Category Archives: Commentary

Craft War!

Craft-War-Weekend-Australian

I just found this article in The Australian from 10th October 2015 by the Tasmania correspondent Matthew Denholm.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/tasmanian-forests-timber-craftsmen-and-another-looming-battle/story-e6frg8h6-1227563469827

Oh the sad stories of taxpayer-funded cultural and family heritage. It’s enough to make one weep with sympathy.

But as a forester after watching this fiasco for 35 years these stories don’t work for me anymore. My sympathy was consumed in the forestry wars of the last 20 years, and the ongoing blatant politicisation of the forest industry in Tasmania.

Forestry is just about wedging the community and winning elections – nothing more.

Now I’ve had enough of the sob stories. In fact I feel deeply offended by this ongoing stupidity.

The public native forest special timbers industry has never been and never will be sustainable nor profitable. And all the fine craftsmanship and beauty in the world will not make it so.

This is not a Tony Abbott moment revisited! Good [special timbers] forestry does not start tomorrow, nor any other day.

The past 30 years have clearly demonstrated that good, profitable public native forestry will never happen in this State.

Most special timber craftsmen lay much of blame for the emerging crisis on the politicians and timber barons who presided over a forestry industry that “wasted” vast volumes of special timbers in a head-long rush to clear old-growth forests.

Excuse me!! Ever since I can remember the special timbers industry has pretty much universally supported the industrial forestry orthodoxy and State Government policy, including the 1996 Tasmanian Regional Forestry Agreement. They didn’t really have any choice in the matter. All the forest policy was made for the big boys. The cheap subsidized wood provided by large scale industrial forestry is exactly what allowed the special timbers industry to thrive over the past 40 years.

So to turn around now and blame the politicians and greenies is disingenuous in the extreme.

…until the politicians squandered it!

The politicians did indeed squander it [our public native forest resource] and the vast majority of Tasmanians including the special timbers industry were right there in full support. Millions of tonnes of special timbers burnt and chipped over the last 40 years.

And now it’s time for tears and regrets?

Find someone else to blame? Don’t take any personal responsibility?

No! It’s now game over!!

No sympathy! No excuses! No exceptions! No Tony-Abbott promises of “good forestry tomorrow”!!

What little remains of our precious old growth and rainforest must not be used for further political games, waste, and stupidity.

However, Paul Harriss faces stiff resistance from many of the craftsmen in whose name he is -acting. They might be united in condemnation of previous “waste” of their resource, but they are divided when it comes to securing new ¬supplies from within the TWWHA.

“If a government decision was taken to harvest inside a World Heritage Area, I think we would suffer a backlash,”

Absolutely!

The community reaction would rival if not exceed the Franklin Dam blockade. The damage done to Tasmania’s reputation, as a recalcitrant belligerent State would take decades to heal.

Brand Tasmania would be completely trashed!!

The article finishes with what I regard as a complete falsehood:

Whichever way the issue plays out, the special timbers and traditional skills that shaped a state are in ¬danger of being consigned to its past.

It’s the usual dramatic scaremongering that the mainstream media loves to peddle.

This article did not cover anything like half the real story of the special timbers industry. It just repeated what has been repeated many times before. There are many aspects of the story that were completely ignored.

The special timbers and the skills will not be consigned to the history books and museums. They will be confronted with reality just like the ivory traders and whalers were. Those that choose too can adapt and change to the new reality. Those that choose not to change will no doubt chew their old bones for comfort.

My own proposal to develop the commercial potential of growing blackwood timber via a blackwood growers cooperative is just one of the many special timbers opportunities waiting to be developed. But it’s not likely to happen whilst the old wars and the old warriors continue to play their games.

When will Tasmania get a fully commercial and profitable forest industry?

Blackwood pricing and the forest industry #1

Having had a few discussions recently about blackwood prices and price lists I have begun to investigate this aspect of the forest industry and the marketplace. Pricing a commodity that takes 20-100+ years to grow requires stepping outside the realms of normal economic theory. And when you are a retailer and not a grower, are you rewarding and motivating the grower, or are you killing the forest industry?

What the market is prepared to pay, product substitution and technology become critical issues. This is particularly true in the wood commodity markets such as pulp, paper and construction which accounts for the lion’s share of the wood market.

But what about the premium end of the wood market where wood quality and appearance are fundamental aspects of the market? This market exhibits a significant degree of inelasticity (with a high capacity to pay), and a resistance to product substitution, as well as technological change. This is the market that Tasmanian blackwood inhabits.

