Council’s forestry approach Debate

Economic Benefits - Costs

Option 2

The majority of residents supporting Option 2 believe that despite the higher initial costs, the long-term environmental and social benefits, such as improved water quality, soil stability, and enhanced recreational areas, justify the investment. Many argue that the costs of not transitioning, including flood repairs and sediment management, could outweigh the expenses associated with maintaining current forestry practices. Additionally, some residents suggest that potential income from carbon credits and savings on insurance premiums due to reduced fire risks could offset the transition costs, making the move financially viable over time.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
11.3	Forestry should not be council's business
18.1	The present model does not return greater than 10% return as stated by John Murray. He is factually incorrect.
190.3	This just has to be done. There is no doubt that on the steep slopes where most of NCC forestry is, the damage done by repeated clear felling of pine is simply not acceptable. Coupled with the favoured mechanised harvest approach (which dramatically worsens surface damage) soil stripping and the impact on the whenua and by close extension, the Tasman Bay moana just can't be tolerated any longer.Having hands on experience with Silvan Forest retiring their pine and replanting with a (non-harvestable) native/exotic mix, and also TDC's similar approach with Kingsland Forest, NCC following suit and doing the same should now be a given. If this costs NCC then so be it - this is the price of doing the right thing, and probably the price of making poor decisions to be involved in this space in the first place. Without a Forest Manager on staff to handle this properly, NCC hasn't done itself any favours at all. Consider Silvan and Kingsland as the template for how this can be done.There are suitable and appropriate places for harvestable pine plantations - Nelson's steep slopes coupled with their close proximity to waterways and Tasman Bay are not it.
228.2	Change it OVER TIME. Dont try to do it all at once, focus on key high public use areas and do them well while keeping some commercial forestry stands to help fund the conversion
252.2	I am flabbergasted that any other approach than this would even be an option to any sane individual with a long term view!  It is clear to me that Nelson's social and commercial value (via tourism) lies in its exceptional natural beauty and close proximity to pristine natural environments.   This is all put at risk by running commercial logging right on our doorstep that scars the landscape, pollutes our rivers, and ruins our natural environment.    But an even bigger issue than that, is protecting our homes and our very lives from the ever-increasing risk of fire in this changing climate.   We know that longer hot, dry spells are coming, and that means elevated fire risk.   We are now seriously at risk of most or all of Nelson going up in flames, and probability tells us the fire will start in a pine forest on the city limits.   Its a complete no-brainer to protect our city by removing the pines and replacing them with a protective barrier of native forest.  Surely the insurance premium savings alone, would cover the cost to do this!
304.3	Quite apart from the known environmental impact, my understanding is this is not a profit maker for the Council/community.  I so appreciate the efforts of Rachel Sanson when she was being persecuted for having a different opinion from the then Mayor & Council.  What a huge breakthrough that a pause was finally put on just barrelling ahead and leaving the decision for another 30yrs.
309.1	This is the only way to help future safe Nelson and the Nelson community from adverse weather events and it is also a better, more financially viable (given status quo is not returning any profit/rate relief to ratepayers) and more environmentally responsible land use for the Nelson owned forestry estate. We are a community full of people the value recreation and the more opportunities we can provide the better. It will provide Nelson with more environmental resilience over time and will actually provide meaningful value to the Nelson community and wider environment.Well done to the taskforce and councillors for taking this on and accepting the taskforce recommendations.
442.2	I support the council's proposal for the move to exit commercial forestry. I believe any consideration of costs needs to include the downstream effects of harvesting sediment and flooding, and I support a shift to forestry with a continuous canopy of mixed species, including natives and high value hardwoods.
447.3	There is an aesthetic issue: pinus radiata and it's destructive harvesting cycle result in a hideous backdrop to our city. What I think we need is the range of colour, shape and size that comes from re-cloaking the hills with native speciesThere is an environmental issue: the run-off from pine forests and the impact of a one species is devastating for water quality, soil quality and diversity of flora and fauna.There is an economic issue: these forests do not pay their wayThere is a resiliency issue: the hills surrounding Nelson are vulnerable to severe rain events of which there have been many in the past 4 decades I have lived here. Pinus radiata forests do not improve the resiliency of the land in these events - native forests do. There are many people who would volunteer to plant natives as my community has done in Murphy St and both the east and west slopes of upper Emano St - we would all help again!
463.2	Yes, Yes, Yes. I commend the Council for seeking change at last. Several generations of my family lived and farmed in the Maitai Valley at Smith's Ford.  I grew up in the valley too, and I am so strongly against the pine plantations in the valley. They have degraded the river and valley badly. Please get rid of commercial forestry ASAP !Continuous cover forest will greatly improve the recreational value of the valley, improve the ability of the forest to slow water run-off in high rainfall events, improve water quality and any extra cost to the Council will be offset by the huge savings being made by eliminating the unseen effects of harvesting, sediment and flooding in the valley and marina.
