Category Archives: Commentary

Taylor Guitars latest Tasmanian blackwood promotion

TaylorTonewoods.jpg

The latest Wood & Steel magazine (Winter 2016) from Taylor Guitars offers yet another big promotion of Tasmanian blackwood, featuring in three of the articles in the magazine:

  • New 12-String Voices
  • 12-Fret Revival
  • The 300 Series Branches Out

https://www.taylorguitars.com/wood-and-steel

Here’s the main Tasmanian blackwood promotion found on page 15:

Blackwood’s Broadening Appeal

“Blackwood is one of my all-time favorite tonewoods,” declares Taylor’s master guitar designer Andy Powers, reflecting on the Tasmanian timber’s addition to the series. “I‘ve enjoyed its characteristics in every guitar I’ve built with it. It always sounds good.”

A lot of us at Taylor, in fact, are fans of the tonewood. Our product development team has crafted several series of limited edition blackwood guitars in recent years (including our 2014 500 Series Fall Limiteds) in the hope of broadening the appreciation among guitar players who haven’t been exposed to it. While blackwood has been a staple among guitar makers in and around its native region of Australia, its usage has been more limited in North America due in part to its lack of geographic proximity.

“That’s one of the factors blackwood had going against it,” Andy says. “It’s a long way to America from Australia. Historically, in the formative years of the steel-string guitar, it was a lot easier to get mahogany and rosewood here because they were already being imported for furniture.”

Despite its more limited usage in this hemisphere, blackwood has earned a loyal following across the industry.

“Martin has built some nice guitars with heavily figured blackwood, and they sound great,” Andy says. “And I know a number of small builders who work with it and live in the same camp as me; we all feel it’s amazing.”

The supply is also sustainable, with a healthy sourcing outlook for the future. From a guitar-making point of view, blackwood’s relatively rapid growth cycle can often yield guitar quality wood in under 40 years, and the abundant supply of older, bigger trees produces a lot of straight-grained wood that is easy for guitar makers to work with. We purchased our blackwood from Tasmanian wood supplier Bob Mac Millan (profiled in our Fall 2014 issue), who also sourced the much rarer blackheart sassafras we recently used for limited edition models.

http://tasmaniantonewoods.com/

As an acacia wood species, blackwood sometimes draws comparisons to Hawaiian koa, another member of the acacia family, although, in reality, Andy says, the two species are unique.

“People sometimes refer to blackwood as the old cousin of koa, a more prehistoric version,” he explains. “While that may be so, blackwood has some distinct working characteristics, color, and grain structure, which distinguish it from koa.”

While blackwood will occasionally display exotic figure, Andy says our grading specifications for the sets used with the 300 Series call for more of a classic, straight-grained structure.

“We wanted a staple wood we could count on,” he says. “It’s a high quality guitar wood, clean, clear and straight-grained. In terms of color and overall appearance, it’s not a dramatic change from the classic mahogany or sapele aesthetic. It has a similar look a lot of times, especially paired with the mahogany tops and with a nice shaded edgeburst. Frankly, a lot of players may not even visually notice the difference unless they’re really looking for it.”

A color-matched stain for the blackwood back and sides and mahogany top and neck brings a seamless visual cohesion to the guitars, adding a rich undertone to the natural cinnamon-brown hues and highlighting the similar grain structure of both woods. Tonally, blackwood yields a strong midrange focus — dry and clear yet also warm, like mahogany and koa — with a splash of top-end shimmer and richness similar to rosewood. Its musicality, Andy says, suits a variety of body sizes and musical styles. Paired with a mahogany top, players can expect plenty of dynamic range.

Phew!

There’s a lot of promise, hope and opportunity in all those excellent words. Can they be matched by some clever product development and marketing, and finally by market acceptance and appreciation?

On top of the blackwood promotion there is other good news including the fact that Taylor Guitars has been the top-selling acoustic guitar brand in the USA for 26 straight months, with total (acoustic and electric) production in 2015 of 165,000 guitars and employ over 1,000 people! Even then they still can’t keep up with the demand.

Also the article Forestry for the Future on page 5 by Bob Taylor makes for interesting reading. Mr Taylor says “A word that has now become part of my daily vocabulary is “forestry.” He goes on…” The foresters I’ve met are mostly very good and brimming with concern, ideas and skills to help us all. And they’re frustrated because they work in a structure that often doesn’t allow them to work. Their work takes committed clients, and it also takes time.”

