Official website of the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association

NZFFA logo: green conifer tree on white background

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: 
Work: +64 7 357 5356  Mobile:  +64 21 921 595

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:

Eucalyptus selection for New Zealand - what is the elephant in the room?

Dean Satchell's blog
Thursday, November 10, 2016

We each grow forest plantations for a reason. Those reasons may vary, but my primary reason is for a return on my investment. This means producing wood or fibre as fast as possible from trees that remain healthy throughout their rotation. 

I'll be so blunt as to state that the most important factor to consider when selecting eucalyptus species for commercial forestry in New Zealand is forest health. I state this categorically and from experience.

The problem for growers in New Zealand is that each new pest that "blows across the ditch" from Australia adds to the pest load and eventually the burden gets too much. Serious pest attack on forestry plantations can be devastating and many of us have seen it. However, where this gets interesting is in species selection for insect resistence. Each new pest that arrives favours certain eucalypt species. Just some. Never all eucalypt species. Most people lose interest at this point because there are just so many species of eucalypt... and there are now so many pest species that it all becomes too complicated ...and so the grower exclaims that eucalypts are bug fodder and throws in the towel.

However, this is not quite an accurate summation. Let me explain why. The key to understanding it all is to divide eucalypts into two groups: "Monocalypts" and "Symphyomyrts". I'm not going to go into taxonomical details about what separates these two groups, but what I am going to show you is black and white. What observant growers have begun to notice in New Zealand that could give us the edge globally on growing eucalypt plantations.

The edge you ask? How could that be... we're getting all the pests and euc's don't grow here any good. Look at Brazil I hear you say, they can bloody well grow the things in ten years or less! No pests over there... too far from Australia. Well... I would suggest that this is changing with world trade the way it is, it is only a matter of time before South America, Asia, Africa and Europe will provide a green salad smorgasboard for a plethora of these Australian eucalypt munching pests too. So what species are they all growing? Symphyomyrts. Why? Because symphyomyrts grow faster than monocalypts (we all love early growth, don't we). Commercial eucalypt plantations throughout the world are almost exclusively Symphyomyrtus species. Indeed we started that way in New Zealand and planted lots of blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) over 100 years ago because it grew so well. Unlike the rest of the world however, the eucalyptus tortoise beetle Paropsis charybdis then arrived and saw to our blue gum plantations. Chewed the shit out of them so we gave up. Now the same thing is beginning to happen in other countries.

At this point I have to say we're a resilient lot, us New Zealanders, and there are always crackpots who are willing to try something else. Lots more euc species just over there in Australia, with planters willing to give any of them a go. What emerged eventually, from decades of trial and error, has been consistent and compelling... the species that grow best here are the monocalypts. Took a while for many of us to realise, and some still doggedly perservere with symphyomyrtus species because of fast early growth or desired wood properties such as colour or durability. But with the arrival of each new pest species, the list of starters gets smaller and smaller.

Unless you see the light, you're on a sinking ship. Believe me. Monocalypts don't get the bugs like the symphyomyrtus species, we've known this for some time (see here and here).

The monocalypts could be said to be "ordinary". Their timber is not particularly colourful, nor highly durable... but the wood is durable enough and colourful enough for most applications. Their early growth is quite ordinary by international standards, but what we've discovered is their resilience. They've brushed off everything that Australia has thrown at us and grow pretty much as well as they always have. Their lack of fast early growth is made up for by solid, consistent growth over the medium and long term (similar to radiata but slower than Brazilian eucalypts). The monocalypts are well adapted to moderate fertility and free draining sites in the same way radiata pine is. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind about their commercial potential. Their timber is stable and easy to mill and dry. The sapwood band is consistetly small, as is the defect core. 

Lets have a look at some serious pest introductions and their favourite tucker:

Eucalyptus Variegated Beetle (EVB) Paropsisterna variicollis

Serious damage: E. bosistoana, E. tricarpa, E. cladocalyx (all Symphyomyrtus)

Little to no damage: E. muelleriana, E. globoidea, E. macroryncha, E. eugenoides, E. pilularis, E. fastigata, E. obliqua, E. regnans (all Monocalyptus)

Bronze Bug, Thaumastocoris peregrinus

Serious damage: E. camaldulensis, E. grandis (all Symphyomyrtus)

Little to no damage: E. muelleriana, E. globoidea, E. macroryncha, E. eugenoides, E. pilularis, E. fastigata, E. obliqua, E. regnans (all Monocalyptus)

Brown lace lerp, Cardiaspina fiscella

Serious damage: E. saligna, E. botryoides, E. robusta, E. grandis (all Symphyomyrtus)

Little to no damage: E. muelleriana, E. globoidea, E. macroryncha, E. eugenoides, E. pilularis, E. fastigata, E. obliqua, E. regnans (all Monocalyptus)

Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle Paropsis charybdis

Serious damage: E. globulus, E. quadrangulata, E. grandis, E. scias, E. nitens, E. camaldulensis, E. longifolia, E. macarthurii, E. leucoxylon (all Symphyomyrtus)

Little to no damage: E. globoidea, E. macroryncha, E. eugenoides, E. pilularis, E. fastigata, E. obliqua, E. regnans (all Monocalyptus)


You should start seeing a picture emerging. Each new pest has an appetite for some of the symphyomyrts, but not all. But as they keep coming all the bases eventually get covered.

The question I am asking and one I would appreciate some feedback on below, is at what point do we say enough is enough, see the light and stick to planting monocalypts?

Footnote: Monocalyptus species include E. regnans, E. obliqua, E. fastigata (Ash group), E. pilularis, E. sphaerocarpa, E. globoidea, E. muelleriana, E. laevopinea, E. macroryncha (Stringybark group).   