From a blackwood growers viewpoint, how does pricing affect grower behaviour? Most premium timbers around the world come from (public and private) native forests. Few premium timbers are grown in plantations. Economic management and performance of native forests is quite different to growing timber in plantations. Compared to native forests plantations have high establishment and management costs, with little or no income from the investment until harvest in 20-30+ years time. As a straight investment this requires careful planning and management in order to achieve a reasonable profit from the investment (not to mention a great deal of passion and patience).

So what does the marketplace tell us about the economics of growing trees for premium quality wood production?

Here’s an example of a real blackwood price list of dimensions and prices per linear metre. I then calculated the price per cubic metre for each of the dimensions and made a chart of the results. The prices are for kiln-dried rough-sawn (KDRS) clear-grade blackwood.

I was horrified!

This pricing and pricing structure will kill the blackwood industry stone dead!!

Firstly I don’t know too much about the costs of regulation, harvesting, transport and sawmilling, but I suspect the growers of this blackwood got bugger all for their trees.

If the retailer is selling blackwood for $AU2,500 per cubic metre regardless of size, what did they pay the sawmiller? And after paying the costs of planning, harvesting, transport and sawmilling, what did the sawmiller pay the poor growers? I reckon the growers got the clear message that growing commercial blackwood is for mugs and losers!

Instead of providing incentive and reward for their blackwood growing efforts the marketplace punished these growers.

So do we want the forest industry to have a future?

It won’t have a future with this retail pricing!

Do we want to be able to buy blackwood timber in the future?

There wont be any to harvest if these prices continue?

I don’t know where in Tasmania the blackwood timber came from but it wasn’t plantation grown. It could be public or private native forest; meaning these trees were between 40 and 80 years old when harvested.

BPL1

The second failing of this price list is the complete absence of the cost of “time”.

Time costs money. That’s what interest rates are all about. They represent the cost of money over time – for either loans or investments.

In general the price of timber reflects the volume/size of the piece of wood. The greater the dimensions and length the greater the price. The above pricing structure would be fine IF blackwood was produced in a factory where the ingredients were fed into one end of a machine and the various sizes and lengths came out the other end, with little time involved in production.

Unfortunately blackwood timber grows on trees and trees take time to grow, and time costs money. The bigger the piece of timber the bigger the tree required, and the longer it takes to grow, and greater the cost to the grower/investor.

But the above pricing list says that size (and hence time) has no cost. Wrong!!

The above list says that a cubic metre of 25x25mm costs the same to grow/produce as a cubic metre of 125x125mm. Wrong!!

You can cut 25x25mm timber from young 30 cm diameter trees, but you need much older 60+ cm diameter trees to produce 200×50 mm or 125x125mm blackwood.

A common complaint in the premium timber market is the scarcity of wide boards. However the above price list fails to provide any incentive/reward to the grower to grow bigger older trees.

A common caveat in the premium timber market goes something like:

Availability of specific sizes and lengths cannot be guaranteed.

This is largely due to the wood being sourced from native forest where tree size and supply are relatively random. In forestry lingo it’s called “run of the bush” – whatever turns up.

Plantations however are highly controlled and managed, so that (if things work out) size and supply can be better managed. A bit of tree selection and breeding and wood quality and supply is more assured. No caveats required.

So if you want to contribute to the destruction of Tasmania’s iconic blackwood industry here’s the place to buy your timber. It’s a double whammy for the industry!

But if you want to support a profitable, sustainable forest industry then understand that time (and big trees) costs money!

Alternatively this price list may just reflect the fact that in Tasmania growing blackwood is according to Government policy a (taxpayer-funded if you are a public grower) community service not a business. These may just be community service prices, not real prices reflecting the cost of production let alone building and growing the industry.

In my next blog on blackwood pricing I’ll show an example of a better timber pricing structure together with much more realistic prices.

When will Tasmania get a fully commercial profitable forest industry?

Comments and ideas welcome!!

 

Tasmanian Primary Wood Processor Directory 2015

PFT TPWPD 2015

The Private Forests Tasmania wood processor directory for 2015 has been released.

http://www.pft.tas.gov.au/index.php/news/89-newversiontasprimwoodprocdirect

Here’s my review of the 2014 directory:

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2014/10/27/blackwood-sawmillers/

This Directory has been primarily developed to help private forest owners with logs for sale to identify potential buyers. As well as enabling the forest owner to more easily locate and contact primary wood processors, it also identifies the log types purchased by them.

There is also a mutual benefit: this Directory will also help the listed primary wood processors to source logs from the Tasmanian private forest estate.