And as we have seen in Tasmania over the past 40 years, good intentions can so easily become corrupted and distorted to the point where the forest industry struggles to operate effectively because of the domination of ego, ideology and politics.

Bob Taylor says that forestry is the answer. I would say that good leadership is the answer. And I’m happy to say that Bob Taylor fits the leadership role pretty well!

I certainly sympathise with the expression of frustration! Being a forester in Tasmania means living with permanent dose of frustration.

Taylor Guitars and Bob Mac Millan at Tasmanian Tonewoods are doing their bit to bring Tasmanian blackwood to the world stage.

Now what can we in Tasmania do to support Taylor Guitars promotion of profitable, sustainable Tasmanian blackwood tonewood?

This is a commercial opportunity going begging.

Are Tasmanian farmers interested?

Are our politicians interested?

Is the TFGA interested?

We need leadership!

We need cooperation!

Blackwood Plantation Financial Model

Plantation

This is a financial model that calculates the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) from an investment in one hectare of commercial blackwood plantation. The model is setup in an Excel spreadsheet:

Blackwood financial model.xlsx

Here’s the link to find out more about the IRR function in Excel:

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/IRR-function-64925eaa-9988-495b-b290-3ad0c163c1bc

This model is a work in progress and is designed to encourage feedback, comment and updating.

You can download the model and use your own numbers if you wish.

Contact me if you want help modifying the model to your personal requirements.

To begin with I went back to the New Zealand Blackwood Growers Handbook that contains an financial model on page 77. I set this model up in a spreadsheet and came up with the same values as shown in the handbook.

http://www.nzffa.org.nz/farm-forestry-model/species/blackwood/#Blackwood handbook

I then modified the model according to my own recommended simplified plantation regime. This simplified plantation regime reduces the initial establishment and management costs, and reduces the workload required in the first 10 years.

I also changed some of the values in the model to better reflect what I consider are current costs.

Assumptions

  • A 35 year rotation length;
  • In 35 years time there will still be a high demand for quality appearance-grade timbers. Technology is rapidly changing many timber markets, including construction-grade timbers, but I think there will always be a demand for premium solid appearance-grade timbers;
  • The objective is to grow the plantation to an average stem dbh of 60 cm, with all trees pruned to 6.2 metres. This should produce approx 300 cubic metres of premium blackwood sawlog;
  • The plantation is established on a site suitable for growing commercial blackwood;
  • The land is already owned (ie. no land purchase costs are included). But go right ahead and add land costs and see what it does to the investment;
  • The simplified plantation regime is used planting 200 blackwoods per hectare;
  • One of the largest costs in blackwood plantations is protection/fencing to protect the trees whilst they are young. Blackwoods are highly palatable to a wide range of domestic and wild herbivores, so good protection is essential. Protection costs will vary considerably according to plantation size, shape and location/terrain.
  • Annual weed control (spot spraying) is essential whilst the trees are becoming established. Blackwoods do not like competing against heavy grass/weed cover. After 5 years I have included a general weed control (slashing) every 5 years for general maintenance. By about age 20 years the blackwoods should have the site under control with little need for ongoing weed management.
  • Actual costs will vary according to individual circumstances. Most of the costs are my best guesses. If anyone has some real data to contribute that would be appreciated;
  • No harvesting or transport costs are included;
  • Other costs can be included fairly readily, such as rates and other overheads, and management costs;
  • The sawlog price is my current best guess at a competitive market price for a large parcel of quality blackwood sawlogs. For example the December 2015 Hydrowood log tender had 14 quality blackwood logs sell for an average of $625 per cubic metre.

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2015/12/11/tasmanian-blackwood-sawlogs-at-625-per-cubic-metre/

Results

The model shows an internal rate of return on Tasmanian blackwood plantation investment of around 10% over 35 years.

For a 35 year investment that is a decent return. Fixed term deposits are currently offering around 3.00% over 4 years (updated Feb 2016).

http://www.infochoice.com.au/banking/savings-account/term-deposit-interest-rates.aspx

If a very good site is planted and hence the rotation shortened to 30 years the return on investment increases to 12%. Alternatively if the value of the plantation after 35 years is only $100,000 per hectare the rate of return is still 9%.

In other words the investment is quite robust to changes in conditions and markets.

Commercial blackwood plantations are a profitable investment under current market conditions.

I wouldn’t recommend buying land just to grow commercial blackwood. Blackwood is not a broad-acre crop but requires certain site characteristics to grow successfully.

