Debate Argument in Support of Option 1: Retain Our Current Commercial Forestry Approach
Introduction: The debate surrounding the council's forestry approach is pivotal, focusing on whether to continue with the current commercial forestry model or transition to a new approach emphasizing mixed-species, continuous canopy forests. The support for Option 1 is grounded in several key arguments derived from community feedback, emphasizing economic stability, effective existing management, and the broader implications for the community and environment.
Economic Considerations: A significant portion of the feedback highlights the economic benefits of retaining the current commercial forestry approach. Residents have expressed concerns about the council's financial stability, noting that the income generated from commercial forestry is crucial, especially during times when every dollar counts. The current approach provides a reliable income stream, which helps offset costs that would otherwise need to be covered by increasing rates. This is a critical factor, given the existing financial pressures on the council.
Effective Management and Industry Expertise: Comments from the community also point out that the current forestry operations are well-managed, with significant consideration for environmental impacts. The expertise of large forest management companies, such as PF Olsens, which have successfully managed similar projects in the region, suggests that professional forestry management is both effective and beneficial. This expertise contributes to a well-maintained forestry operation that balances economic and environmental needs.
Environmental and Social Impact: While the environmental benefits of a mixed-species approach are acknowledged, several residents argue that the current commercial forests also provide substantial CO2 sequestration benefits. Moreover, the suggestion that exotic forests can sequester more carbon per hectare than mature native forests indicates that the current approach also contributes positively to climate change mitigation. Additionally, the social and recreational value provided by the current forests, including opportunities for activities like hunting and cycling, is highly valued by the community.
Strategic and Gradual Transition: Several comments suggest that if a transition is necessary, it should be approached strategically and gradually. This would involve selling management rights to capable forestry companies to continue generating income, potentially transitioning less profitable or environmentally sensitive areas to native species over time. This staggered approach would allow the council to balance new costs with ongoing income, mitigating the financial impact on the community.
Conclusion: The support for retaining the current commercial forestry approach is rooted in practical economic considerations, confidence in existing management practices, and the recognition of the current approach's environmental and social benefits. The community feedback underscores a preference for maintaining a stable income source that supports council activities without additional financial burdens on residents. While environmental improvements are important, they must be balanced with economic realities and the broader community impact.
Comments
| Option_Selected | Comment |
|---|---|
| Option 1 | At a time when the Council needs every dollar in income, this forestry resource provides income |
| Option 1 | Forestry operations in the top of the south are managed so well with lots of consideration towards the environment. Let the big forest management companies get on with doing their jobs, they are the experts. PF Olsens managed the forestry work in the Richmond hills so well which suggests they can do the same in NCC forests |
| Option 1 | Money in. Forestry good. Good CO2. |
| Option 1 | The council taskforce has recommended an approach that replaces a potential future income stream (albeit small) with a future stream of costs. That may create some benefits for trampers and bush walkers who already have many options in the Nelson / Tasman region. It strikes me that the taskforce went in with a preconceived agenda and have merely chosen to justify that to the community. Given the funding pressures on the council adopting a new stream of costs appears inappropriate and at odds with the objective of balancing the needs of the community. If the council bodies responsible for the commercial forests are unable to generate a profit from doing so then the council should firstly offer management rights to forestry companies who do have that ability. At least then there will be some income to offset current and future rates increases. If the council can't find companies who will pay for those forestry rights then there is a case for converting forest land to native forest. However I am not aware that case has yet been made. Even if it proves that all the rights can't be sold then surely there is capacity for the council to offer the rights for the more financially attractive forestry blocks with the remainder progressively converted to natives. A staggered approach to converting away from commercial forestry would at least start balancing those additional costs with some income. |
| Option 1 | As to the forestry option I believe , we should retain the current approach ( option 1) for it generates income . In fact ,I believe the Council just used $200,000 to balance it’s budget. This $200,000 would have had to come rates if the forestry income of $200,000 was not available. The Council in it’s proposal ( option 2) has not addressed where this forestry fund income could be made up elsewhere, something which the council failed to address in it’s proposal. ( option 2.) |
| Option 1 | I think that the cost of replanting a native forests is a very high liability it's very difficult to do the release clearing the slow growth rates of the trees, it's not easy and the cost and difficulty grossly underestimated by most people. The other thing with exotic forests is that they grow bigger and taller and sequester more carbon per hectare than a mature native forest. I think in a lot of cases one should plant the commercial forest species and run them on very long rotations or maybe never harvest them at all. The emissions trading scheme would I think support this approach. (depends of the ETS category of the land of course.) |
| Option 1 | maintaining an income souce from managed forestry surely is critical to keep the pressure off rate payers. |
| Option 1 | a mixed canopy cover approach will take a very long time and likely wont be work, this approach will cost more money then the social value is worth. The current commerical approach provides value to the region and council, espacially jobs. Improving the relationship with forestry and the public especially with recreation value such as hunting or cycling should be prioritised. |
| Option 1 | thr council only think of lining their own pockets, they need to get their hands out of other people's pockets |
| Option 1 | We need the money |
| Option 1 | Surely it can be better managed . |
| Option 1 | OPTION 1 supported provided Commercial Forestry is operating at a profit and is earning desperately needed income . |
| Option 1 | the revenue and business activity is needed in the region and the country needs the export dollars |
| Option 1 | I support Option 1My Comments include that the city is broke and can’t afford the luxury of Option 2 |
| Option 1 | I am writing to offer my perspective on the important issue of forestry management, particularly regarding the use of NCC forest estate for various recreational activities. While the primary focus of this discussion may be on forestry, I believe it's crucial to consider the broader spectrum of outdoor pursuits that enrich our community. |
| Option 1 | While I have not been able to find the income derived from plantation forestry in Nelson region, I understand that the income derived is put towards other projects within the region. As a rate payer in Nelson I would expect Council not to squander income.The reason for existing plantation forestry is emotive. The NES-CF is in place to provide sound environmental and social outcomes. Where is the science to back the council’s limited understanding of plantation forestry? |
| Option 1 | Its been a commercial success and provided a return.Councils proposal will be costly so will become negative return cost centre.I believe Councils proposal is a personal opinion Councillors not in the interest of its ratepayers.Personal opinions should stay aside especially if its more costly |
| Option 1 | Some return on forestry needed. It also retains "control" on access and misuse of area. |