The Directory is a listing of 37 of the estimated 56 primary wood processing businesses, regardless of size, that Private Forests Tasmania (PFT) believed were operating within the State of Tasmania at the time of publication. Their inclusion in the Directory has only been with their consent. All the data was collected directly from them, including permission for PFT to list their business within this Directory. Not all processors either replied or agreed to be included in the Directory but PFT hopes that, over time, more will see the benefit of participating and that future editions of the Directory will list a greater proportion of the State’s primary wood processors, regardless of size.

Compared to last year only 37 of the estimated 56 wood processing businesses in the State are listed this year. Of these only 14 indicate they are interested in purchasing blackwood logs from private growers (blackwood or special species), down from 21 last year.

What does this reduction in blackwood processors/buyers indicate? Does it indicate a shrinking market? Or are businesses just choosing to stay off the Directory?

Last year 21 of 45 listed businesses were blackwood buyers, which to me indicated a very crowded marketplace. Perhaps too crowded given the limited private blackwood sawlog resource.

Even 14 of 37 businesses in 2015 is still too crowded in my opinion.

The Tasmanian blackwood industry needs to be more commercial, efficient and profitable. This means fewer processors who are processing larger volumes more efficiently, accessing more valuable markets and offering growers better money to encourage more blackwood growing.

Do these processors understand the critical part they play in ensuring the future of the industry? Or are we still in salvage mode going nowhere?

Commercial blackwood growing needs to be transparently and abundantly profitable for the industry to have a future. Right now we are a long way from that.

Personally I believe the blackwood log exporters have the best chance of helping to change the current situation and make the blackwood market more transparent and profitable.

PS. Curious how the most obvious things are sometimes the hardest to see. I just realised that Britton Brothers P/L, by far the largest blackwood sawmiller in the State, is in the directory but does not specifically list blackwood in the Logs Purchased list. Clearly the directory lacks some clarity and detail.

Growing Tasmanian blackwood in Chile

Here’s an interesting article in the latest AMIGO Newsletter from New Zealand by New Zealand blackwood grower Ian Brown based on a trip to Chile in 2012.

In 2012 Chile had 2,000 ha of private blackwood plantation, much of it a work in progress, with the objective to reach 4,000 ha in the near future. 4,000 ha of well managed fully productive blackwood plantation could be producing around 40,000 cubic metres of sawlog per year.

That is a lot of blackwood!

But they aren’t there yet!

The Chileans have their own unique view on growing Tasmanian blackwood, with the current emphasis on maximising volume rather than value. Hence the very high stocking, small tree sizes and the long rotations.

But at least they are doing active research with the objective of encouraging private investment in blackwood planting. How different to the Tasmanian approach where politics, waste, community service and a squandered public blackwood resource are the objectives.

A lot of Ian Brown’s comments on the Chilean approach to blackwood reflect the more successful New Zealand experience, where the focus is on maximising value not volume.

Hopefully the Chileans will eventually get the blackwood management sorted out.

We will then be importing Tasmanian blackwood from Chile when the local industry collapses.

Acacias in Chile – Report from a visit made in 2012

Ian Brown

September 2015 AMIGO Newsletter

In 2012 a small group of us spent a week in Chile at the invitation of INFOR (Institutio Forestal), the Chilean forest research institute. We were hosted by Juan-Carlos Pinilla, whose responsibilities include research into acacia species. Juan-Carlos is a delightful guy, well informed, and great company. He was a good friend of Ian Nicholas, who led our group, and fulfilled a long term wish to look at acacias in Chile. Tragically this was Ian’s last trip, and on the day of his return he experienced the first symptoms of the illness that took his life three months later.

Acacias were introduced into the Lake District in Southern Chile in the 1950s. The Lake District is a very scenic landscape in the central valley, between the coastal ranges and the Andes. It is good forestry country: the soils are deep, fertile, and free-draining, with average temperature 12.5 degrees, annual rainfall over 2000mm, and little wind.

Exotic forestry in Chile has been based on radiata pine and eucalypt species, following NZ and Australian models. Acacias were introduced to provide some diversity in forest products, A. melanoxylon for decorative timber, A.dealbata for pulp, and A. mearnsii for tannin.

Acacia melanoxylon

About 2000 Ha of blackwood have been planted in Chile, and this is expected to increase to 4000 Ha. Sample plots have been established on at least 14 locations. In addition there are sites with natural regeneration, mixed plantings, and shelterbelts.

The current silvicultural regime recommended by INFOR involves close planting at up to 2600 per Ha. The trees are gradually thinned by extraction of 250 trees ( hopefully for pulp) every 7 years, down to a final crop of 350 per Ha. at age 40. Harvest is anticipated at 41 years, with a predicted mean DBH of about 40 cm. Two clearwood prunings will be carried out at age 11 and 16.