Many Tasmanian farms have areas that are currently underperforming or neglected; covered in weeds, bracken and blackberries. These areas are not contributing to farm income, but many of these areas are suitable for growing commercial blackwood.

If a farm has a number of these areas, the investment and the workload can be spaced over time, for example by planting an area every 5 years. After 35 years a set of periodic incomes is achieved from regular harvesting and replanting of plantation blackwood.

Now the one major feature missing in the forest industry is greater market and price transparency to help encourage this investment.

Special Timbers Management Plan April 2016 Update

FTSTS2010

After the embarrassing back down by the Tasmanian State Government over the proposal to log the World Heritage Area, two important reports were quietly released last week with no fanfare from our politicians or forest industry leaders. These reports relate to the forthcoming 2017 Special Timbers Management Plan.

http://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/forestry/special_species_timber_management_plan

You can read my previous blogs on the very long drawn-out process to create yet another special timbers management plan here:

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/category/management-plan/

Special Timbers Resource Assessment

The first report is a special timbers resource review produced by Forestry Tasmania of the 812,000 ha of the Permanent Timber Production Zone Land (PTPL).

The report does not include forests on private land, or forests on public land that are managed by other agencies (including Future Potential Production Forest).

The report does not speculate about any potential for helicopter harvesting or underwater salvage, nor make any assessment about the commercial viability or costs associated with [management,] harvesting and/or extraction operations.

Given that in 2010 Forestry Tasmania determined that its special timbers operations were no longer commercially viable one must presume that this situation remains unchanged. In other words how much taxpayers money is to be wasted harvesting this wood is not considered important in determining the resource that is available!

As always with State forest policy and practice it is about the volumes of wood to be given away never about the profitability of the forest asset.

One suspects that if commercial viability was considered in the report, then little if any of this public native forest special timbers resource would be available for harvesting!

Centrelink Timbers is a thriving industry in Tasmania.

The blackwood resource figures in this report are from the 2013 Blackwood sawlog resource review. No additional work has been done in this assessment for the north west blackwood production zone.

The significant reduction from the targets set in the 2010 Special Timbers Strategy reflects the smaller landbase that is now available, longer rotations required for some species and more accurate volume estimates resulting from the rainforest modelling work using LiDAR.

So two of the three issues [longer rotation age estimates and more accurate inventory ]that have driven down the estimate of available special timbers resource, have nothing whatsoever to do with any forest industry agreement, but are the result of changes in methodology.

Now to blackwood…

The headline figure which this report uses is not the “millable sawlog” figure that the RFA and the 2010 Special Timbers Strategy used, but now includes outspec wood including craftwood. This outspec wood makes up 55% of the headline blackwood volume. Forestry Tasmania does not have any sales obligations or commitments for outspec wood!!

So in addition to the 3,000 cubic metres per year of millable sawlog from the north-west blackwood production zone as outlined in 2013, there will be another 1,275 cubic metres of millable sawlog per year from the rest of the State up until 2027, when the blackwood resource in the rest of the State will be exhausted.

So much for guarantees! So much for sustainability!

In 1991 with the FFIS, again in 1996 with the RFA, and again in 2010 with the Special Timbers Strategy, Forestry Tasmania guaranteed an annual supply of 10,000 cubic metres of millable blackwood sawlog to industry.

And here we are at the end of the blackwood industry!

These volumes of blackwood sawlog will not be enough to sustain a commercially viable industry. There will not be enough resource to sustain our commercial furniture makers. These volumes will barely be enough for our custom furniture makers.

The Tasmanian blackwood industry now has only two clear choices:

  1. Close down due to the exhaustion of the public native blackwood resource; or
  2. Look to Tasmanian farmers as the future of the blackwood sawlog resource.

Salvage blackwood sawlog from the Hydrowood project may keep the industry going for a few more years, but it too will end. The Hydrowood resource can either be seen as a last gasp for the backwood industry, or as a useful stop-gap whilst relationships with Tasmanian farmers are established.

So what’s it going to be? Extinction or a new future?

Market Demand Analysis

The second report is a market demand analysis for Tasmanian special timbers conducted by Indufor. You may remember I was invited to participate in this market survey:

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2015/04/23/special-species-timber-management-plan-update-1/

Despite my being interviewed by the author of the report, the report contains no mention at all of private commercially-grown blackwood, and no mention of opportunities for private investment and private growers. The reports entire focus is on the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014 and the public native forest resource!

Clearly the consultant had to appease a very narrow-minded client!

