Council’s forestry approach Debate
Economic Benefits - Revenue
Option 1
Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining the current commercial forestry operations due to the financial benefits it provides to the Council. They express concerns about losing a reliable income stream that supports various municipal projects and offsets the need for increased rates. Additionally, some suggest exploring the profitability of these operations by potentially outsourcing management to specialized forestry companies to ensure continued economic benefits.
Table of comments:
| Point No | Comment |
|---|---|
| 75.3 | At a time when the Council needs every dollar in income, this forestry resource provides income |
| 155.3 | Money in. Forestry good. Good CO2. |
| 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.) |
| 541.3 | We need the money |
| 959.3 | OPTION 1 supported provided Commercial Forestry is operating at a profit and is earning desperately needed income . |
| 1072.3 | the revenue and business activity is needed in the region and the country needs the export dollars |
| 1349.1 | 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? |
| 1439.3 | Some return on forestry needed. It also retains "control" on access and misuse of area. |