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 Brown's Blog
John Ellegard's blog
John Fairweather's blog
John Purey-Cust Ponders
Nick Ledgard's Blog
Rik Deaton's Blog
Roger May's Blog
School of Forestry blog
Wink Sutton's Blog
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Recent work to identify the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions that the bioenergy sector could contribute to achievement of the Paris climate change emission reduction targets has shown that under a business as usual scenario it would be around 1.1Mt CO2-e per year by 2040. However if Government and the sector work together in partnership to address some of the current barriers the greenhouse gas emission reduction from bioenergy solutions could be increased to around 5.2 Mt CO2-e. This is a very significant contribution to achieving the overall target of 47 Mt CO2-e by 2050.
The opportunity for switching from coal to wood fuel is large and in many niche situations is economic for heat users to do today. If the public good benefits such as climate change, regional economic growth and employment are taken into account then by working with Government to achieve these benefits a lot more fuel switching is likely to occur.
In the municipal solid and liquid waste areas there are opportunities by using biogas technologies for reducing the discharge of methane to atmosphere. Methane is like CO2 on steroids with regard to climate change as it is 23 times more significant than CO2 with regard to climate change.
With the results of this recent analysis showing the significance of bioenergy solutions to reducing climate change the Bioenergy Association will be seeking to work with government to identify and implement an agreed plan of action.
Brian Cox is the Executive Officer of the Bioenergy Association
Friday, July 08, 2016
"To heal is to make whole. This applies as well to the 'industries' of landscapes: agriculture, forestry & mining. Once they have been industrialised, those enterprises no longer recognise landscapes as wholes, let alone as homes for people and other creatures. They regard landscapes as sources of extractable products. They have 'efficiently' shed any other concern or interest."
Wendell Berry. Our Only World p6
This quote by Wendell Berry sums up why I do not like the name (and explicit framing) of our renamed public department 'Ministry of Primary Industries'. It disturbs me when the technocrats, especially those who see the world through the myopic lens of dollars and markets alone, have the power to fundamentally shift from a metaphor of culture - agriculture, silviculture, apiculture, horticulture, viticulture, aquaculture - to a metaphor of 'industry'.
I think we ought to 'see' landscapes in a broad sense, as places of potential for people and the planet, without the industrialised overriding assumption of 'trade-offs'. We cannot see potential synergies (win-wins in policy speak) if we don't have a sense of the shifting patterns of a place; its mysteries and its beauties.
And this is the point that the industrialists and narrow technocrats don't get. They also lose in this new industrial framing. They do not see that a woodland, a wetland, a tall pastoral ley, a soil that sings within a pastoral setting does many things that not only provide for people and the landscape wonders with which we share our home, but also are better at the hard business considerations of cost savings, input reductions, risk reduction, productivity (output per input) and profit. They think that their 'efficiencies' and focus on mechanical homogeneity and scale makes our world better when it does the very opposite.
Their ideas of landscapes are analytical without a prior synthesising perspective. These ideas are not 'real', they are a social construction from within their moulded minds - their learned dys-integrated myopias made narrow by a particular education. Their technocratic perspective is blind to either potential or problem.
And so they fail to realise the opportunity, and continue adding more costs and struggles to the people within their land, ever sicker.
You cannot heal a place by industrialising. But you can create Mordor, where inevitably the people ourselves are reduced to meaningless 'resource', 'waste' and 'tradeoff'. That way leads to work camps and death.
The heart of any healing perspective is to see through the eyes of culture and the fullness of landscape, never industry.
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.