Futrono: Blackwood plantation

Our first exposure to plantation blackwood was at Futrono, on a privately owned woodlot of 6 Ha., one of the 3 best performing sites for blackwood measured among the trial plots in Chile. We expected to see some very good trees, and the best of these were spectacular. There were about 6 to 8 exceptional trees, at age 42, 30 metres tall, and pruned to half their height, DBH in the mid-50s, and perfect form. If Chile can produce trees like this, we have a serious competitor.

The trees had been planted at high density, about 2600 per Ha. , lightly thinned, and had no form pruning. If the best trees were so good, what of the rest of them? Well, these were much less impressive. At age 40 they were highly stocked at 900 per Ha., with a mean height of 27.5 m., and DBH of just 31.3 cm., and the form was variable. There is a lot of wood in the stand , but I would expect the output of quality sawlogs would be disappointing.

I have a problem with the regime, and will comment on this:

  • the aim in close planting is to give a high selection ratio, and to encourage straight growth through competition for light. However it is an expensive option when the stocking is to be reduced in the course of the rotation to a much lower level. Most would regard as the optimal final stocking to be about 200 trees per Ha. The stocking in this stand is far too high, and as a consequence diameter growth will be very slow.
  • experience with pure and mixed stands has shown that form pruning is required to limit stem malformation to a minor proportion of trees.
  • when thinning is delayed, the live crowns compete for light and retreat, and this has an adverse effect on diameter growth. To prevent this, thinning should be completed early in the rotation ( in my view, within the first 10 years)
  • it is expected that the thinned trees will be extracted for pulp. I think the economics of this are very questionable.
  • a large volume of data has been collected from the trial plots, and I would question the need for much of this. The sites have been intensively monitored, with measurements of diameter, tree height, and total wood volume. These are appropriate data when assessing most of our exotic plantation species, and even A.dealbata when grown for pulp. However they are unnecessary and even misleading when assessing blackwood, where the value of the tree is likely to be confined to the pruned stem. All we need to know is its height( usually 4 to 6 metres), straightness, and diameter. Above this the crown has no commercial value, and is likely to end up as firewood.
  • However the crown has real physiological value, in that it determines the volume of wood in the butt log. In blackwood, a tall tree is not a cause for celebration but a sign of trouble. It is an indication of late thinning in the stand, and is linked to slow diameter growth and a very long rotation. In Chile it has been noted, as we have found here, that there is an inverse relationship between the height and diameter of the trees in a blackwood plantation. To prevent this, INFOR have suggested that clearwood pruning should be delayed in support of diameter growth. It seems to me that all this would achieve would be to increase the defect core, and would have no effect on diameter. I think the correct interpretation of the relationship between height and diameter is that it is a consequence of delayed thinning, This causes the crown to retreat, and when this has occurred, it is irreversible.

Other plots

Data were provided for other sites, and ignoring the height and stand volume, three of the better ones are as follows:

Chiloe – at 20 years , mean DBH24 cm.

Arauco – at 28 years, mean DBH 22.5 cm.

Central valley – at 30 years, mean DBH 31 cm.

These figures are not as good as they could be, and I am sure there is a simple explanation. All of these stands are what we would consider to be grossly overstocked. This seems to be due to a misplaced emphasis on total wood volume, at the cost of what really matters, the size and quality of the butt log. However the trip to Futrono showed the real potential for blackwood in Chile.

Lanco: Provenance trial

A trial incorporating 14 provenances was established in 1999 at Lanco, on a property owned by an expatriate Austrian count. It contained 30 random blocks, at 84 plants per block, at 3 by 2 metre spacing. The provenances were from Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland.

When measured in 2008, the Queensland provenances had very high mortality, and the South Australian trees had poor growth. The best performers were from Tasmania (King Island, Queenstown, the North-East), and the Otways in Victoria. Interestingly, the provenance from NW Tasmania, where most of our blackwoods were sourced, came further down in the order.

The location appears similar to the sites in northern New Zealand in which blackwoods grow well, so the trial probably has some relevance for us, bearing in mind some limitations: the limited number of provenances, and the lack of data on form, and on wood quality. It matches the data from a 65 provenance trial on my property at Pirongia in the Waikato, which suggests that the provenances best suited to our conditions are in Northern Tasmania, although not necessarily in the North-West.

Quepe: Seed collection

This is a 2.5 Ha. site, in which blackwoods had been interplanted with eucalypts 24 years ago. The eucalypts were felled on one Ha. at 16 years, and the blackwoods that remained were graded for form and vigour, and thinned to 110 per Ha. The best of them were then selected for seed collection as part of a breeding program.