This observation on political bias is further strengthened by the fact that Appendix 1 of the report describes in detail the various sub-sectors of the industry, but Appendix 1 begins with sawmillers. Apparently growers are not a sub-sector of the special timbers industry! Not even harvesting and transport is mentioned as a sub-sector!!

This is yet another failed report into Tasmania’s iconic special timbers industry.

The report contains no mention of blackwoods unique position as the only Tasmanian special species that has the potential to be grown commercially due to its fast growth rate and wide natural distribution. Given the unique and dominant position that blackwood occupies within the special timbers market it should have been given an entire chapter to itself.

The only basis for a successful forest industry is profitable tree growers, and profitable tree growers are conspicuous by their absence in this industry report. In fact discussing special timbers market demand without discussing the economics of tree growing and forest management is completely stupid. Imagine a report that discussed market demand for dairy products whilst ignoring the economics of dairy farming. Anyone would regard such a report as a waste of time.

When I was talking to the author of the report during my interview last year I specifically suggested that the report needed to have a strong focus on the economics of tree growing and forest management. And guess what the report specifically and completely ignores?

For example the report fails to discuss the existing special timbers industry community service business model and the significant taxpayer subsidy that guarantees the survival of the industry. Discussing prices, markets and demand whilst ignoring the business model and taxpayer subsidy is completely fallacious.

From a blackwood growers point of view the parts of the report most worth reading are:

Resource Supply on Page 4.

It’s a carefully selected view of the historical blackwood production from public native forest. Certainly no comparison of production with sustainable yield. In fact no mention of blackwood sustainable yield at all!

Blackwood Markets on Page 14.

Throughout the Report and especially in this section there is a lot of veiled criticism of the forest industry’s lack of market competition and transparency. The fact that most blackwood is “sold” outside normal competitive market processes is particularly relevant, ie. log prices are NOT market-based.

Anyway the report notes that of all the special species, Tasmanian blackwood is sold into the widest range of high value markets.

Resource supply and substitution

According to the report survey the biggest constraint on the industry is the uncertainty of log supply. Section 4.8 (p. 38) talks about survey responses to possible falling supply from public native forest. The option of “shifting to alternative growers” (ie. Tasmanian farmers) is not mentioned. And yet Table 4-5 on page 41 analyses the market’s willingness to pay for the various timber grades of the various species. Blackwood comes out extremely well in this analysis. The market says it is prepared to pay good prices for access to quality blackwood.

So given the dire situation of the public native forest blackwood supply why isn’t the industry asking Tasmanian farmers to grow quality blackwood timber? What is preventing this fundamental market process from being realised? In every other primary industry the combination of high prices and willingness to pay would lead to investment. Why does this NOT happen with the forest industry? The report fails to address this fundamental question!!

This situation provides the perfect opportunity for the TFGA to step up and demonstrate leadership. The TFGA needs to organise a forum between farmers and blackwood industry representatives and let’s start rebuilding the blackwood industry.

The report makes no mention of New Zealand farmers and what they are doing regarding blackwood and other special species. No mention in the report of the handful of Tasmanian farmers who are actively growing commercial blackwood.

One thing is perfectly clear in the report – the Tasmanian Government does not want Tasmanian farmers to grow commercial blackwood!!

The Special Timbers Market Demand report is fundamentally flawed. It certainly cannot be used to help justify the continued logging of our public native oldgrowth and rainforests in Tasmania.

Commentary

Neither of these reports offers much hope to the special timbers industry. Both reports show that the public native forest special timbers industry – including the iconic Tasmanian blackwood industry – is on the verge of collapse due to overcutting and mismanagement of the resource.

So much for declarations sustainability!

The major positive is that the market demand report confirms the continuing demand for premium timbers at good prices.

What is perfectly clear is that these two reports are especially designed to keep the forestry wars at the forefront of Tasmanian politics. The reports avoid discussing alternatives outside the public native forest resource and the taxpayer-funded community service business model.

That Tasmania cannot work positively towards realising the commercial opportunities around Tasmanian blackwood remains a fundamental continuing failure of our political and business leaders.

“..we will take wood….”

gutwein

It didn’t take long.

No sooner had UNESCO ruled out logging the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area than the Tasmanian Government and sectors of the special timbers industry are already setting themselves up for yet another conflict with consumers, the environment movement and the Tasmanian community.

Tasmanian forest policy especially around so called special timbers just keeps going from the sublime to the ridiculous in a never ending spiral of senseless politics, waste, conflict and stupidity.

