Summary of Arguments for 'None of the Above'

The comments submitted by citizens who selected 'None of the Above' for the council's forestry approach issue reveal a diverse range of perspectives and concerns that do not fully align with either of the proposed options (Option 1: Retain current commercial forestry approach, Option 2: Exit commercial forestry). These comments suggest a desire for a more nuanced approach that incorporates elements of both options or introduces entirely new strategies. Key themes and suggestions from these comments include:

1. Hybrid Approach: Several citizens advocate for a balanced approach that retains some aspects of commercial forestry for economic benefits while transitioning other areas to native or mixed-species forests for environmental and recreational improvements. This includes suggestions to maintain commercial forestry in suitable areas while converting high-risk or high-value areas to continuous canopy forests.

2. Selective and Sustainable Forestry: Some comments emphasize the need for modernized forestry practices that include selective logging and better management of forestry waste. This approach aims to maintain some level of commercial activity while enhancing environmental stewardship.

3. Enhanced Native Planting: A strong preference for increasing native species planting is evident, with citizens noting the benefits for local wildlife, soil stability, and water quality. There is a call for using native species not just for conservation but also as a potential resource for future selective harvesting.

4. Community and Stakeholder Involvement: Comments highlight the importance of involving local communities and stakeholders, such as indigenous groups and recreational users, in the planning and management of forest areas. This includes maintaining access to recreational areas and respecting cultural values.

5. Economic Considerations: Concerns about the financial implications of fully exiting commercial forestry are prevalent. Citizens are worried about the impact on local jobs, the forestry sector, and the potential increase in rates to fund the transition.

6. Environmental and Recreational Priorities: There is a strong environmental ethos in many comments, with citizens advocating for actions that prioritize ecological health, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities over purely commercial interests.

Debate Argument in Support of 'None of the Above'

Given the complexity of the issues surrounding Nelson's forestry management and the diverse opinions expressed by the community, it is clear that neither Option 1 nor Option 2 fully addresses all concerns or leverages all opportunities. Advocating for 'None of the Above' allows for the exploration of a more flexible and adaptive forestry policy that aligns with both economic and environmental goals.

A 'None of the Above' stance supports the development of a third option that could incorporate: - Hybrid Forestry Models: These models would selectively maintain some commercial forestry operations in low-risk areas while expanding native and mixed-species forests in other parts. This approach balances economic benefits with ecological and social gains. - Innovative Funding and Management Strategies: Exploring alternative funding mechanisms, such as partnerships, grants, and eco-credits, could reduce the financial burden on the community while supporting sustainable practices. - Stakeholder Collaboration: By not committing to either existing option, there is more scope to involve a broader range of stakeholders in crafting a bespoke solution that considers local needs, ecological science, and cultural values. - Adaptive Management Practices: A flexible approach allows for ongoing adjustments based on emerging environmental data, technological advances, and community feedback, ensuring that forestry practices can evolve in response to changing conditions.

In conclusion, supporting 'None of the Above' is not a rejection of change but a call for a more thoughtful, inclusive, and sustainable approach to managing Nelson's forest resources—one that truly reflects the community's values and the ecological character of the region.