486.3	Exiting slowly with the aim to earn Carbon credits instead of increasing rates and or debt.
496.3	I would prefer for the council for the move to exit commercial forestry. I support a shift to mixed species forestry, including natives and high value hardwoods. Any cost considerations should include downstream effects of harvesting sediment and flooding.
542.1	Kia ora, Considering the current state of the environment and degradation trends we need to take action before it is too late.  For this reason option 2 is best for our future.  Not changing over to mixed canopy is shortsighted and result in further erosion/flooding issues.  I believe any consideration of costs needs to include the downstream effects of harvesting sediment and flooding.Nga mihi,Thalassa
650.1	It would appear as though the council has never made a profit over the duration of forestry on its land. It would appear to be a liability and problematic for the council.Please plant in natives and/or exotics that in years to come will provide a wonderful backdrop for the city. It will also drastically reduce or remove the hazards associated with forestry.
774.2	While being supportive of the fazing out of the commercial forestry This should be done progressively and using methods that do not require large expensive planting programs. Using natural seeding in combination with very good pest control is a better option.
838.3	The way the cost of making this change is presented in the LTP is misleading. The costs need to factor in the costs of NOT transitioning, which include flood repairs, and mitigation of the impact of sediment on the Maitai River.
899.1	Through an extensive process over the past 15 months, the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance agreed upon a Strategy Implementation Pathway Plan.  A 2 page summary document is attached to this submission.  Key issues were identified through that process that impact upon the natural environment, including our lands, waterways and surrounding seas.  Sedimentation featured very highly as one of the most significant aggravating factors, one that not only impacted our land ecosystems, but is also driving the loss of and potential for restoration of abundant shellfish communities in the Bay.  Another issue that arose was the need to transition to improved permanent forest cover for a multiplicity of reasons, including reducing the loss of soil, improved carbon sequestration, improved riparian and coastal margins, improved biodiversity, floodplain and corridor connectivity.  The Right Tree, Right Place taskforce gave a thorough and concerted consideration of the issues, inviting a significant number of community members (with expertise and/or other knowledges) to contribute to the process.  The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is currently working on a programme to improve opportunities for transitioning away from pine plantation forestry where there are obvious benefits from doing so.  As TNC has an MOU with the KMTT Alliance (of which NCC is a signatory), there is an opportunity for us to work collaboratively to help identify opportunities, e.g. exploring alternative income streams; and other potential sustainable finance mechanisms.  We are currently engaging with Council staff in discussions on how to carry this forward.  TNC Global has provided funding to KMTT for a Reforestation Accelerator Initiative with similar values to the work of the Right Tree, Right Place taskforce/NCC outputs.  We are working on a number of initiatives to help accelerate reforestation, including developing mapping tools, and looking at both financial and non-financial incentives.  We are working closely with international teams to consider business models and ways of working to reduce costs.  We look forward to working collaboratively where opportunities allow to progress this thoughtful initiative of Council.
933.3	The current approach doesn't make either financial or environmental sense.
1112.3	As a hang glider pilot, Barnicoat and the Stoke Hills/Richmond Ranges are a core part of my flying activities.  Recent logging and mono-cultural forests have created unstable land surfaces, as well as an ugly aspect.  Native species, multi-species and a long term strategy, COMBINED with better access to the hills for recreation, will both enhance the environment and living in the region. Mono-species forests with a 30 year cycle are a silly option for this land type; as an investor in commercial forests, this land is highly unlikely to ever be profitable for commercial forestry.
1212.3	Absolutely necessary given climate change, flood potential, and declining soil productivity for commercial mono-culture.  The costs to do this over time are well under the benefits to people and the environment over a longer period of time.
1332.3	NZ Forestry practices are causing high rates of damage through sedimentation and slash, and here in Nelson‘s Tasman Bay have already destroyed shellfish habitat. In addition it is not even commercially lucrative.
1397.2	NCC have the opportunity to lead by example, by transitioning away from pine monoculture in the Maitai Valley. Pine forestry practices in the Maitai have been demonstrated to adversely impact the Maitai River and Nelson Haven, e.g. through sedimentation and associated toxic algal blooms, and slash washout during flood events. These adverse effects should be factored into the cost/benefit analysis when considering a transition away from pine forestry in the catchment.
1404.2	NCC have the opportunity to lead by example, by transitioning away from pine monoculture in the Maitai Valley. Pine forestry practices in the Maitai have been demonstrated to adversely impact the Maitai River and Nelson Haven, e.g. through sedimentation and associated toxic algal blooms, and slash washout during flood events. These adverse effects should be factored into the cost/benefit analysis when considering a transition away from pine forestry in the catchment.
1466.3	Recent weather events throughout New Zealand have proven that large scale forestry can be very damaging to our environment and the environment.With the fickle market nature of Pine logs, it is also demonstrated that commercial forestry would bring little to no benefit to NCC managed land.Moving away from short rotation pine crops and re-establishing native species will help support our waterways and coastline recovery.