We are all being played for fools.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/unesco-report-sparks-state-search-for-speciality-timbers-outside-of-world-heritage-area/news-story/97d8e65a2ff6fcb1d35f8c3b7abd404d#load-story-comments

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/showdown-set-for-tasmanias-special-timber-as-state-government-seeks-way-to-source-supply/news-story/dedecb43ecb8b1b0478738b1609d1084

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/cut-out-wastage-of-specialty-timbers-to-reduce-need-for-harvest/7265402?section=tas

Here’s the press release from the Resources Minister Peter Gutwein (above):

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

Much of the information in the press release is old news as shown on the Department of State Growth website:

http://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/forestry/special_species_timber_management_plan

But the rhetoric in the press conference is clearly hostile and inflammatory. With a State election campaign coming up in 2017 forestry is yet again going to be one of the key election issues.

“…I’m not going to point the finger at anyone, but they know who they are…”

“..we will take wood…”

This is now very personal and vindictive, and above all else political.

It’s not about business.

It’s not about profitable tree growing.

It’s about taking wood [a public resource] and giving it to the “deserving” regardless of the cost or consequences.

When will Tasmania get a fully commercial profitable forest industry?

What can I do?

What can Tasmanian farmers do in the face of such relentless reckless commercial-opportunity and market-destroying stupidity?

Tasmania abandons World Heritage Area logging plans on UNESCO advice

TWWHA.jpg

Hooray!!

It’s time to break out the champagne!!

In a rare show of forest-policy commonsense the Tasmanian Government has apparently accepted the umpire’s decision and abandoned plans to log special timbers (including Tasmanian blackwood) in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-20/unesco-tasmania-abandons-world-heritage-area-logging-plans/7261350

News reports just in say the UNESCO recommendations will be accepted but that the Government was still committed to supporting the [special timbers] industry.

Here’s the Tasmanian Governments announcement on the UNESCO Report:

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

Here’s the single recommendation in the UNESCO report regarding logging the TWWHA and some worthwhile comments from the UNESCO Mission:

Recommendation 2

The State Party should confirm an unambiguous commitment that the property is off-limits to commercial logging in its entirety, and fully reflect this commitment in the Management Plan for the whole of the property.

 

The mission would like to put on record that it considers the interests of the special species timber sector per se fully legitimate and by no means excessive. Despite the regrettable lack of conclusive data, the mission finds it difficult to imagine that resource security could not be achieved in the vast forest estate available for logging outside of the TWWHA. While a mixed World Heritage property, recognized for globally significant cultural and natural heritage, is not the place to experiment in the view of the mission, there is every reason to further discuss and test sustainable forest management elsewhere in Tasmania in less polarized fashion. The political support to the special species timber industry should be channelled to areas available to commercial logging outside of the TWWHA, while fully considering that there are areas outside of the TWWHA, which are likewise of the highest conservation value, including in the Tarkine area. New approaches to manage the desired species can draw on longstanding research conducted in Tasmania and a growing body of knowledge about the ecology of the species (UNESCO, p. 13).

 

The concept of “outside the TWWHA” should include commercial private growers.

Here is the link to the UNESCO report:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/140379

To see my many blogs on this issue go here:

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/?s=UNESCO

So now the State Government is faced with developing a Special Timbers Management Plan with next-to-no public special timbers resource.

http://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/forestry/special_species_timber_management_plan

What will be the next political play?

Tasmanian blackwood has been and will continue to be the backbone of the special timbers industry, and the only Tasmanian special timber species with the potential for a profitable commercial future on private land.

Will the Tasmanian Government and Parliament now look to a different future for the special timbers industry or will politics continue to reign supreme in Tasmanian forest policy?

Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA)

TFGA

The TFGA is the only peak farming lobby group in Australia that includes forestry in its list of major primary industries.

Curiously even Agforce Qld, which a few years ago helped fund a joint program with Timber Qld called AgForests Qld to promote better use/management of Qld private native forests, does not recognise/represent the forest industry.

Not even the National Farmers Federation considers forestry an important primary industry relevant or important to the rural community!

It real is extraordinary!

As a forester that says a great deal about the myopic views of the forest industry and the farming lobby.

An enormous ideological abyss still exists between the forest industry and agriculture.

Up until 10 years ago the forest industry was dominated by State governments, public forest resources and a community service business model. No self respecting farmers lobby bothered with forestry.

But not anymore!

Most wood now grown and sold in Australia comes from private commercial forest growers.