Comments

ID	Comment
7.3	While option 2 looks good. Ending commercial forestry is going to affect income and productivity for Nelson. I would like to note that a happy medium between option 1 and 2 is better. To create that canopy and retain certain areas or a certain percentage so that Nelson retains it's commercial asset and revenue. Jobs pay rates.
142.3	All hillsides and ex-forestry areas should be planted in natives. These supply food and habitats throughout the year for our native species. Exotic trees evolved to feed and shelter northern hemisphere animal life and do nothing for Aotearoa species.
287.2	Nelson has such rich wildlife and the potential to grow so many taonga species
318.1	keep the trees so were able to ride in the land and make a long term agreement with ngati koata
320.1	Work with ngati koata to keep our tracks and the trees and make a long term agreement
334.1	council needs to work with ngati koata to make a extended plan to keep our mountain bike trail network open
359.3	yeap, agree with Council's proposal BUT, invest and focus on developing the industrial hemp fiber industry in the region...pay attention to that crop.
504.3	I dont know enough about the costings of councils forestry
528.1	SUBMISSION   -NCC Long Term Plan 2024-34“COUNCIL’S FORESTRY APPROACH”Advertised  optionsOPTION 1      Retain current commercial forestry approachOPTION  2    Change approach. Exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species. This would be managed as one area and would improve recreational access particularly on the fringe of the city.” Suggested/ Requestedoption 3Clear felling of exotic commercial  forestry on :-very steep / slip prone  hillsides in proximity of creeks, streams, lakes and riversall areas within a reasonable distance from urban housing  [city fringe]  and areas  frequently used recreationally4   Continue commercial forestry on accessible, suitable areas [excluding      slip prone slopes, waterways, urban  fringe   and frequently used recreational areas].[This suggested third option provides a balanced  forestry policy providing a continuing income to cover weed control , replanting costs and hopefully a dividend for NCC] BRBayley
599.3	I support moving away from current commercial forestry (pine trees) and replacing them with New Zealand native forest plantings.  This should help clean-up waterways, reduce silt in Tasman Bay, reduce hillside land-slips, reduce flooding issues, and support New Zealand fauna/flora to make a comeback.
609.2	More native forest, but keep some commercial pine forests. It's good to have variety.
613.3	plant native trees that can be harvested in the future by the next generation.  Pine trees are not a viable option
631.3	Change approach and exit commercial forestry around the city and rivers but continue the activity in areas where it is suitable to support local businesses otherwise local business is dependent solely on importing logs into the region and leaves key industries vulnerable. Work with industry partners to identify suitable land and return the unsuitable land to a continuous canopy of mixed species
682.3	Unsure
694.3	I think halfway between the 2 proposals would work well. In areas like the Brook, it would be good to change to native bush / mixed canopy. Keeping pines away from houses is a good idea, after the Council poisoned wild pines above brook street leading to a buy out of properties because of danger / slip conditions that the council created. One assumes this buy out was at a cost to the rate payer.?!?! So, to stop this happening in the future, keep pine away from residential areas. I have struggled to find information on what pine trees are actually owned by the Council (vs Ngati Koata), but if they own the trees up the Maitai, past the campground and up to the Dam, these seem like good trees to continue to harvest / forest as pine.Changing the pines up Marden Valley to Barnicoat range (again if this are owned by Council)  to native would be a nice back drop for the city, but only if this is at a neutral cost to the rate payer. Planting costs of Natives should be done with minimum cost, but if the loss of income from pine is a huge deficit, then keeping / replanning pine here should continue. Roding seems like it should be fine kept in pine.
729.3	NCC should not be in the forestry business, nor by distracted by non-essential rate payer services.
732.3	Is it an option to only remove commercial forestry where it is in the vicinity of our residental areas and the Maitai catchment? Forestry is a necessary industry for NZ and we should look at ways to continue doing forestry, but in a more sustainable way. Move it away from areas where erosion and slash will have a significant negative impact, move it away from areas with highly-erodible geology, and add in requirements for non-harvestable riparian planting in the gullys to act as a silt & slash catch-area
747.3	Retain forestry where viable and providing money but convert some areas to Native where have high recreational use.
828.3	There is no doubt in my mind that the present operation must remain unchanged. The current operation should remain self funding.  The cost of replacing with other species will be high.. All of the trees would have to be container grown and when planted they would need a lot more clearing/ maintenance  than pines. They are also slower growing and it would take much longer for them to be of any benefit in relation to land stability. Having other species would not change the recreational value at all. And there is likely to be further harvesting advances in the future whish could help the rubbish/ slash damage to the environment.
849.3	council should exit commercial forestry over time as each area is harvest. A continuous canopy of NATIVE ONLY should be planted to replace the commercial forestry.
874.3	lease the land to a private company and let them deal with it.
