Forest Products Industry

Forest & Wood Communities Australia (FWCA) is calling on The Australia Institute and more than 50 environmental organisations involved in a newly announced national campaign to end native forest harvesting to disclose who is funding the campaign, how much is being spent and whether any government, philanthropic or tax-advantaged funding is supporting it. Source: Timberbiz The organisations announced on 17 August that they were meeting in Canberra to coordinate a national campaign seeking an immediate end to native forest logging, clearing and conversion and permanent protection of native forests across Australia. The media release says the meeting was being hosted by The Australia Institute. However, neither the media release nor the campaign’s published Forest Protection Principles identifies who was specifically financing the meeting or the coordinated national campaign. FWCA Chair Steve Dobbyns said environmental organisations were entitled to advocate for policy change, but the same organisations regularly demanding transparency from governments and businesses should be prepared to disclose the financial backing behind a campaign of this scale. “There is nothing improper about people donating to environmental organisations and nothing improper about those organisations participating in public debate. But transparency has to work both ways,” Mr Dobbyns said. “This is not simply a few local residents meeting to discuss their neighbourhood forest. It is an organised national policy campaign involving more than 50 organisations, coordinated across six states and territories, seeking to eliminate an Australian renewable industry.” “Before Australians are told this is simply a ‘people-powered movement’, they are entitled to know who is actually paying for the campaign.” The scale of some of the organisations involved is substantial. The Australia Institute’s audited 2024-25 accounts report $10.88 million in total revenue, including more than $10.05 million in donations. Its annual report says it is independently funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and by grants and commissioned research from businesses, unions and non-government organisations. The Australian Conservation Foundation reported $18.64 million in revenue and other income in 2024-25, including approximately $12.74 million in donations, $2.91 million in bequests and $1.66 million in grants. The Australia Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Bob Brown Foundation are all registered charities with Deductible Gift Recipient status, allowing eligible donors to claim tax deductions for gifts. Mr Dobbyns said charitable and DGR status did not invalidate their right to campaign, but it strengthened the case for transparency where organisations were seeking major changes to public policy and expenditure. “These organisations benefit from tax concessions while campaigning to remove productive forests from timber supply, close regional industries and fundamentally restructure how Australia’s forests are managed.” “That makes transparency a legitimate public-interest issue. Who is funding this campaign? What are they funding? And what policy outcomes have funders specifically paid organisations to pursue?” FWCA is asking the campaign organisers to disclose: Who funded the national meeting being hosted by The Australia Institute? Who paid, or is paying, participants’ travel, accommodation and meeting expenses? Who funded the Protect Native Forests website, campaign development, communications, advertising and media coordination? What is the total budget for the national campaign? Have philanthropic foundations or other institutional donors provided restricted or project-specific funding for campaigns to end native forest harvesting? Have any overseas philanthropic organisations or foundations contributed to the campaign or participating organisations specifically for Australian forest policy advocacy? Have any Commonwealth, state or local government grants, government-funded positions or publicly funded resources been used directly or indirectly in developing or promoting the campaign? What cash or in-kind contributions have participating organisations made to the campaign? Will The Australia Institute and the major organisations involved publish the institutional sources and amounts of funding specifically supporting the campaign?   From shutting down forestry to a $10 billion-a-year public fund FWCA said the financial questions become even more important when the full Forest Protection Principles are examined. Those principles go considerably further than the 17 August media release. They call for governments to increase long-term public funding for forest conservation and restoration and establish an independent publicly funded statutory Nature Fund, nominating minimum recurring expenditure of around $10 billion per year as an example. “This deserves far more scrutiny than it has received,” Mr Dobbyns said. “The campaigners want governments to shut down a renewable timber-producing industry and permanently remove productive forests from timber supply, while proposing a new publicly funded conservation model involving expenditure on an extraordinary scale. “They cannot simply discuss the claimed environmental benefits and pretend the economic side of the ledger does not exist.” Australia’s own national forestry agency, ABARES, states that wood products from sustainably managed native forests are renewable because trees regenerate following harvesting. Australian forest reporting also distinguishes harvested forests that remain forest from permanent forest conversion. Mr Dobbyns said deliberately bundling native forest harvesting, land clearing and forest conversion into one political slogan blurred fundamentally different land-management activities. “Sustainable native forestry is not synonymous with permanently clearing a forest,” he said. “A production forest is harvested and regenerated to forest. That is precisely why Australia’s national greenhouse accounts classify harvested native forests within ‘Forest remaining Forest’. “Ending Australian timber production does not end Australia’s demand for timber. It simply means that demand has to be met somewhere else – through plantations where suitable resource exists, imports, alternative materials or shortages and higher prices.” FWCA said any credible national discussion about closing native forestry must therefore examine the consequences for domestic timber supply, housing and construction, regional employment, sovereign manufacturing capacity, imports, carbon leakage and the environmental standards of timber-producing countries that may replace Australian supply. Transparency should work both ways FWCA also noted the irony that The Australia Institute itself published research in November 2025 arguing that charitable and philanthropic contributions by corporations should be subject to clearer and more consistent disclosure so that the public can make informed decisions. “We agree with the principle,” Mr Dobbyns said. “If transparency about who funds an activity and what that money supports is important when corporations give money to charities, surely it is equally […]

