total incident frequency rates (TIFR) and lost time incident frequency rates (LTIFR) and any prosecutions or abatement notices
- processes for engaging, inducting and auditing of staff and contractors
- the role of the manager in respect to facilitating and monitoring contractor and crew skills and training
- reporting of safety and environmental issues.
The selection criteria should have sufficient weighting on safety and environmental management to demonstrate that the principal is valuing, recognising and selecting for this competency.
Finally, there should be a well-drafted engagement agreement that outlines each parties’ respective duties and responsibilities. In addition, prior to commencement of operations, the forest owner should also identify and communicate any known hazards or issues related to the land or site.
Without demonstrating this approach, or at least it would appear likely that a detailed investigation and prosecution of a serious safety or environmental incident could leave the principal (the forest owner) quite exposed to legislative breach.
---------------------------------------
Peter Clark is the chief executive of PF Olsen.
12 Comments
Was it Kate that had the section with trees that they sold off. Bet they're even happier now.
More naive pointless compliance costs from our government. Like with effluent on farms, there was no way the owners could force sharemilkers and staff (agents) to do the procedures they were told to do - it wasn't until owners COULD delegate responsibility to the employee/contractor for their failures was any improvement seen
Yep. We never saw any potential for profit in harvesting the trees. Too small a lot (26ha), too steep and access issues once felled (a shared private road to get them out). So I registered the forest under the ETS scheme given we didn't intend to harvest.
The problem with harvesting as I see it is that as a nation we are getting round to the unrealistic, highly marginal plantations - they were probably always too steep to harvest safely. The pine plantings served a purpose to stablise eroding slopes, but little else. Would have been better to my mind to have encouraged the re-growth of native bush in these marginal areas.
Having planted the pnes however, this government was a bit stupid to gut the ETS, as if there was to be any value - that was where it was.
IIRC it was stated it would be a retirement booster as well as nice greenery, until the cost factors were researched.
Have to be careful with natives, if you put in a protected tree or it self seeds you can have the devils own time getting their lordship's permission to remove it on your own land.
Pines are used because they're fast growing, but unlike fast growing willow they don't tend to have so many runners nor do their roots seek water quite the same. Poplars used to be common but they made a very tall tree that tended to be a nuisance when it died and shortlived. Same as gums, great growth potential but the bits that fall off can be a nusiance. Pines do stop the slippage and tomoes
As you say natives bush is best _if_ you can keep the gorse out. but it's not worth much although manuka and bees can be profitable.
The only way to eliminate harm in the work place is to basically not have a work place...so if I don't think I can fully eliminate all risk, I should not harvest and be fully reimbursed by the taxpayer, after all it was the Ministry of Ag who promoted forestry.
Does anyone keep statistics on Occupational stress induced by the State?? Because I reckon that far more people are dying and being injured by the State but it is not recognised.
Work safe is a bizarre organisation. The new farm safe regulations require only one person to ride on a quad bike at a time. This sounds like a good idea, but the practicality of it and the safety of is is questionable. For example if I was to take the bank manager or part time worker up the hill on the farm, they are required to ride a seperate quad bike. The problem being, that they have little or no experience and don't know the property. The safer option would be to ride on the bike with the landowner who has thirty years experience. So we are required by law to do something that many of us don't believe is safe.
I'm hearing you Tim12.......I think the problem lies in the fact that much of what work-safe advocate has no scientific backing behind it....surely if there are a lack of studies there is also a lack of proof on their behalf? For instance there are no studies on whether wearing a helmet vs not wearing helmet reduces injury.....work-safe have made policy on an opinion they hold....correlation is not causation and no peer review studies have been conducted and sooner or later these opinions will get tested in court in the meantime you just have to make the best decisions based on your knowledge, skills and expertise each day.....
There is no such thing as enjoying the quiet and peace on your own land when you have the Oligarchy breathing down your neck.....
Some of the things recommended by the ACC course I went on, which I think was worksafe, were actually dangerous.
They also said things like you have to constantly maintain your brakes in case you need them to save your life...
I said to them "Why are you driving in such as manner that the only going to save your life is that your brakes "might" be working " brakes that are being constantly tampered with have habits of failing, and gear that needs constant attention is clearly inappropriate for critical tasks.
No money in pines, Doug123? Blaming the Ministry of Ag for your investment decisions, notaneconomist? There's good money in pines if you plant them on a favourable site, within 100km of a mill or port, don't have to build expensive roads and manage the trees properly. Just visited a HB hill country farmer who has netted $1000 a ha for each year his pines were in the ground, after deducting all establishment, maintenance and harvesting costs. Better than sheep and cattle over the same period. What's not to like about this?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.