919.3	use the forest as carbon credits. No more logging, better management of current species and more phased planting. More pest control.
1007.1	* if printing, please print in high definition colour*1. Weed Management and costsThis is my boundary with Council (photos taken 09/04/2024).  A block of pine was harvested nearly 3 years ago and planted in native trees.  This land is located in the Brook Valley, the top of this photo is part of Codgers Mountain Biking Network (skid site to upper P51).You can see the reality of what the result of transitioning Councils’ pine plantation to native forest will look like in Nelson - hillsides of weeds.It is a major biosecurity issue.  These native trees planted (with large investment by Council) are unlikely to come to successful establishment next to this.This picture occurs at a time when Council weed budgets increased by $11 million.  The cost of this transition will be massive and is underrepresented in costing estimates put forward. 2. Agreed terminology by all concerned is still not defined. I am aware PFOlsen (Council’s forest advisers) recently proposed a planting plan to plant Redwoods and Eucalypts in a steep area of the Maitai Valley on ex-pine harvested land that requires good erosion control.  As far as ‘right tree, right place’ is concerned, these species are wonderful at providing slope stability given their coppicing nature, they grow well in Nelson and due to their slower growth, can result in less frequent selective harvesting (which is in line with RTRP task force continuous cover forest proposal).  If fire is a concern – all forest will burn if people set fire to them and there are management options eg fire breaks, native planting buffers to reduce this risk.Points to note:-          -CCF (Continuous Cover Forests) include, but are not limited to, native forests – exotic species are part of this forest option, -         - CCF incorporates selective harvesting (it is not necessarily a never harvest situation) and, -          -Right tree in the right place for the right purpose is not always a native tree.  If Council are to follow the guidelines of the RTRP taskforce, they must be on the same page and understand what Continuous Cover Forestry is in practice.  Definitions must be agreed with regard to what is Continuous Cover Forestry and what extent of harvesting Council is agreeable to within this regime – harvesting coup size, stems/ha harvested etc must be defined.  The result of indecision on this block in the Maitai, is another year of not planting and another year of weed growth, increased weed seed bank in the soil, and increased chance of erosion given the land is within the period of greatest vulnerability to slips.  The indecision will also result in an increase in costs to establish a new forest given the huge cost requirement for weed control.If the terminology is not agreed, the result of this plan change will continue to spiral in no-action with forest managers, council staff and the public still not certain of direction.
1040.3	There needs to be a significan change from current practice My option would be mixed use options explored a phasing of harvestable timber (but avoiding steep hill country) would be more appropriate, enable long term security if timber availability and some carbon credit systems - sequestration is much better in estuary and wetland restoration and this would have far greater impacts for our intertidal biodiversity
1055.3	I fully support ceasing commercial pine forestry on council land, however planing a canopy of mixed species is only going to create costs for ratepayers in the future and not provide great hapitat for native species. Planting a mixture of native and exotics, with the latter being canopy species will ultimatey result in an exotic forest of tall stature tress which are inappropriate of the soil and topography of the council forestry land. The council forest land is mostly adjacent to both regenerating and original native forests, which provide an amazing seed source for re establishing native forest, which is not recognized under the current proposal. I would like to see this land planted in native establishent species, and over time nature will do the rest in regard to taller native canopy species.
1140.2	I'm very much in favour of increasing the planting of native trees and vegetation. Commercial forestry has its place and is a great renewable resource. However, the land selected for forestry should not be land which is good agricultural land. It also needs to take into account access, roads and impact on water ways, from the planting stage through to felling.
1198.1	A mix of commercial forestry and regrowth of native bushland.  The commercial forestry needs to be modernised to selective logging, leaving mature trees in pace to stabilise soils continuously.  Areas of steep terrain and natural water courses or feeders into water courses to be immediately planted in a mix of native species to minimise the erosion of soils and loss of nutrients.
1204.3	Would want Commercial Forestry to be accountable for their waste products (Slag) to be tidied up by them or processed alternatively. This needs to be an agreement signed as per commercial operation.
1255.3	This all depends on how council wishes to try and keep rates down while taking on massive unsustainable debt. As good as it would be to exit from pine loss of revenue at a time that council is intent on beggaring the city any income must be retained until such time as is prudent to change the approach.
1271.3	Regrow all as native forest.
1302.3	no opinion on this matter