What is now apparent is that many of the trees that were performing less well at age 16 have now caught up with the plus trees. This has been attributed to the need to trim branches in the plus trees for seed collection, but I have some reservations about this. To have this effect, the pruning would have to be very severe. A study in Tasmania has shown that up to 30% of the foliage can be removed from blackwood at one hit without any impact on diameter or height. At 50% there is some effect on diameter. It may be that the “plus trees “had been favoured by a microsite advantage in the original mixture, and now they are on a more level playing field after removing the eucalypts, this effect has been cancelled out.

Another reservation is that the form of the trees, which is generally very good, has been strongly influenced by the adjacent eucalypts, and has had little genetic influence. An assumption that underlies breeding programs that have been carried out in the past for blackwood is that the basic attributes of vigour and form are likely to be inherited. That is certainly true for radiata pine, redwoods, and cypress. However in blackwood , environmental influences, on form in particular, are strongly expressed. Wood colour may be a different matter.

Conclusion

Before our visit to Chile we had heard stories suggesting that we would see some exceptional blackwoods. After more than a week visiting plantations and viewing trees from the roadside we were left in no doubt that the Lake District in Southern Chile is highly suited for blackwood forestry. It has ideal climate and soils.

Because of its geographical separation from Australia, Chile is also free from acacia psyllids. These pests have been shown to reduce the height growth in young blackwoods by up to 40%. They also contribute to malformation. (they are not primarily responsible for multi-leadering in blackwood : this is a consequence of growth periodicity, in which the shoots terminate their growth periods by aborting and then replacing the growth tips. The absence of psyllids will make life easier for the grower, but will not eliminate the need for form pruning).

I am sure the full potential for blackwood could be realised with some adjustments in silvicultural practice. This has been influenced by practices derived from other plantation species, and by a wish to utilise the whole tree. Blackwoods are different. To grow them well we need to abandon the techniques and assumptions that underlie the silviculture of other commercial species. The commercial value of blackwood is likely to be confined to the butt log, and the silvicultural focus should be to grow this as straight and as wide as possible . This requires form pruning, and early and aggressive thinning in the stand. We know from studies in both New Zealand and Tasmania that fast growth in blackwood has no adverse effect on wood quality.

It will be interesting to follow the tree breeding program in Chile. I think this will be challenging because of the strong impact of the environment on several attributes of blackwood, in particular form, and to a lesser degree vigour. However I am prepared to be proved wrong.

Reproduced with kind permission of the author.

The Futrono plantation. Photo 1 the best tree benefiting from attention and some space, Photo 2 effects of delayed pruning, and Photo 3 general view of Futrono plantation.

IMG_4725

IMG_4730 IMG_4720

Centrelink Timbers

Centrelink_logo

Below are extracts relating to special timbers from the recently released Forestry Tasmania (FT) Ministerial Charter 2015. The Charter provides another wonderful opportunity to highlight just how stupid Tasmanian forest policy and practice is in the 21st century.

http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forest-management/forestry-tasmania-ministerial-charter

According to the Ministerial Charter FT identifies, manages, harvests and sells special timbers on both commercial and non-commercial bases!

How’s that for a business model guaranteed to fail?

FTCharterSTextr

And don’t forget that FT’s non-commercial activities are funded by the Australian/Tasmanian taxpayer; these are Taxpayer Timbers!

How FT defines and distinguishes between “commercial” and “non-commercial” special timbers when profitability is clearly not the objective in either case, is not explained?

The FT Annual Report provides no clarity on this confusion either. The Annual Report shows how much special timbers are sold each year, but makes no distinction between direct and indirect, commercial and non-commercial sales or other activities.

It is a complete mess!

Which special timbers were sold as non-commercial? On what basis were these non-commercial sales made?

How are costs and revenues accounted for with commercial and non-commercial sales?

On what basis are prices determined for commercial and non-commercial special timbers?

Why are special timbers managed in this confusing manner?

Why is there no transparency in the reporting of FT’s special timbers operations?

Why are special timbers treated as a taxpayer funded (non-commercial) community service?

As a forester I am of the opinion that forestry is a profit-driven commercial business. There is no such thing as forestry charity.

So why is Tasmania running a wood production charity?

Public native forest special timbers management is a mess.

Scarce taxpayers money is being wasted providing a charity that should not exist. Apparently wood craftsmen are more important than teachers and nurses.

Tasmanian farmers are being actively discouraged from investing in commercial blackwood because of the anti-commercial and anti-competitive policies and practices of Forestry Tasmania and the State government.

