Forest Products Industry

Forest & Wood Communities Australia says claims that the new Improved Native Forest Management carbon method provides a settled scientific and economic case for closing NSW native forestry ignore serious unresolved questions about carbon leakage, timber substitution and the governance of the process that produced the method. Source: Timberbiz FWCA Chair Steve Dobbyns said recent comments by former NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Deputy Secretary Atticus Fleming, arguing that forestry scientists should simply “accept the umpire’s decision”, failed to address the substance of growing technical criticism of the INFM Method. “Approval of a methodology does not make the science beyond question,” Mr Dobbyns said. “Forestry Australia’s forest-carbon specialists have warned that the INFM Method could potentially over-credit claimed abatement by 40 to 100 per cent, even before the full consequences of leakage and carbon stored in harvested wood products are taken into account. “Those are serious integrity questions that cannot simply be dismissed as an industry refusing to accept an umpire’s decision.” Plantation pine does not simply replace native hardwood. Mr Dobbyns said Mr Fleming’s claim that declining Australian native forest production had largely been replaced by plantation timber from Australia, New Zealand and Vietnam fundamentally misunderstood the timber market. “Firstly, New Zealand and Vietnam are imports, so citing them as evidence against import leakage is an extraordinary argument,” Mr Dobbyns said. “More importantly, plantation softwood does not simply substitute for native hardwood. “Research led by forest economist Dr Tyron Venn shows plantation softwood is an imperfect substitute for native forest timber and, in many building applications, softwood and hardwood are complementary products rather than interchangeable ones. “You do not replace hardwood flooring, decking, appearance-grade joinery, poles, piles and many structural or durability applications simply by producing more radiata pine. “Venn’s research found that when Australian native forest production falls, demand does not disappear. A substantial proportion of that lost production is displaced into imported timber. “That is the leakage problem the INFM Method has failed to adequately address.” Mr Dobbyns said the climate question therefore could not stop at the State forest boundary. “If NSW stops producing a renewable timber product and Australia then imports a large proportion of the replacement volume, the carbon consequences of those imports have to be counted. “That includes harvesting overseas, processing, international transport and the risk that displaced production occurs in countries with weaker forest governance and poorer environmental standards. “A carbon accounting method that counts the apparent gain in NSW while inadequately accounting for the emissions and forest impacts transferred elsewhere risks creating paper abatement rather than genuine global climate benefit.” Serious governance questions remain. FWCA said Mr Fleming’s intervention also highlighted legitimate questions about the governance of the Great Koala National Park and INFM processes. Mr Fleming was not simply an independent observer of those processes. As a senior executive of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, he chaired key elements of the Great Koala National Park assessment process. NPWS also stood to become the manager of a greatly expanded national park estate if the proposal proceeded. Evidence to NSW Budget Estimates has also established that Mr Fleming and the GKNP steering process were involved in progressing the proposal for Professor Andrew Macintosh and the Australian National University to develop a carbon methodology capable of generating ACCUs from stopping native forest harvesting. The NSW Government subsequently confirmed that development of the carbon method was specifically linked to the proposed Great Koala National Park. “None of that, by itself, proves improper conduct,” Mr Dobbyns said. “But it creates an obvious governance question that deserves a transparent answer. “Was it appropriate for the head of the government agency that stood to become one of the principal beneficiaries of a massive expansion of the national park estate to chair the assessment process, be involved in progressing the carbon-method proposal intended to help fund that outcome, and then publicly advocate ending the industry affected by it? “This is not necessarily a question of personal financial conflict. It is a question of whether competing public duties and institutional interests were properly identified, separated and managed. “Public confidence requires more than simply telling affected communities that the process has reached the desired outcome and they should now accept it.” Fifteen years of credits, a century of consequences. FWCA also questioned claims that carbon income would provide a sustainable replacement for the economic contribution of the native forest industry. The INFM provides a 15-year crediting period, while forest management obligations and the economic consequences of removing productive forests continue for generations. “Carbon credits may generate revenue for 15 years, but managing national parks, maintaining roads and fire access, controlling weeds and pests and protecting communities from wildfire does not stop in year 16,” Mr Dobbyns said. “Nor does Australia stop needing hardwood.” Mr Dobbyns said the integrity test for the INFM should be straightforward. “Count the regrowth that occurs after sustainable harvesting. “Count the carbon that remains stored in harvested wood products. “Count the substitution benefits where timber replaces more emissions-intensive materials. “Count the additional imports. “Count the overseas forest impacts and transport emissions. “And assess the carbon outcome over the life of the forest rather than selecting an accounting period that maximises the number of credits produced. “If the INFM Method still delivers genuine additional abatement after all of those factors are properly accounted for, it should withstand that scrutiny. “But dismissing legitimate scientific criticism and telling forest scientists, workers and regional communities to simply ‘accept the umpire’s decision’ is no substitute for answering the evidence.”

The post FWCA cites conflict of interests in Native Forest Management method appeared first on Timberbiz.

The Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union (TFTU) has slammed the Rockliff Government’s push for a parliamentary inquiry into the Rushy Lagoon plantation project as an attack on Tasmanian timber workers and the future of the state’s forestry industry. Source: Timberbiz TFTU Tasmanian Secretary Danny Murphy said the Government had already been warned what the project would mean for workers, industry and regional communities. “Only weeks ago, we wrote to every Tasmanian parliamentarian explaining that Rushy Lagoon was a major win for our industry, workers and communities. “It means greater security of future timber supply, more investment in value-adding and more jobs in planting, harvesting, haulage, sawmilling and manufacturing. “For decades, Tasmanian governments of both political persuasions have given bipartisan support to the forestry industry and the jobs of timber workers. “We are shocked that the Rockliff Government would now take this action and ignore the concerns raised by timber workers and their union.” The final report of Australia’s Timber Fibre Strategy identifies the need for new plantation investment to secure Australia’s future timber supply. It also recognises the role of the ACCU Scheme in making productive commercial plantations viable and the opportunities for forestry and agriculture to work alongside each other. “If the Rockliff Government genuinely supports Tasmania’s timber industry, it should listen to the workers, families and communities that depend on it. “These trees mean jobs. They mean work in our forests, on our roads and in our mills and timber to build Tasmanian homes for decades. “Instead of backing that investment, the Government is establishing an inquiry whose terms put plantation forestry and the Commonwealth policies supporting it under the microscope. “The cat is already out of the bag. Agricultural lobby groups are calling for the inquiry to go beyond Rushy Lagoon and examine the wider policies supporting plantation forestry. “This is no longer just an inquiry into the sale of one farm. The Rockliff Government is opening the door to a broader attack on productive plantation forestry. “Timber workers will not stand by while our industry is demonised and the future resource on which our jobs depend is put at risk. “You cannot claim to support timber workers while putting the plantations their future jobs depend on in the dock. “This is social and economic vandalism dressed up as scrutiny.”

The post Timber Furnishing and Textiles Union slams Tas government over Rushy Lagoon appeared first on Timberbiz.

For more than three decades, Australia’s hardwood plantation industry has been built on a simple but largely successful business model: growing world-class plantation fibre for export to Asia’s pulp mills. It has underpinned regional economies, attracted significant investment and established Australia as one of the world’s most reliable suppliers of hardwood fibre. Source: Tim Woods, lead developer of The Precinct project But global markets are changing and have been for more than a decade. The export model that has served the industry so well is increasingly vulnerable. Recent export data points to more than a temporary downturn. It signals a structural shift in the global fibre market that has reinforced industry’s determination to pursue alternative means to capture value from the nation’s plantation resource. Australian woodchip exports have fallen by more than 10% over the past year, with April export volumes declining 45% compared with the previous month. While commodity markets inevitably fluctuate, the more significant story lies in changing demand from Australia’s largest customer. China’s pulp industry is becoming ever less reliant on imported Australian hardwood fibre. A prolonged slowdown in China’s domestic housing market has released significant volumes of locally sourced fibre into the supply chain, reducing reliance on imported woodchips and enabling manufacturers to produce satisfactory pulp from a lower-cost fibre mix. Vietnam has the market At the same time, competition from Vietnam has intensified. During the first four months of 2026, China’s imports of Vietnamese hardwood chips increased by 20.2% to 4.054 million bone dry metric tonnes (BDMT), while Australian shipments fell 17.7% to just 0.757 million BDMT over the same period. Vietnam now accounts for virtually all of China’s growth in hardwood chip imports, with total Chinese imports increasing 11.4% in early 2026. Meantime, Australian supply went backwards. The competitive landscape is also changing on price. Vietnamese hardwood chips averaged around USD175 FOB/BDMT in April, compared with Australia’s average of US$166 FOB/BDMT. More importantly, Vietnamese suppliers have increased prices by approximately 25% since September 2025 while remaining below the landed cost of Australian fibre in China. Australian export prices have risen by only around 8% over the same period, reflecting weaker market demand and Australia’s diminishing pricing power. This is a structural change For many years, Australian hardwood plantations enjoyed a clear competitive advantage. High-quality Eucalyptus globulus, dependable supply and Australia’s reputation as a politically stable trading partner meant local fibre attracted a premium whenever global pulp markets strengthened. Today that advantage is eroding as Chinese manufacturers diversify supply sources, optimise fibre blends and reduce dependence on Australian imports. Taken together, these trends point to something far more significant than a cyclical downturn. They represent a structural shift in the global fibre market. The critical question for Australia is no longer whether we can compete harder in an increasingly crowded commodity market. It is whether exporting raw fibre is the highest-value use of one of our most important renewable resources. Diversification to meet sovereign needs The same plantation estate is equally capable of producing higher-value engineered wood products that support advanced manufacturing of dwelling components and dwellings, skilled regional employment and sovereign industrial capability. There is no better demonstration of this potential than Stage One of The Precinct project – the Hardwood Timber Manufacturing Hub. The now delivered preliminary feasibility study proves that instead of exporting low-value fibre and importing finished building products, Australia has an opportunity to capture far greater economic value through domestic processing and integration into the built environment. The timing could not be better. As export markets become more competitive, Australia faces an unprecedented housing challenge. Governments across the country are actively pursuing faster, more productive construction methods through prefabrication, modular housing and mass timber construction. The release of the National Housing Strategy at the recent ALP National Conference reinforces the growing policy focus on housing productivity, sovereign manufacturing and modern methods of construction. From plantations, to products, to prefabrication Yet despite this opportunity, Australia continues to import around $1 billion worth of engineered wood products, plywood and wood panels each year, while exporting much of the raw fibre needed to manufacture them. In effect, Australia is exporting the raw material while importing the finished products needed to build homes. This approach captures manufacturing jobs, innovation and economic returns offshore, despite Australia possessing the plantation resource, technical capability, relatively stable and growing domestic market to do that work locally. Shifting from exporting fibre and importing value-added products, Australia has the opportunity to extend an integrated domestic manufacturing sector that converts plantation resources into engineered wood products, prefabricated building systems and integrated dwelling solutions. This is precisely where The Precinct represents a fundamentally different proposition. The Precinct is being designed as an integrated, advanced manufacturing ecosystem that brings together plantation resources, engineered wood products, prefabrication, dwelling component manufacturing and circular economy principles, within a single regional supply chain. Its importance lies in recognising the future for the value chain lies in integrated manufacturing that has a laser focus on delivering dwelling solutions, in the national interest. Importantly, this transition aligns with the direction of government policy. Housing productivity, sovereign manufacturing, regional industrial development and lower-emissions construction are no longer separate policy objectives, they are increasingly part of the same national agenda. Developments to deliver this integrated agenda will define much of Australia’s housing future. The latest export figures should therefore be viewed not as a hurdle for Australia’s plantation industry, but as a catalyst for transformation. Australia has always adapted to changing markets. The next chapter will be led and won by creating more value from our resources, sophisticated and integrated sovereign supply chains that are focussed on delivering the next generation of housing, employment and regional economic resilience.

