Council’s forestry approach Debate
Economic Benefits - Costs
Option 1
The residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the economic benefits of maintaining the current commercial forestry approach, highlighting its role in generating income that helps balance the council's budget without increasing rates. They express concerns that transitioning to a mixed-species forest (Option 2) would introduce significant costs without a clear plan to replace the income currently derived from commercial forestry. Additionally, some suggest a staggered approach to transitioning, which could potentially balance the financial risks by continuing some commercial operations while gradually increasing native forestry, thereby mitigating immediate financial impacts.
Table of comments:
| Point No | Comment |
|---|---|
| 171.3 | 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. |
| 171.3 | 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. |
| 173.3 | 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.) |
| 330.3 | 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.) |
| 420.3 | 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. |
| 450.3 | thr council only think of lining their own pockets, they need to get their hands out of other people's pockets |
| 1225.3 | I support Option 1My Comments include that the city is broke and can’t afford the luxury of Option 2 |
| 1373.3 | 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 |