This will destroy Tasmania’s iconic blackwood industry.

And to this total mess the Government wants to add the costly and divisive logging of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Having written-off all of its own failed public blackwood plantations (over 850 ha), Forestry Tasmania’s 2013 Blackwood Sawlog Resource Review states that:

Blackwood plantations may be more appropriate for intensive farm woodlots rather than for extensive land managers such as Forestry Tasmania.

As the largest blackwood grower (native forest) and seller in Tasmania Forestry Tasmania fails to see any conflict or irony in this statement. How are Tasmanian farmers supposed to be encouraged to grow commercial blackwood when FT regards blackwood as a charity timber?

Can Tasmanian forest policy get any more insane or ridiculous?

PS. For international readers Centrelink is the Australian Federal Government agency tasked with delivering social programs such as assisted employment and unemployment benefits.

When will Tasmania get a fully commercial profitable forest industry?

World Heritage Area logging: Boatbuilders need access to Tasmania’s protected forests due to lack of speciality timber, Government says

rainforest

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-16/new-analysis-shows-world-heritage-logging-necessary-for-demand/6780134

http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/new_advice_proves_special_species_dudded_under_tfa

Here we go again continuing with the wasteful, divisive, political forestry wars.

“New analysis strengthens the argument that selective logging of speciality timber in Tasmania’s World Heritage Area is necessary to meet the demand from craft industries, including boat builders, the State Government says”.

As usual it’s not about profitable tree growing; it’s about tree growing as a community service.

It’s Centrelink Timbers!

How can Tasmanian blackwood have a profitable commercial future with Government policy like this?

Never mind the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement (TFA). It’s history! Using the TFA as an excuse to vilify your opponents and justify logging the World Heritage Area is complete nonsense.

Of course if you give away trees there will be a demand. But what would happen if the Government decided it was actually running a business and had to make a profit instead, like private tree growers, like Tasmanian farmers?

There is no discussion here about costs, prices or profits; and supply and demand are discussed as political not commercial objectives. Any relationship between cost, price, supply and demand is completely ignored. It’s a sad pathetic joke!

It’s the same with Forestry Tasmania as with the special timbers industry; the whole lot is run as a community service. Wasteful political nonsense.

As Vica Bailey of the Wilderness Society says “the specialty timber sector has traditionally been a by-product of clear-felling and woodchipping of vast areas of old-growth and rainforest, a model that glutted the market with heavily subsidised wood, there was never any expectation that historical levels of supply could, would or should continue“.

The public native forest special timbers industry has never been sustainable nor profitable.

The last 30 years have clearly demonstrated there is no such this as sensible when it comes to logging public native forests. Logging the World Heritage Area would be yet another forest industry disaster.

Resources Minister Paul Harriss said he would present the new analysis to the World Heritage committee delegation during its visit in November in a bid to reverse opposition to logging inside forests added to Tasmania’s World Heritage Wilderness Area in 2013.

Will Minister Harriss present the same analysis to the Tasmanian community for broader scrutiny?

The interesting thing in this news report is that blackwood is included in the discussion. World Heritage Area is now also about saving the blackwood industry. For the first time the Government admits the public native forest blackwood resource is not sustainable, only 12 months after the last blackwood resource review declared the resource sound and sustainable.

The incomplete history of unsustainable blackwood mismanagement

Forestry Tasmania’s own data clearly shows they have been overcutting the public blackwood resource for at least the past 25 years. And now as a consequence they want to try and justify logging the World Heritage Area. It’s just sickening!!

UNESCO must get the clear message from the Tasmanian community that logging the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is not acceptable.

When will Tasmania get a fully commercial, profitable forest industry?

Ooops! Not such a success

Taylor-2014FLE

For the past few years Taylor Guitars have been heavily promoting Tasmanian blackwood as the great new sustainable tonewood.

But it seems the promotion plan has come off the rails.

This commentary is speculative but from what I know it fits the available evidence.

After the big release by Taylor of the 2014 Fall Limited Edition (FLE) models things appear to have come unstuck.

https://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/limited-editions/fall-2014

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2014/08/02/taylor-guitars-put-tasmanian-tonewoods-on-display/

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2014/10/05/island-roots/

The Taylor 2014 FLE models put Tasmanian blackwood up against some serious competition in the way of Hawaiian koa and Tasmanian black heart sassafras, and without too much surprise, the competition appears to have won this race at least.

