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
Thursday, May 25, 2017
I was encouraged to read in a recent Southland Times that living in a wooden house gives health benefits. The reporter’s name (Natalia Didovich) sounds Russian and Russians like wood, and the source of her information was a report put out by “The Planet Ark Environmental Foundation”. I must call up Mr Google and explore further.
I have, and found an Australian environmental group strongly in favour of wood, ‘responsibly produced’ (for which I read ‘plantations included’) and illustrated with attractive pictures of wood based architecture. Take a look – maybe I am biased, living in a Lockwood house.
Moving on. A month ago I joined a group going up to a field day on Berriedale, a property south of Waihola. It was a bright sunny day, a good audience well mixed by age and occupation, and open and welcoming hosts David and Helen Vollweiller, on a sheep property with trees and natural manuka in the gullies.
And there lies the first question. Someone referred to the trees as a good use for ‘unproductive land’. Force of pastoral habit speaking perhaps because by the well tended, healthy and vigorous appearance of the plantings (mostly radiata, with some macrocarpa, douglas fir and eucalypts) the gullies are very productive, though perhaps not for sheep.
Then ‘Markets’ arose when we were at a stand of Euc nitens. There the voice of the sawmill supply chain spoke – how to get a sufficient log supply for a good mill run of the unconventional and how do we find a buyer for the sawn product? The answer is simple – often we don’t.
Radiata and douglas fir are simple – an established chain of mills and markets, consultants and log buyers - but volume is still important and farm foresters are usually not so big. For other species something different is needed and I hark back to John Wardle’s Woodside. His radiata goes through established channels into an established market, log quality compensating for a small harvest yield, but his beech, for which there is no log market, he saws himself on a portable mill and finds his own market for the sawn timber. It is a lesson that I only appreciated quite recently, conveniently too late to do much about it, my androscoggin poplars being in mind. The sawmillers and the log marketers speak for the world they know, the present, now. That is not necessarily the world farm foresters live in, and we have to allow for that.
Economic woodlot size has been questioned too – but what is too small? The answer for radiata, providing there is quality (for which I read pruned and thinned) and good access, is ‘pretty small’. Again I hark back to Woodside – a sustained yield of radiata logs from 27.5 hectares – and there are other examples, in the latest (February) Tree Grower and in the Farm Forestry Members Newsletter no. 97 (also February).
The Tree Grower article (‘A harvest result to confound the experts’) describes the result of harvesting a one hectare block of 26 year old radiata pine – nett income $57,669, of which pruned logs (55.5% by volume) produced 78% of sale value. A nett annual stumpage of $2,218.
It seems that the owners have planted a hectare a year on each of their two farms and this was the oldest and first to be felled.
The Southland Farm Forestry Newsletter article (‘Good forest management decisions yield spectacular financial outcome’) describes the harvesting of two blocks (24 and 25 year old) of radiata totalling 8.6 hectares. The results work out at a nett stumpage per hectare of $61,430, or annually $2,507. It is mentioned that all the pruned logs went to local mills.
A good subject for a local field day – find a member who contemplates planting radiata and have an on-site discussion of the choices available – seedling types, silvicultural regimes, final crop objectives, and yes, etc.etc.
In both cases you can find more detail in the relevant publications, which all members of Farm Forestry will have. And logging machinery gets smaller too. See the tractor mounted winch used by Roger May (FebruaryTree Grower) and note his comments on sawing ‘unsaleable’ species
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Interpol has estimated that the annual global cost of corruption in the forestry sector is of the order of US$29 billion. This supply of wood has had the effect of suppressing global timber prices by seven to 16 per cent. ‘Bribery is reported as the most common form of corruption in the forestry sector. Other forms of corruption, in order from most to least common after bribery, are the following – fraud, abuse of office, extortion, cronyism and nepotism.’
This corruption has consequences far beyond stealing revenue that should have gone to governments or private forest owners. Most concerning is that it reduces the financial return to legitimate forest owners. As a result, there will be less money available for forest management.
Because, over a rotation, forestry labour expenditure accounts for the bulk of forest management costs, I used to consider forestry as being a labour intensive industry. However, a Canadian forest economist challenged this reasoning. Although forest management costs are generally labour-related, there is very often no financial return until the forest is finally harvested and the wood is sold. Forestry should therefore be treated as a capital-intensive industry. Forestry is probably the most capital intensive of all the world’s major industries.
Providing that the logged forest is not converted to another land use such as palm oil plantations, all indigenous forests eventually regenerate. However, intensive forest management can hasten when the forest can be harvested again.
Compared with plantations of fast growing introduced tree species, such as radiata or some species of eucalypt, managed indigenous forests are generally slower growing and therefore require longer rotations. A managed indigenous forest is generally more capital intensive than plantations. Unless there is money available for intensive forest management there will be little or no management. A minimally managed or an unmanaged indigenous forest requires longer rotations with lower harvest volumes and lower financial returns.
The consequence of forest corruption is not just that there will be less money for future forest management but that there will be less future income as well as lower volumes of wood available for harvest. If, because of current corruption future wood harvests are to be reduced, is not forest corruption in effect stealing from future generations?
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.