1342.3	Ngāti Kuia supports indigenous forestsIn Aotearoa New Zealand, few exotic species are long-lived. To ensure enduring carbon sinks beyond 2050 we need to be planting long-lived tree species that can grow and sequester carbon for hundreds of years. Our indigenous forests demonstrate this capability. Permanent indigenous forests have advantageous co-benefits of enhancing indigenous biodiversity, soil health, stability and conservation, air and water quality, and regulating local climate conditions. They enhance the natural landscape. Our changing climate and biodiversity loss are inextricably linked and need to be addressed simultaneously and synergistically. Using carbon credits generated from indigenous afforestation to achieve biodiversity gains will address both crises in tandem. We recognise the high costs of establishing and maintaining indigenous forests, especially on marginal land, and the currently limited commercial return on investment. Scaling up native afforestation will therefore require up-front financial support. A biodiversity payment or incentive scheme could be that mechanism. We encourage you to support development of a biodiversity incentives scheme in this rohe to help establish a native afforestation sector. In the meantime, Ngāti Kuia supports the new National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry 2023 (NES-CF), particularly insofar as they require better management of slash, including its removal from steep land. We support the Government’s agreement to retain these measures and impose a duty upon harvesters to contain and remove post-harvest slash. However, harvesting and earthworks of plantation and continuous-cover (aka carbon) forest on steep erosion-prone land remains largely permissive. We do not support this practice.
1345.3	This is a matter of great uncertainty. This is a bigger issue than forestry assets. Nelson is under financial  stress and as such needs every income pipeline it can bring to bear. Housing alone won't do it. Would the city be better to think of value add products for its forestry. NZ Inc needs prefab solutioning as an example.
1388.3	Ease forestry to ensure easy non-permitted public access to much more points of native forest, but somewhat allow continuation of this core industry.
1390.3	As a regular user of the public access to Barnicoat hill both as a mountainniker and a paragluder pilot, I have seen the dreadful state that exotic forestry harvesting causes due removal of all forest cover, creating slash residue, vulnerability to erosion but also wilding pines and weeds. My own recreational activities curtailed by the unscheduled forest closure  for indeterminate periods in the past due to these problems. I think it's very important to commence a mixed forestfplanting regime as soon as possible to protect access and, of course, to enhnce the recreational amenith value.The paragluder launch site should remain with support from NCC to eliminate the gorse growing below the road.Any development of fornef forestry to mixed planting should also include consultation with the needs of the NSMTC anc the THGPC to ensure continued development of traiks, access and launch sites Comment: As a regular user of the access to binacoat hill has both a mountain club biker and a paragraph pilot. I have seen the dreadful state that exotic forestry harvesting causes and have head.  My own recreational activities curtailed by the forest. Free work Post stop play the more. There is a threat of food environmental degradation. And I think it's very important that a beginning of a planting regime commenced as soon as possible. Particularly the area's the strip's Idaho of the road.Thisvus to ensure conitined vehicle or walking access to the Barnicoat paragludinv launch site.Thetd usca further growing problem of gorse and ontinued HG and PG access to Glider Rd and Barnicoat Launch.2. Removal of Douglas Fir from area adjacent Barnicoat Launch due to wilding/self seeding effects.3. Facilitation of extension of HG PG launches to SW on Barnicoat Launch and/or Gecko Hill.4. Support of THGPC in obtaining:            a) Vehicle access along Barnicoat Ridge from Silvan Forest to Barnicoat Launch, and            b) Future access to former
1423.3	anything is better and mote crucial than nothing here
1482.3	We commend the excellent and detailed work of The Right Tree Right Place Taskforce and acknowledge their comprehensive reports “Strategic Planning & Decision Making – analysis, action plans, and recommendations”, “Evolving ecologies – community aspirations, forest transition options & challenges”, “Enhancing Forest Stewardship –community & governance opportunities”, and “The Value of the NCC Forest Estate.”We agree with the various recommendations in these reports.We are of the view that Nelson has been poorly served by its commercial forestry estate – commercially and ecologically. In 2017 (in response to an invitation to contribute to an internal review at NCC), we recorded concerns over the opacity of the relevant data, noting “It is difficult to establish the extent and nature of the city’s ETS forestry plantations” , questioning the currency of the available data, and asking “what if anything is the significance of the ETS in Nelson’s context, and is it really a ‘big picture example’?“ Subsequent engagement with Council tended to validate these concerns.We note and endorse the suggested integrated management of the entire 10,000 Ha estate, the multi-species continuous canopy approach, taking a multiple activity view of the estate, and governing it by an “independent community entity” as outlined in the “Enhancing Forest Stewardship” report.We consider it important to factor into long term management strategies the possibility of extraction of timber, within the continuous canopy regime, which may prove to be an additional support for sustaining such forests.We especially commend the holistic and integrative approach of the “Evolving Ecologies” report and see it as a particularly good example of fitting with the LGA purpose of long-term plans and their consultative documents.