The post Who is paying for the campaign to shut down Australia’s native forestry? appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forestry Australia’s longest-serving member Norm Lewis passed away on August 12. He was 109 years old. Source: Timberbiz Mr Lewis, ISO DipFor BSc DipFor FIFA, worked for the Woods and Forests Department in South Australia from about 1957 until 1981, when he retired as Assistant Director, Forest Operations Division. He was an advocate for thinning, having studied it in other parts of the world as a Russell Grimwade Scholar and in 1963 produced a guide to the “Optimum thinning range of Pinus radiata in South Australia“. He was also the author of “A Hundred Years of State Forestry, South Australia, 1875-1975” (1975). Forestry Australia CEO Jacquie Martin said in a note to members that Mr Lewis’s extraordinary leadership, contribution and longevity as a forester, and as a member of the Forestry Australia community was something very special. “We know many South Australian members will have known him personally or through his long association with The Institute of Foresters,” she said. “Norm’s exceptional legacy, significant influence on the science and art of forestry, and his enduring connection to Forestry Australia are deeply valued.” His funeral will be held at 1.00 pm on Tuesday 25 August 2026 at the Main Chapel of Berry’s Funeral Home, 204 Magill Road, Norwood. For those unable to attend in person, livestreaming information and the opportunity to leave a message of condolence are available through the funeral notice at https://www.mytributes.com.au/notice/funeral-notices/lewis-norman-benjamin/6372447/  

The post Vale: Norm Lewis Forestry Australia’s longest serving member appeared first on Timberbiz.

Just over two years after its launch, Australian Forest and Wood Innovations (AFWI) has backed 39 research and innovation projects worth more than $67 million across Australia’s forest and wood products sector. Source: Timberbiz The national institute, supported by a $100 million Australian Government investment, has brought together more than 100 industry and research partners and over 300 people across Australia, including growers, processors, manufacturers, Indigenous enterprises, government agencies and researchers. Its progress is detailed in the AFWI Highlights Report 2024–2026, launched by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Julie Collins, at the Australian Forest Products Association’s National Forestry Day event at Parliament House. Since its official launch in March 2024, AFWI has invested about $29 million in research and innovation projects, supported by a further $38 million in partner contributions. Ms Collins said AFWI had made strong progress in its first two years. “AFWI has made strong progress in just over two years, with its investments already translating into practical outcomes across Australia’s forest and wood products sector,” Minister Collins said. “I congratulate everyone involved and look forward to hearing more about the impacts being delivered and the further opportunities this national capability can unlock for industry, regions and communities.” AFWI CEO and Executive Director Dr Joseph Lawrence said the report showed how quickly AFWI had grown from a new initiative into a national research and innovation network. “In just over two years, AFWI has grown from a new national initiative into a substantial industry-led innovation network operating across Australia,” Dr Lawrence said. “We are bringing together industry, research and government to tackle key challenges: healthier and more productive forests, getting more value from Australian fibre, developing new bioeconomy opportunities and helping unlock manufactured timber housing at scale.” AFWI’s work is structured around four pillars: Healthier Forests, Maximising Fibre, Climate Solutions and Housing Innovation. Projects span forest productivity and resilience, biosecurity and climate adaptation, low-carbon fuels and bioproducts, engineered timber products, advanced manufacturing and new approaches to timber construction. AFWI is also rebuilding Australia’s long-term forest and wood products research capability through three Research Centres, hosted by the University of Melbourne, the University of the Sunshine Coast and the University of Tasmania. Across the portfolio, more than 90 early-career researchers are developing expertise while working directly with industry on practical challenges and pathways to adoption. Moving research into industry A major focus for AFWI’s next phase will be helping research move into industry, including through advanced timber manufacturing, manufactured housing and new bioeconomy opportunities. AFWI’s The Precinct initiative, led by IndustryEdge, is bringing together industry, research and government partners to develop new engineered wood products, prefabricated dwellings and bio-based co-products at scale. The initiative is designed to grow domestic manufacturing capability, reduce exports of lower-value fibre and substitute imported engineered wood products with higher-value Australian-made products. AFWI also provided technical support to the John Curtin Research Centre’s report, Manufacturing Homes: A National Strategy for Solving Australia’s Housing Crisis, which sets out a national strategy for expanding modular and offsite construction capacity in Australia. The report calls for AFWI’s proposed National Demonstration of Australian Manufactured Timber Housing as an early proof point. The proposed $300 million-scale demonstration would involve 600 manufactured timber dwellings across six to ten sites, showing how Australian timber, advanced manufacturing and modern construction methods could contribute to housing delivery at scale. Dr Lawrence said these initiatives reflected the type of practical, large-scale work AFWI was established to support. “The next phase is about taking the capability and partnerships we have built and turning them into larger-scale outcomes, from healthier and more productive forests and new bioeconomy industries through to advanced timber manufacturing and manufactured housing,” Dr Lawrence said. “Australia has an opportunity to turn more of our renewable timber fibre into higher-value products here at home, strengthening regional economies and sovereign manufacturing capability while contributing practical solutions to Australia’s housing challenge.” AFWI’s focus will increasingly be on helping research move into commercial pathways, standards, investment opportunities, new technologies and practical industry adoption. “The foundations are now firmly in place. Our focus is on ensuring research moves into industry, investment and implementation, and delivers tangible benefits for Australian businesses, regional communities and the nation,” Dr Lawrence said. AFWI acknowledged the Australian Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for their investment and support, the University of Tasmania as AFWI’s host institution, and the industry, research, government, Indigenous and regional partners contributing to its work. AFWI also acknowledged the Australian Forest Products Association for hosting the launch as part of National Forestry Day. The AFWI Highlights Report 2024–2026 is available at https://www.afwi.au/afwi-highlights-report-2024-2026/

