Council’s forestry approach Debate

Environmental Benefits - Sustainability

Option 1

Residents supporting Option 1 argue that existing commercial forestry management practices are effective and environmentally considerate, as demonstrated by successful operations in nearby areas like the Richmond hills. They believe that commercial forests, particularly those with long rotations or potentially never harvested, are superior in carbon sequestration compared to native forests due to their faster growth and larger biomass. Additionally, there is a perception that the financial benefits from commercial forestry are significant and that these funds are responsibly reinvested in regional projects, contributing to overall sustainability.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
80.2	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
155.3	Money in.  Forestry good.  Good CO2.
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.)
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.)
641.3	Surely it can be better managed .
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?