Sales of the koa and sassafras models were apparently so good that the all koa GS mini is now part of the standard GS mini range. Taylor then came back to Tasmania for a second order of sassafras timber which has now been included in the 2015 Summer Limited Edition (SLE) models.

https://www.taylorguitars.com/news/2015/07/06/taylor-guitars-debuts-stunning-quilted-sapele-curly-mahogany-and-blackheart

https://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/714ce-s-ltd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zZyNsP-_hVU#t=235

No such joy for Tasmanian blackwood however. Clearly the 2014 FLE blackwood models failed to ignite the market.

Without too much hindsight this result isn’t a surprise.

The fact that the Winter 2015 Wood & Steel magazine from Taylor had a major focus on future tonewood supply but made no mention of Tasmanian blackwood, reinforces the likelihood that Taylor have shifted the focus away from blackwood.

https://www.taylorguitars.com/sites/default/files/Wood-Steel_Winter-2015_EN.pdf

Don’t get me wrong. I think Taylor Guitars are a great company and they make fantastic guitars. But everyone makes mistakes. I’m no marketing expert but here’s why I think the Tasmanian blackwood models failed to fire the market:

Too much serious competition

Of the four styles on offer for the 2014 FLE models, the blackwood models were by far the plainest and least visually appealing. Two of the models featured koa which is a well established quality tonewood in the American market. The Tasmanian blackheart sassafras, whilst new to the international commercial guitar market, was just so visually stunning and unique. Without any tonal heritage sassafras stole the show like a supermodel on the catwalk. Do I guess the premium acoustic guitar market is dominated by men? But who can blame them for being visual slaves. Of course not everyone wants a visually stunning guitar. Some people prefer the plain and unadorned. But that’s definitely not the dominant market.

Taylor sassafras 2014LTD

Product development and design.

Even ignoring the competition the blackwood design in the 2014 FLE lineup was just ordinary especially by Taylor’s very high standards. Taylors have a very strong sense of the aesthetic. So what happened?

If Taylor uses the limited editions to test new products in the marketplace then the 2014 FLE models merely reinforced existing market preferences for the rare, the visually stunning, and the familiar. In terms of pushing Tasmanian blackwood into the international tonewood market it failed.

So how do you introduce Tasmanian blackwood to the international tonewood market?

How do you introduce a plain grain premium tonewood to a market addicted to feature grain and visual appeal?

Here are some ideas:

  • Don’t introduce the product in competition with other products that already have an obvious market advantage;
  • a clear price differential is needed between plain and feature grain to reflect the fact that feature grain tonewood is a rare commodity;
  • if market resistance to new product is expected/encountered then perhaps introduce the product at a lower price bracket. If the product is good it will quickly move up into the premium market;
  • if introducing a new “plain” product into a premium market then extra effort is needed in product design, development and marketing.

Tasmanian blackwood has the potential to become an internationally recognised profitable, sustainable, premium tonewood but the road ahead remains uncertain.

I hope one day Taylor Guitars come back to Tasmanian blackwood.

Hooray for Peter Adams

The Talking Point in today’s Mercury newspaper by furniture designer/maker and artist Peter Adams is a rare and much welcome alternative opinion in the ongoing nonsense around special timbers and the prospect of logging the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-far-more-beautiful-left-standing/story-fnj4f64i-1227474696519

Adams-bench

It is just so rare for someone within the forest industry to come out and publically challenge the current industry and policy orthodoxy.

From today forward, all timber workers, myself included, have to re-examine their use of speciality timbers.

That said, what I will never do is use any timber cut within the boundaries of a World Heritage Area. Nor should anyone.

My suggestion to Peter Adams and others (including consumers) is to:

  1. Use only farm-grown Tasmanian timbers;
  2. encourage Tasmanian farmers to grow more quality wood;
  3. pay Tasmanian farmers a price for their wood that reflects its real value and encourages more tree planting;
  4. support organisations such as mine that seek to encourage and teach farmers how to grow commercial blackwood in both plantations and remnant native forest.

Wood is not a taxpayer-subsidised community service. It is a commercial product.

Planting trees and managing plantations and forests costs real time and money.

The only way for Tasmania to have a successful forest industry, and realise the vision of Peter Adams, is for tree growing to be blatantly and transparently profitable.

Only Tasmanian farmers can make this happen; farmers who are passionate about growing a quality product.

I was up in the north west of the State this week for the first time in a while, and driving around imagining a rural landscape dotted with well managed forest remnants and plantations of blackwood. Instead I saw opportunities being wasted. Most farms have wet gullies, steep slopes and small areas too difficult to manage. Good land going to waste. These areas are just ideal for growing commercial blackwood.

One of the key things missing is the right commercial and political context to get these areas planted.