The post Analysis: Australia’s hardwood plantation industry must move up the value chain appeared first on Timberbiz.

The recent sale of Rushy Lagoon has sparked plenty of debate. Unfortunately, some of it is turning into an argument about forestry versus farming, which doesn’t help anyone. Tasmania does not need to choose between forestry and farming. We need both, and we need them working together. Our farmers produce some of the best food and fibre in the world. They employ Tasmanians, support local businesses and keep our regional communities strong. The right to farm is important and it should be protected. The forestry industry agrees with that. But forestry is also a productive use of land. Across Tasmania, farming and forestry have been working side by side for generations. Drive through rural Tasmania and you see it everywhere. Sheep and cattle in one paddock, trees in another. Crops on the flats, plantations on the hills. It isn’t particularly complicated, and until recently it wasn’t particularly controversial. Farmers understand better than most that not every hectare is the same. Different soils, slopes, rainfall and locations suit different uses. That’s why decisions about land use should be based on the land itself, the science and what makes sense for the people who own and manage it. The right tree, in the right place, at the right scale. Provided people meet the rules that apply to them, landowners should be able to decide what they grow on their own land. That principle matters to farming and it matters to forestry too. One part of the current debate that is concerning, is the increasingly negative way pine plantations are being talked about. Pine is a crop. It is planted. It grows. It is harvested. And it is replanted. Tasmanian businesses have been successfully growing plantation pine for decades. Those plantations employ people in our regional communities and support contractors, truck drivers, mechanics, sawmills, manufacturers and plenty of other local businesses. A single hectare of softwood plantation can produce enough timber to build around four houses, manufacture about 700 shipping pallets and supply more than 100 metres of fencing timber. We have a housing shortage. We want to build more homes. We want those homes to be affordable. And we want as much of the money spent building them as possible to stay here, supporting Tasmanian jobs and Tasmanian businesses. For that, we need timber. Plantation forestry also gives landowners another option. On the right land, trees can provide shelter for livestock, help with erosion and soil stability and provide a long-term income stream alongside other farming activities. None of this means every farm should become a plantation. Of course it shouldn’t. Good agricultural land is valuable. Tasmania needs productive farms and successful farmers. Equally, land that is well suited to growing trees should not suddenly be regarded as less productive simply because the crop being grown takes 25 or 30 years rather than a season. People who make their living from the land have a pretty strong incentive to look after it. Their businesses depend on it, and often they hope their children and grandchildren will still be earning a living from that same land decades from now. That long-term view matters in forestry as much as it does in farming. The truck driver carrying timber today might carry agricultural produce tomorrow. The local mechanic fixes machinery from both industries. Both industries use local contractors, shops and services. Tasmania’s future won’t be strengthened by picking winners between two industries that have successfully coexisted for generations. It will be strengthened by experienced landowners making good decisions about their land, backed by good science and sensible rules. There will be places best suited to farming. There will be places best suited to forestry. And there will be plenty of places where the two continue to work side by side. That’s simply how regional Tasmania works. Drew Freeman is CEO of the Tasmanian Forest Products Association

The post Opinion: Drew Freeman – No need to choose between forests and farms appeared first on Timberbiz.