Official website of the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association

NZFFA logo: green conifer tree on white background


Advertisement
Tenco logo
About Tenco
Tenco is one of New Zealand’s largest exporters of forest products. We have built to this position since 1991 when the company was set up to export lumber to growing Asian export markets.  Experience and reputation count; from small beginnings Tenco has become the largest independent exporter of New Zealand lumber and New Zealand’s 4th largest log exporter.  Tenco has a regular shipping program of their own log vessels and in combination with these and other ships currently calls  at 7 New Zealand ports (5 North Island and 2 South Island).
 
Tenco buys standing forests.  Tenco currently has a number of forests which they purchased at harvestable age to log over a number of years for export and domestic markets.  Tenco also regularly buys smaller tracts of forest to harvest immediately or immature forests to hold until harvest time.  Tenco is interested in broadening  the  base of owners from whom it purchases forests and stands of trees.  A deal with Tenco is a certain transaction.  The owner and Tenco will agree on a value of the tree crop and then Tenco will pay this amount to the owner either in a lump sum amount or on rate per volume unit out-turn from the forest depending on the nature of the tree crop.
 
Tenco knows there are a lot of farmers who have trees that are close or ready to harvest and will be asking themselves how they should proceed with the sale of their trees.  For some farmers the kind of certain transaction with money in the bank could well be appealing. Tenco is actively interested in buying harvestable forests or trees from areas including all the North Island (except the Gisborne and East Coast districts) and Nelson & Marlborough in the South Island .
 
If you own a forest in this area (16 years and older) and are ready to enter into this kind of agreement Tenco is interested to develop something with you.
Please contact: Josh.Bannan@tenco.co.nz 
Work: +64 7 357 5356  Mobile:  +64 21 921 595  www.tenco.co.nz
Logging

NZFFA Member Blogs

Any member of NZFFA can set up their own blog here, just ask Head Office to set one up for you and join the ranks of our more outspoken members...

You can either publish your blogs yourself, or email a document to head office for publishing.


Member Blogs


Recent blogs:

A lesson from Harry Bunn

Wink Sutton's Blog
Friday, February 27, 2009

New Zealand Tree Grower, February 2009.

As a young FRI scientist on my first field trip with Harry Bunn, then director of Production Forestry Research and also my greatest mentor, we visited a three-year-old radiata pine stand. It was depressing. Inadequate site preparation, poor tree stock and poor planting had resulted in half the trees dying. Those that had survived had not been released. Understandably, I was critical.

As we returned to our hotel Harry commented that I might have handled the situation differently. What I said had left the young forester feeling helpless. I would have been more effective if, instead of being critical, I had given advice on how to rectify the problem and how to prevent a repeat. Since then I have always tried to live up to this Bunn philosophy ‘don’t be critical unless you can offer a better solution.’

Wise advice

A recent experience reminded me of Harry’s wise and fatherly advice. Of all my presentation material the most dramatic, and the most frightening, is the graph showing the growth in human population since the birth of Christ. In AD 1 the global population is estimated to have been about 250 million, and it grew nearly a billion by 1800 and 1.6 billion by 1900. Since then the population growth has been explosive. Currently there are nearly seven billion of us.

While the population growth in some countries has been static, or even declining, the total global population is still increasing. This population explosion has very serious implications.

Sustainable consumption

Some, especially from the environmental movement, claim we must reduce our level of consumption. But is this realistic or too simplistic? If we lower consumption not only are there both fewer lower paid jobs and less government taxation incomes but also greater social demands. In democratic societies it would be political suicide for any party to advocate consumption-reducing policies if the result was increased unemployment and less social spending.

In a keynote address to the UNFF intersessional expert meeting on ‘The Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management’ in Wellington in 2003, I attempted to argue that consumption was not the problem, it was unsustainable consumption.

If we had sustainable consumption, such as a more wood based economy using responsible forest management, we could increase consumption without reducing the planet’s resources. I could have strengthened my case by demonstrating that although wealthy societies or the wealthy in poorer countries have the greatest level of consumption they also have the lowest increase in population. I could also have demonstrated that as wealth increases so does the consumption of wood.

At that Wellington meeting was the New Zealand environmentalist, Sandy Gauntlett of the Global Forest Coalition. Sandy Gauntlett is anti-plantation claiming that they are not forests and have destructive effects. He dismissed my solution with the comment −

‘Wink Sutton’s paper ... was little more than an argument for increased consumption, and planning for consumption, of wood, and hence for more plantations.’

Gauntlett is at liberty to disagree with me but by casually dismissing my well reasoned argument he missed the opportunity to advance his realistic and socially acceptable solution to this major global problem. The environmental movement would be far more effective if, instead of being critical, it followed the Harry Bunn principle of offering politically acceptable solutions.

(top)


Forestry and wood use are ignored or unfairly treated

Wink Sutton's Blog
Sunday, November 29, 2009

New Zealand Tree Grower, November 2009.

On a per capita basis the world’s human population currently uses a greater weight of wood than the combined total weight of at least 10 of the most common plant foods. Wood is our most versatile and our only major raw material that is renewable. Given wood’s environmental friendliness, its low energy requirements and its potential as a supplier of renewable energy, we should expect greater encouragement for forestry and the use of wood.

But this is not so. At the international level wood use and forestry are very largely ignored.

The principle aim of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit was Agenda 21 − the environmental blueprint for the 21st Century. Initially, forestry aspects were almost ignored. There were only two topics that were in any way related to forestry − combating desertification and preventing tropical deforestation. The world has Malaysia to thank for widening the discussion to include all of the world’s forests and New Zealand to thank for recognising the contribution of plantations or planted forests.

Now the international focus is on reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As they grow, forests sequester carbon and the use of wood either releases energy, effectively stored solar energy, or is a low energy and environmentally friendly raw material. In permanent structures wood continues to store carbon. Even if the carbon in wood is finally released into the atmosphere it is recycled as it re-sequestered by the growing forest. We would expect that this renewable and environmentally friendly recycling system should be given at least equal if not privileged treatment – again, not so.

Although forestry and wood use have much to offer in the reduction of greenhouse gases, the present Kyoto rules are hardly favourable to either forestry or wood use. Carbon credits can only be claimed for trees planted since 1989. When trees are harvested the forest owner has to repay those carbon credits unless the forest canopy remains intact. No credit can be claimed for any carbon stored in wood products. This is in striking contrast to how fossil fuels are treated. For fossil fuels there is no carbon penalty at extraction and all carbon penalties fall on the user.

Why is forestry and wood use so poorly treated when is has so much to contribute to the present aim of restricting the release of carbon into the atmosphere? Could it be because forestry departments world-wide are small and dominated by agriculture. Wood’s competitors are often the products of very large and powerful companies. In comparison, wood companies are small – the largest wood company in the world controls a little over two per cent of the world’s industrial wood.

Subsidies are being proposed for carbon polluters. Subsidies are great for carbon polluting companies as their carbon emitting products face no increase in price. The cost of their carbon pollution is transferred to the tax-payer. Rarely discussed are the marketing distortion effects of these subsidies. Without subsidies the carbon polluting products would be more expensive, and environmentally friendly wood products would be more price competitive. The demand for wood products would increase and forest establishment and management would be encouraged. Our present government has said it wants to encourage forest establishment but its proposal to introduce market distorting subsidies greatly undermines this forestry objective.

(top)



Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.

Farm Forestry - Headlines