Peter Adams points the way to the future.

Labor backs special timbers logging in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/labor-releases-policy-for-tasmanias-special-timber-industry/story-fnpp9w4j-1227461792420

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/ltasmanian-labor-backs-specialty-timber-logging-in-wilderness/6656556

Green_Elrond

State opposition leader Bryan Green today announced a policy for Tasmania’s special timber industry, supporting logging within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA).

After a brief hiatus the Labor and Liberal parties are once again in lock-step on forest industry policy in Tasmania.

Once again forest industry policy in Tasmania is driven by politics, waste and community conflict.

“tread widely, tread lightly”

The politicians want us to believe that special timbers is only about fairy land, a magic wand and elvish forest management.

There is no mention of UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee, Forest Stewardship Council, taxpayer subsidies, sacking teachers and nurses, or the last 30 years of politics, waste and community conflict.

Nor is there mention of private blackwood growers.

Instead our politicians will wave the elvish wand and middle earth will magically appear.

It’s just rubbish and deception.

Forestry is not a taxpayer-funded community service!

Nor is this middle earth!

Last month, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee urged the Australian and Tasmanian governments to ban commercial logging within the TWWHA.

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2015/05/31/unesco-calls-for-changes-to-tasmanias-draft-world-heritage-management-plan-to-prohibit-logging-and-mining/

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2015/07/06/tasmanian-wilderness-world-heritage-area-logging-proposal/

So in good old fashion style our State politicians are once again joining forces to wage war over our forests.

The Tasmanian community will once again be the losers.

With classic political vote winners like “long-term security”, “consultation” and “striking an appropriate balance” we have heard it all dozens of times before.

Absolutely nothing has changed for our pollies.

Except now a lot more Tasmanians are sick and tired of the conflict and nonsense around the forest industry. Not to mention squandering $millions of taxpayer dollars and sacking teachers and nurses, and charging electricity users to help subsidise the forest industry. A lot more Tasmanians will express extreme displeasure if this nonsense continues.

Specialty timber groups believe they were left with an extremely restricted resource after the Tasmanian Forest Agreement was finalised in 2013 and new tracts of forests were declared off-limits. The agreement was repealed by the current Tasmanian Government in 2014.

What absolute rubbish! So called specialty timber groups were left without a (public native forest) resource because of 30+ years of failed forest industry policy; a policy that tied the industry to the election cycle and gave everything to industrial woodchipping leaving nothing but platitudes and tears for the specialty timber groups.

I must say after listening to this sort of rubbish for 30+ years I’m getting pretty sick of it. The culture of entitlement within the forest industry that former Gunns CEO Greg L’Estrange mentioned recently is certainly prevalent within sections of the special timbers industry.

The forestry wars are well and truly heating up once again.

Stand by for the media/community backlash.

The special timbers industry is on a hiding to nothing.

When will Tasmanian get a fully commercial and profitable forest industry?

Blackwood sawlogs achieve record price at auction REVISITED

ist_log

Since it was first posted this blog has consistently been one of the most frequently visited by readers of this website.

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2012/06/11/blackwood-sawlogs-achieve-record-price-at-auc/

Clearly it says something that readers find compelling.

In terms of its message and impact on the forest industry, State forest policy, the farming community or the media however there has been little response.

Profitable tree growing and transparent, competitive market processes remain completely irrelevant to State forest policy and the forest industry.

If we treated our dairy, beef and vegetable industries in such a manner Tasmania would be in serious trouble. But the forest industry remains a victim of its heritage dominated by politics, a public resource and a community service ethos.

Does Tasmania want a forest industry? If so then the price of logs and profitable tree-growing must be at the centre of policy and management.

So how can Tasmania move towards a fully commercial and profitable forest industry?

The industry does not need more behind-closed-door deals, nor more reports and strategies. The industry needs to demonstrate serious commercial muscle, and a burning desire to leave the politics and conflict behind.

So tell me readers, why is this blog of such interest to you?

PS. Here’s a thought bubble!

Imagine what the forest industry would look like today if 100 years ago we had included prizes (trophy or ribbon) in our regional agricultural shows for the best sawlogs, in the same way we have prizes for livestock, wool fleeces, fruit, veges, etc. Farmers who managed their forest or plantations would bring in their very best dressed sawlogs to get judged. All of the entries could then be auctioned off.

Imagine a rural community that took as much pride in forest/plantation management is it does in beef, sheep, wool, vegetables, etc. That of course would depend on the marketplace supporting and rewarding such a community attitude, as the marketplace does for most other primary industries.

What do you think? Comments?