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
Dennis Neilson's blog
Eric Cairn's Blog
Hamish Levack's Blog
Howard Moore'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
Thursday, July 30, 2015
The following was published in the Hawke's Bay Today 4th July 2015.
I was surprised at the title of Dr Jacqueline Rowarth’s 30th June talk to an audience of the Hawke’s Bay Rural Business Network: “Water – urban myth and rural reality.” The title did not suggest an open examination of all the non-scientific values that underlie all our lives and thinking. You’re a bunch of dreamers; but we have the facts. But which facts?
No one lives by facts alone, especially where those facts are bounded by our ideas and choices; we choose these ones, but not those ones. There are always values and ideas underpinning our choices, you might say the myths we live by; for instance that water is a resource rather than something with far deeper meaning, and that anything flowing out to sea is a ‘waste’. And then we measure what we think is important from within that worldview, and call it objective data, facts, reality. That is the whole point of classics such as Frankenstein and Dr Strangelove. Beware the narrow technocrat who has no wider vision or the wisdom to know what is important and what is not.
So to present a black and white polemic as if one side has a grip on supposedly-objective reality, and the other side deals in myth, is a complete nonsense. It smacks of ‘scientism’, where science shifts from being a useful servant to answer the wise questions of society, to a master, even a cult. Worse in this case, a master with a corporate industrial land use agenda. Then we are presented with their facts wrapped up in their rhetoric presented by their PR machine, trumpeting ‘science’ as if that means wisdom.
Aristotle would be rolling in his grave. He wrote brilliantly about how mere data and technology are useful servants to the greater intellectual virtues of knowing what is ethical and good, and the ability to make a wise judgment in a particular context requiring breadth and foresight ('Phronesis' or practical wisdom).
We ought to side with Aristotle over anyone presenting a narrow view. And that is the supreme irony; our reality is steeped in values, our myths. What values underlie the idea that we should produce ever more undifferentiated products such as milk powder? What values decide we should ignore others’ ‘reality’ of land degradation, our economic trends, climate change and rural community decline?
Leading the debate just with data rather than a sense of what is important and wise in life leads consistently to Frankenstein failings. You can quickly get the trumping of what is good by what is expedient or mathematical. The injustice of the lynch mob can follow – a few powerful people may be very happy (let happiness be our chosen measure) to hang the innocent man, which outweighs his lonely voice of unhappy dissent (or the soon-to-be-lynched river perhaps, who cannot even cry out its sadness). But all the happiness data is there to justify ‘their reality’ that we ought to lynch him – despite his innocence, despite the principles of justice which can be conveniently termed ‘your myths’.
Understanding and questioning your own worldview and values is critical to understanding. By not acknowledging their own values, spokespeople for a commodity view of life do an incredible disservice to good science, and continue to justify degradation and the lynching of our future.
To use selected data to justify the unjustifiable also does an incredible disservice to where the conversation ought to focus – within the realm of our shared values, vision, the meaning of our land and our connection to it, our future generations. Discussing our hopes and dreams and key principles of how we treat land and life is the first step to deciding what regional development and land use strategy is best. Data can inform parts of that strategy, but is not equipped to direct it.
The positioning of urban and rural does another disservice to that necessary discussion by positioning people as either for you or against you. That does nothing to further a shared vision for all people of Hawke’s Bay. We all want a better world for our children, and how we bring together what moral principles and goals we choose to guide us requires that we work together without the nonsense of rural-urban splits and power games.
We can only hope that in the future the Hawke’s Bay Rural Business Network will encourage the wider discussion about where we are trending and the role of industrial commodity thinking in those trends. This is a point we ought to be discussing; not rationalising business-as-usual behaviour and the degradation of our lands and rivers. The precious myth that growing ever-more, ever-cheaper food at the expense of the environment is somehow a good thing continue to destroy the economic and social potential we have in this place, while exacerbating the risk of catastrophe. Questioning our commodity strategy is vital; and understanding that our economic, social and environmental goals are co-dependent, a point the silo-thinking reductionists will never get, locked as they are in their myth that the advancement of one requires the degradation of another.
We all know there is another way of looking at this picture of water, land and people. Many of us – rural and urban alike – do not want to see our rivers lynched just because some powerful interests see life that way, and provide selected data as justification. That is not wisdom.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
On 17 December 2014 the New Zealand ethical investment company Prometheus collapsed and was put into receivership. The company invested in renewable energy areas such as bioenergy, solar and wind energy. The major reason behind the company collapse was the universal decrease in the global price of fossil fuels in the form of oil, gas and coal. Investors in Prometheus will get most, possibly all, of their invested capital back as the company responsibly went into receivership before taking on debt.
In the late 20th century there were many predictions that the world would soon experience an energy supply crisis. That has not happened. The world is currently awash with fossil fuel energy, especially oil and gas. There are still abundant global reserves of the fossil fuel coal. However, coal has fallen from favour because it is often a cause of greater pollution. The increased supply of oil and gas is undoubtedly the result of fracking.
Low energy prices might also be being encouraged by the large, and low cost, fossil fuel suppliers. These producers may have reduced income but lower oil and gas prices will limit, or at least slow, the development of competitive renewable energy sources.
Renewable energy companies world-wide will be under increasing financial pressure and some companies will undoubtedly collapse. There will be pressures for increased subsidies. The exchange rates of some fossil fuel producing countries, such as Australia and Canada, have fallen. The fall in energy prices, combined with the increases in supply, reduces the incentive for further fossil fuel prospecting.
Reducing the pressure to move to renewable energy sources will have serious long-term consequences. If human civilisation is to survive, and hopefully improve average living standards, the world must increasingly move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. We constantly hear much about the need to reduce the release of fossil fuel carbon, either as carbon dioxide or methane, as this could increase the rate of climate change. We almost never hear the moral argument supporting such a move − what right does the present global population have to access most of the readily available fossil fuels and other resources? What resource access and at what cost will be available for future generations?
While the energy price decline may be great for current energy consumers the price decline will have serious short and long-term consequences. Who is able to address these problems and what actions should we take?
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.