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
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.
Brian Cox's Blog
Chris Perley's Blog
Dean Satchell's blog
Denis Hocking's blog
Eric Cairn's Blog
Hamish Levack's Blog
Ian Brennon's blog
Ian Brown's Blog
John Ellegard's blog
John Fairweather's blog
John Purey-Cust Ponders
Murray Grant's Blog
Nick Ledgard's Blog
Rik Deaton's Blog
Roger May's Blog
School of Forestry blog
Wink Sutton's Blog
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Dovetail, the USA based non-profit environmental wood advocacy organisation, has suggested wood may be getting a raw deal. If wood must come from environmentally certified sources should not the same requirement be required for all wood substitutes – materials such as metals, concrete and plastic. I do not know why the global forest growing and wood using industries have not taken this line of reasoning. Unlike all its substitutes, wood is the world’s most environmentally acceptable raw material and, if it comes from responsibly managed forests, wood is endlessly renewable.
I recall a discussion I had with one of New Zealand’s environmental leaders. It was in the mid 1990s and I was employed by Fletcher Challenge on secondment to the Canadian Federal Forest Service. After our discussion had gone about 10 minutes the environmental leader made the comment that she did not like what Fletcher Challenge was doing, especially in British Columbia. She anticipated I would attempt to justify British Columbian forest practices which I was prepared to do, but instead I used the opportunity.
One of my responsibilities in Fletcher Challenge was to investigate environmentally acceptable non-wood alternatives as possible industries that the company might invest in. I asked what environmentally acceptable wood substitute she would recommend.
At first, she said that I must know what the alternative wood substitutes were. I knew them but I wanted the recommendations. After some time she finally said ‘hemp’. I replied that I could not believe an environmental leader could be so irresponsible. Hemp requires monoculture planting and also requires farmland – almost all of which is the result of permanently trashed indigenous forest. Hemp is only a fibre substitute and what we need is a solid wood substitute. What would be her substitute recommendation? After some delay she finally said ‘concrete’.
Wood is the world’s most environmentally acceptable raw material. If environmentalists are against managing indigenous forests for a wood supply as well as the establishment of plantations, where do they recommend the world gets its wood from?
Friday, February 27, 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.’
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.