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
Shem Kerr's blog
Wink Sutton's Blog
Friday, December 16, 2016
Should the NZ Farm Forestry Association (NZFFA) merge with the NZ Forest Owners Association (NZFOA) to possibly form the NZ Forest Growers Association? This was the main item on the agenda of the FFA Council meeting held in Wellington recently (Nov 9). The Council is made up of single representatives (Councillors) from every FFA branch and Action Group, and offers the opportunity for members to guide the National Executive in its decision-making. There were 28 Councillors present at the Wellington meeting.
Needless to say, we had some vigorous discussion on this important topic. It has mainly been brought about by the Forest Growers Levy, which has created a large fund for deployment by the forest ‘industry’. A work programme is proposed by a range of levy committees, each addressing a different aspect of forestry (biosecurity, health and safety, fire, transport etc). This programme goes via a ‘servicing’ Secretariat for final approval by the Levy Trust Board. The levy has been in place for 3 years, and has resulted in the Trust being in a robust financial position, with a work programme which continues to grow. The small grower (FFA) is well represented on the Trust and its underlying committees, but Secretariat control largely rests with the FOA.
The main case for a merger between FFA and FOA is one of operational efficiency. At the moment, the levy governance structure involves both bodies in many levels of administration and reporting – which leads to additional costs. The point was also made at the meeting that the Government would be happier liaising with one forestry body – not two.
Even though outsiders might see the FFA as being ‘small fry’ in the forest industry compared to the corporate FOA ‘big boys’, the Levy has greatly increased the FFA’s importance. This is because we represent 12-14,000 small forest growers (SFGs) who own an increasingly large percentage of the mature national forest estate. Even though very few SFGs are FFA members, they pay a levy on all harvested trees, and therefore must have a say in Levy Trust decision-making. The FFA is required to represent these SFGs, thus forming a powerful lobby group. Hence, the interest of the forest owners (FOA) in formalising a closer relationship with the FFA.
Councillors at the Wellington FFA meeting were presented with a ‘position’ paper on a merger and the possible formation of a single Forest Growers Association. As can be imagined, the main fear of those present was that a merger might end up as a ‘sub-merger’ of the FFA, and that we would lose our unique character and identity. The need to safeguard against such a loss was underlined by a reported comment from a key FOA member who attended our last FFA conference in Hokitika. He particularly noted and admired the high level of ‘passion and enthusiasm’ that was so obvious at that event. We take such passion as the ‘norm’, but I (Ed) can assure you that it is not nearly so evident at comparable ‘industry’ gatherings.
The Wellington meeting concluded that it was currently a little premature to make decisions for or against a merger. We felt that first of all there is a need to evolve the Governance structure of the Levy administration, particularly relative to the representation of the FFA at certain levels. To this end, the following motion was approved ‘That the FFA Council recommends that the FFA Executive work with the FOA to improve the structure, governance and equity of Levy administration’. (Bolding by me)
Another important issue addressed at the meeting was the vastly increased administration workload faced by our national Executive – much of it directly related to new responsibilities brought about by the Levy. As nearly all of us are volunteers, the Association just does not have the resources of time and skills to meet these commitments effectively. Amongst the suggestions made for addressing this problem, was the obvious one of proper payment for the services required (maybe via outside consultants). But we just do not have the budget for that, so at this point in time there is no simple solution.
The farm forestry movement has been in existence for 60 years, and there is evidence out there that it is on the decline. Membership is falling, many branches struggle to keep going, and the national Executive is overcommitted. However, the Levy has definitely given the FFA greater power and impetus, together with new opportunities which we must try to embrace. This was endorsed by the Wellington Council meeting, at which the Branches were well represented. But a core question still remains – how do we, at both the Executive and the branch level, rise to meet these new challenges?
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
On a visit to Poland in 2006 one of my Polish forester hosts was adamant that plantations of non-indigenous trees could not be as productive as plantations of indigenous trees. Nonindigenous plantations were also at much greater risk. Some overseas foresters, as well as some environmentalists, hold similar opinions.
Why do they hold such negative opinions of plantations of non-indigenous plantations? There is now ample evidence that, if planted on suitable sites, nonindigenous tree species can be very productive.
The experience with plantations in Saxony, Germany in the late 19th Century has been retold countless times. A plantation of Norway spruce, a tree species not normally occurring so far south, had poor growth and general ill-health. This early experience is the probable basis of many objections to plantations of nonindigenous tree species. In addition, plantations worldwide have been established as monocultures and many believe monocultures are not natural, even though there is ample evidence that in the temperate regions natural monocultures are not uncommon – see my comment in the August issue of Tree Grower.
Subsequent research of the site showed that the poor growth and poor health were because the site had limited drainage and waterlogged soils – the roots of the spruce trees were unable to penetrate below the topsoil. The site was totally unsuited to the species. Later research showed that local farmers had for decades removed the fallen needles for animal bedding, thereby depriving the trees of being able to recycle nutrients and therefore contributing to the site decline.
As well as New Zealand’s plantation experience there are many examples of successful plantations of non-indigenous tree species. The most dramatic example of plantation success comes from Brazil. The indigenous forest of the Amazon basin is very slow growing. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Amazonian mature forests only average 100 cubic metres a hectare of which only 12 cubic metres a hectare can be used. To the south of the Amazon, but north of the Tropic of Capricorn, are the eucalypt pulpwood plantations of Aracruz. There are reports of an annual growth rate of these plantations exceeding 50 cubic metres a year for each hectare. In agriculture there are no concerns about the use of non-indigenous plants or animals. If New Zealand was limited to indigenous flora and fauna there is no way that we could support a population of over four million people. We would be very limited in what we could eat − fern shoots and roots, a few plants, native birds and seafood. We would have almost nothing to export.
Feeding the world
By having access to the biodiversity of the whole world and combined with selective breeding, the world has been able to feed over seven billion people globally. In food production the world has been very selective. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates there are 250,000 to 300,000 plant species globally that could be eaten. However, humans consume only about 200 plant products. Although the latter estimate probably understates what is globally consumed, most of our plant food comes from only nine plants − with maize, wheat, rice and potatoes being the four most significant ones.
When we consider meat sources we have been even more selective. Most meat comes from cows and pigs while the consumption of sheep meat, venison and goat meat hardly register. When it comes to bird meat almost all comes from one bird − the chicken. We have been so selective because we have concentrated our breeding effort on the few species which are very easy to manage, very pleasant to eat and are very productive.
In the future less of our wood will come from managed indigenous forests. These forests are not only expensive to manage but also less productive and therefore less profitable. Because wood is essential to our life style and because wood is environmentally friendly and renewable, our wood will increasingly come from plantations. Most of these will be monocultures of non-indigenous tree species. In the future we will have no option but to parallel agriculture and concentrate on those tree species which grow fast and are very useful.
No posts yet
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.