You are here: Home» Membership» NZFFA Member Blogs

NZFFA Member Blogs

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 regularly buys smaller tracts of forest to harvest immediately or immature forests to hold until harvest time. 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 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

Member Blogs

Recent blogs:

Residues as fuel

Brian Cox's Blog
Monday, February 18, 2019

The decision by the Government of British Columbia to introduce policy reforms which require greater added value processing of wood within Canada, rather than export of unprocessed logs, shows that governments can actively lead the transition of their economies and support local bioenergy industries. (see story later).

Applying similar policies in New Zealand, focusing on reducing forest waste and pursuing opportunities for using wood domestically, would ensure that the value of the trees we grow and the carbon that is captured and stored is maximised.  Currently 15-20% of a tree processed in New Zealand is wasted.  Most wasted wood is from the growing and harvesting of trees. (Wood processors use most of their residual biomass for timber drying.) In addition there is the 100% non-availability in New Zealand of biomass exported as logs. With exported logs the eventual process residues are given to another country to be used, when we could be using those residues here to replace domestic coal and gas for process heat.

If we process current exported logs within New Zealand then the wood residues become available as a high quality carbon feedstock for multiple purposes, including energy. Having the biomass residues available as fuel would also contribute to reducing any future risk of having to purchase carbon credits offshore to comply with our Paris commitments.

The forestry business is an exception to most manufacturing where the residues from one process become the feedstock for another product. In the forestry sector the discarding of production and harvest residues is considered acceptable. Forestry has a social license to use our valuable land wisely. As countries move to encourage circular economy businesses the individual business resilience improves, waste is reduced and new business opportunities open up. A benefit of this is that more biomass will come available in the domestic market as a biogenic source of carbon to replace the use of fossil derived carbon in the form of coal and gas.

A key place for the Government to start is with its own 1 billion tree programme. More thought needs to be given to the long term value and the efficient use of carbon that can be derived by planting and harvesting these trees. Sequestration of carbon through planting trees and leaving them there is a short term fix if the trees are not going to be part of an ongoing harvest and use strategy. Rotation harvesting and using the trees planted today will result in a new sink being created every 30 years. This sounds like a sustainable carbon sink policy, as well as opportunities for a permanent flow of biomass for energy, bio-based economy, and creation of jobs and regional economic growth.

More »

Too understood to merit a mention?

John Purey-Cust Ponders
Saturday, December 01, 2018

In my present abode I don’t see much of trees, but a few days ago I had a chance for a short walk under my beech plantings. Now over 20 years old and after a wet spring all was fresh and green, cool shade. I planted them with no particular purpose in mind except to see what would happen, and the result, aided by much help and advice and friendly fungae, is good.

What comes next? That is now up to a new owner who loves trees. We can’t bind the future, even when we grow radiata pine. Concepts of value and end uses change, rarely meeting the planned objective . Think if you can of the many uses for wood that now are plastic. Even past experience is no more than a hint.

I came back from that visit to find the November issues of the NZFFA’s Tree Grower and the NZIF’s Journal of Forestry. I was struck by the dominance of radiata, the Journal even going so far as to omit species names from most of its articles on the apparent assumption that radiata is too understood to merit a mention. The Tree Grower does better, with space devoted to the merits of Douglas fir but concludes by mentioning that a major Nelson believer has bowed to the ’economic pressure’ of radiata pine and no longer plants Douglas fir.

Is this wise, that we have virtually the whole economic future of production forestry dependent on one species? True, a dynamic and versatile species, a great success all over the Southern hemisphere, but what do we do if it gets a lurgy, as all, (not necessarily just monocultures) are liable to do. Do we just fold our tents and quietly fade away, or what?

For a start, I don’t believe we should just fade away. The verdict on Douglas fir is questionable – the same volume productivity as radiata, comparable wood qualities, and a better economic and environmental profile (three lots of establishment, silvicultural and harvest costs versus four for the same wood production).

How is such a risk calculated to show up in the economic analysis? Is it a national responsibility, for a professional body to recommend, or individuals to do as they chose? Clearly national responsibility leads the way, closely followed in order of size by the forestry companies, and least of all by farm foresters.

Farm foresters (‘Us’) traditionally have a shorter attention span focussed on the retirement fund and smaller plantings to feed it, whereas companies and the nation have the long term view.

We need to discuss.

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 »