The post AFWI Highlights Report launched at Parliament House appeared first on Timberbiz.

Recent commentary has highlighted just how easy it is for misconceptions about the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to spread. In some cases, a lack of understanding can result in significant financial opportunities being missed. At the opposite end of the spectrum, forest owners who do not fully understand the long-term implications of registering their forest in the ETS can find themselves with legal obligations they neither expected nor budgeted for. While the ETS has been with us for nearly 18 years, it has undergone several significant updates. It is therefore understandable that many people struggle to keep up with these changes and the impact they have on forest owners across New Zealand. In particular, there seems to be some confusion around how carbon credits are claimed in the ETS and the long-term obligations that forest owners face as participants in the scheme. These obligations depend largely on which of the three ETS carbon accounting categories a forest is registered under: Stock Change, Averaging or Permanent Forest. Until the end of 2022, all ETS forests used Stock Change, or the “saw-tooth” model for carbon accounting. In 2023, two additional categories – Averaging and Permanent Forest –were introduced to better reflect the different objectives of rotational forests destined for harvest and continuous-cover permanent forests. For forests registered under the Stock Change category, carbon credits can be claimed annually but carbon losses due to harvesting must also be accounted for, which can result in a significant quantity of carbon credits needing to be surrendered back to the Crown. If the forests are not harvested, the forest owner will continue to accrue carbon credits across the lifespan of the forest. Averaging accounting is well suited to forest owners who are planting a forest with the intention of harvesting. Carbon credits are claimed until the long-term average age for the species, typically 16–26 years for exotic forests. Beyond this point no further carbon credits are claimed. For forests harvested after reaching their long-term average age, a full surrender of carbon credits is only required if the land is not replanted within four years or converted to a non-forestry land use. The Permanent Forest category is aptly named; forest owners entering their forests into this category should be prepared to keep the trees in the ground in perpetuity. The minimum sign-up period into this category is 50 years and during this time the forest owner is unable to voluntarily withdraw from the scheme or clear-fell their forest. Carbon credits continue to accrue across the lifespan of the forest. Selective tree harvesting can be undertaken, as long as 30% canopy cover is maintained across the entire forest area. Whilst the benefits and outcomes under Averaging Accounting are easily understood, the waters can be murkier for forests registered under Stock Change or the Permanent Forest category. This often leads to questions such as: My forest is registered under Stock Change, how many carbon credits can I sell liability-free, and still harvest my forest? The answer to this is that it very much depends; planting year, species, length of time registered in the ETS, harvest age, year of replant and replanted species are all inputs into this equation that can significantly impact the end result. This carbon accounting method is the most complex and advice from a forestry professional is highly recommended. My forest is registered in the Permanent Forest category, what will happen once the 50-year sign-up period is over? Some forest owners have entered this category thinking that they will claim carbon credits for 50 years, exit the ETS and harvest their forests. While exiting the scheme after 50 years is technically possible, doing so would generally require the surrender of a substantial quantity of carbon credits. Whether that is financially viable will depend largely on the carbon price at that time. The ETS is a complex beast, and it is essential to understand the weave of the specific forest characteristics, registration category, historic and future carbon credit claims and on-going compliance requirements. I cannot stress enough the importance of seeking professional advice before registering your forest in the ETS, purchasing a forest that has been registered in the ETS or selling carbon credits. Kirsten Stuart is the Company Forester & Consultant for Laurie Forestry  

The post Opinion: Kirsten Stuart – not understanding the ETS can lead to missed opportunities appeared first on Timberbiz.