Forest policy and politics

Hamish Levack's Blog
Thursday, November 10, 2016

Stuart Nash, Labour spokesperson on Forestry, met with the NZFFA executive on 8 November and shared his ideas about forest policy. See Forestry - Imagine by Stuart Nash, Labour spokesperson for forestry

My views on this policy follow:

A $1/m3 Government levy on export logs would certainly be much more palatable than $5/m3 (as Stuart suggested previously).

I mentioned that such a levy would probably be acceptable if it was introduced at the same time that Government began paying something, [perhaps an equivalent amount] in recognition for the ecosystem services that forest owners provide the community with.

My paper that was published in the November 2015 ‘Tree Grower’ refers to the  impressive strides Scion has made recently in the quantification of the ecosystem benefits of plantation forestry. The table below, which is extracted from the paper, is from a 2014 report on eco-system services in the Bay of Plenty’s Ohiwa Catchment. It demonstrates a large positive ecosystem service value from exotic forestry of $5,609 a hectare each year. 


Table 2: Indicative values in dollars per hectare each year of key ecosystem services in the Ohiwa catchment

  Dollars per hectare
Carbon sequestration/emission and greenhouse gas regulation using $4 per New Zealand Unit. [Note however that as at November 2016 an NZU is worth $18.50] $48
Avoided erosion and flood/disturbance regulation $121
Regulating nutrient supply by avoiding leaching $2800
Pollination $206
Water regulation $6
Waste treatment $244
Pest and disease regulation/biological control $11
Water supply $8
Recreation $900
Species conservation $257
Nutrient cycling $994
Soil formation $14
Net ecosystem services value in dollars per hectare each year $5609


Stuart's proposals that Government (a) Includes forestry cutting rights for stands of forest over 500 hectares in the Overseas ?Investment Act, and (b) Implements a $1/m3 export levy on all logs exported without value added, will not go down well with many of the estimated 100,000 people who have significant investments in private forests. The proposals would discourage investment in replanting and new planting  if potential forest investors feel that a precedent has been set whereby the Government ‘arbitrarily’ extracts money off them. There is already a strong resentment in the forestry sector about the Government’s uneven treatment of different land uses. Government, via the ETS,  has already devalued pre 1990 forest land but agonises about capping the value of pastoral land by the imposition of a stock exclusion rule for water quality.  Without pricing GHG emissions from Agriculture (principally dairy), the government is paving the way for a huge ongoing subsidy from the taxpayer and industry to NZ’s dairy farmers.   The pull-through effect of demand for land from the dairy sector has put sheep and beef farm land suitable for forestry ( having an average value of $5,700/ha according to one analyst) out of reach for afforestation, noting that land under a pre-1990 forest has  an average value of $2000/ha including the depreciated costs of improvements (roads, culverts, and landings).

It would also be counterproductive to make it difficult to attract foreign investment in forests. Among other things this would discourage forest aggregation and scale economies.  [Note for example, UFG which is a company that uses Chinese capital to aggregate cutting rights is more than happy for the New Zealand sellers to exchange their cutting rights for shares in UFG]. Note also that most of New Zealand forest assets are already foreign-owned because, in general, there was, and still is, insufficient capital in NZ to buy them. Some profit may go overseas eventually, but typically more than 90% of that foreign capital investment ends up in NZ pockets, via wages, land purchases, taxes etc. Liquidity is needed if we want more investment in forestry and afforestation, and obstructing overseas buyers does not help.

Now onto other matters.  You have omitted to include many excellent forest policies that the Labour Party laid out in its 2014 pre-election paper “Economic Upgrade for Forestry and Wood Products” It would be good if these ‘promises’ were carried forward as a pre- 2017 election manifesto.   ‘Carrots’ rather than ‘sticks’ would be much more attractive to forest growers.

In summary this pre-election paper said that if Labour formed a Government it wanted: 

  1. To encourage investment in wood processing to move the focus from logs to higher-value products by:
    a)     Implementing a ‘tax deferral’ for investment in plant and equipment in the forest and wood products industry, by means of an accelerated depreciation provision. 
    b)    Reintroducing an R&D tax credit to encourage stronger private investment in high-quality R&D.
    c)     Ensuring that public science works to further develop wood-plastic composites.
    d)    Working with the industry and BRANZ to develop building standards for wood construction to accommodate advanced wood construction technologies.
    e)     Developing a stronger domestic market for wood products
    f)     Adopting a Pro Wood government procurement strategy for government-funded project proposals for new buildings up to four stories high. 
  2. To increase net stocked forest area by:
    a)     Stabilizing the price of carbon in New Zealand 
    b)    Making suspensory loans available (repayable on harvest) to cover the costs for planting new forests, with the option of joint planting ventures with iwi.
    c)     Introducing a legacy forests status to protect and renew our indigenous forests 
  3. To establish Forestry Taskforces for the long-term unemployed by:
    a)     Supporting iwi forestry clusters to analyze options for their land.
    b)    Providing business stability for the forest and wood products industry
    c)     Completing the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.
    d)    Formalizing the government’s approach to the forestry sector in a ‘New Zealand Forestry Policy’ document.
  4. To ensure the sector is underpinned by suitable infrastructure and a skilled and safe workforce by
    a)     Supporting universities, polytechnics and wãnanga, and the forestry ITO to further contribute to the industries and communities they serve.
    b)    Introducing new regulations to protect forestry workers, support the Independent Forestry Safety Review, and introduce a corporate manslaughter law.
    c)     Finishing relevant roading development in forestry regions in order to make it easier to get wood from forest to plant.

 All good stuff.

Hamish Levack 9/11/16.

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