You are here: Home» Membership» NZFFA Member Blogs

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...

Member Blogs

Recent blogs:

An export log market for "alternative" species?

Dean Satchell's blog
Saturday, November 11, 2017

I had a call a few days back from a guy in Australia looking to source eucalypt logs. On further enquiry, he told me that he represented a big manufacturer in China that required hardwood in large volumes and if we had the resource they'd take it. Shiploads. He was particularly interested in Eucalyptus nitens and E. saligna, but I got the impression they'd take just about any eucalypt. Log specs down to 10cm diameter, he'd pay $10 more per tonne than local pulpwood prices. They're not chipping it either, he reckoned most of it would be peeled.

A few weeks earlier, I also had a call from Australia, this time someone who is exporting cypress logs to Asia. They'd run out of the local native cypress and the market has an insatiable appetite for more. He heard we grow cypress in New Zealand. I believe they use it for coffins, and pine is too "common" to be buried in... cypress being the timber of choice. He was happy to pay "well above" pine prices and would be prepared to take all I could find.

What is happening? I thought the reason we only grow radiata pine in New Zealand was because there are only markets for radiata pine...

Other species apparently with prime export log markets include poplar and redwood and believe me, the minimum log diameter is much less than what any local processor would take.

Now, if I were a real businessman I'd see an opportunity for myself and gather wood for export. But I'm not. My interests are in developing a sustainable local industry around growing and processing specialty timber species for the local market... and I just can't bring myself to put pecuniary interests ahead of that goal. I do acknowledge that having an export market is good for keeping local log buyers honest though, and if we can export what they don't want then all the better for the grower.

We've always been told not to grow "alternative species" unless you appreciate that there will not be a ready market for your logs. Because I don't actually have skin in the export game, I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone out there about what is really happening.

Forestry and a capital gains tax

Wink Sutton's Blog
Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Both the Labour and the Green political parties are considering a capital gains tax. Calculating the capital gains on property, shares or other products may appear to be relatively simple. However, calculating the capital gains on a forestry investment is virtually impossible.

Over a 25 to 30-year rotation the inflation adjusted price per cubic metre may fall, but because of forest growth, the return will actually increase. It is very difficult − almost impossible − to determine what proportion of the increase in value can be attributed to forest growth and which should be attributed to a change in the price per cubic metre.

How are any capital gains to be assessed? Not all plantations have similar costs. A farmer may plant and tend a plantation on their farm, but keep no record of when or how much was actually spent. On the other hand, a forestry company may have maintained good records of actual costs but have no record of overhead costs.Will the basis of any calculations be the same? If it is not, then any calculation must be inequitable. In addition, over what period is the capital gain to be assessed?

In 1964 I was a forestry university student in England. My degree included an extra course in forest taxation. The then UK Labour Government was proposing to introduce a capital gains tax. Before details of the tax were announced we had a discussion in our class on how a capital gains tax might be applied to forestry.We conclude there was no way the tax could be applied fairly.When details of the capital gains tax were finally announced, forestry was excluded.

In the late 1980s our finance minister, Roger Douglas, seemed convinced that forestry investments were being inadequately taxed. As I understood his intentions, he was proposing to tax forest owners yearly on how much their forest had increased in value over the last year.This ignored the fact that forest owners may have no plantation income until eventual harvest.

In discussion with him I pointed that under such a tax scheme no one would invest in New Zealand plantations. Investors would move to countries such as in South America. His response, as I recall, was that his proposal was logical and let investors go to South America. Fortunately, Douglas’s forest tax scheme was never implemented.

No posts yet

Add a post

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

Article archive »