Forestry is now a real primary industry!

But the farming lobby groups have not understood the fundamental changes happening in the forest industry.

And the forest industry still doesn’t understand that its future is now with farmers and private land owners, and not with politicians.

The forest industry has no future unless it can get the farming lobby onside.

Alternatively the forest industry has no future whilst the farming lobby regards commercial tree growing as irrelevant and unimportant.

There is a lot of work to be done.

Here’s a list of the major farm lobby groups around Australia:

Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association http://www.tfga.com.au/

Victorian Farmers Federation http://www.vff.org.au/

NSW Farmers Association http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/

Queensland Farmers’ Federation http://www.qff.org.au/

Agforce Qld http://www.agforceqld.org.au/

Primary Producers SA http://www.ppsa.org.au/

Western Australian Farmers Federation http://www.wafarmers.org.au/

NT Farmers http://www.ntfarmers.org.au/

National Farmers’ Federation http://www.nff.org.au/

 

So why is the TFGA important to the future of the forest industry?

  • The future of the industry is with profitable commercially focused private tree growers;
  • We need a strong independent advocate for private growers to help counteract the political distortions and corruptions in the forest industry;
  • We need a new conversation about forestry that is not lead by politicians, sawmillers and conservationists.

So where is the TFGA as a strong independent advocate for private tree growers?

Forestry is the only primary industry that pits private growers against a taxpayer-funded Government grower? No other industry (diary, vegetables, fruit, beef, wool, etc) faces this problem!

The traditional advocates for the forest industry in Tasmania are politicians and the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT) neither of whom give a toss for private tree growers.

So why do you think the forest industry is in such a mess?

We need policies that will help drive an efficient, commercially focused, flexible and profitable forest industry? And we need a strong independent advocate!

The TFGA website says: The TFGA constantly develops and reviews policies in almost every area of economic activity, through its board, committees, commodity councils and annual general meetings.

So where are these policies?? Certainly not on the TFGA website!

I should mention here that my definition of a forest industry is first and foremost focused on profitable tree growing. Profitable tree growing is the only basis for a successful forest industry, even if that means every log grown and harvested has to be exported.

Come on TFGA! We need you!! Organise some industry/community forums. Write some policies. Start a bold conversation about profitable tree growing!! Help implement the National Action Statement on Farm Forestry!

http://blackwoodgrowers.com.au/2016/02/25/two-significant-forest-industry-reports-that-went-nowhere/

We need leadership!!!

 

Two significant forest industry reports that went nowhere

Combined

Both of these reports were published in 2005.

Both of these reports have (had??) significant potential impact upon the future of the Tasmanian blackwood industry.

Both of these reports contain important information and recommendations about reforms to the forest industry.

From what I have seen nothing from either of these reports has ever been implemented!!!

Ten years after these reports were published both are still available on Government websites as if they form the basis of current Government policy, but from what I can see neither of them are currently active.

The information and recommendations in these two reports has not been taken up and included in any forest industry policy documents (eg. FIAT), political party policies, nor in any farm lobby group policies (eg. the TFGA). Why not??

Tasmanian Government forest policy does not include any of the recommendations from these reports.

If only half of the recommendations from these two reports had been implemented the forest industry would be in a much better position today, and investment in the future of the blackwood industry would be a whole lot easier.

Here are the links to these two reports:

http://www.planningplantations.com.au/assets/content/plantations_sustainability/economic/ownership.html

(the link to the pdf report is at the bottom of the page)

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/forestry/australias-forests/plantation-farm-forestry/publications/farm_forestry_national_action_statement

Personally I think the future of long rotation plantations is looking more uncertain except in markets where high value appearance-grade timber is needed. Construction-grade timber is increasingly made from engineered wood products rather than solid wood; engineered from short-rotation plantation-grown wood.

But the market for long rotation appearance-grade timber is relatively small, especially if we are just talking about the domestic Australian market. The international market for quality appearance-grade timber is significant but is still dominated by the illegal trade in rainforest timbers.

The opportunity for supplying profitable, quality, farm-grown plantation grown Tasmanian blackwood into the export market is significant.

And this is where the Farm Forestry National (In)Action Statement (NAS) becomes important.

To achieve the vision, the Australian, State and Territory governments and the forest and wood products industry need to progress 16 actions, grouped under four action imperatives:

  1. Develop appropriate, integrated and consistent Australian, State, Territory and local government policies for farm forestry;
  2. Coordinate actions and build relationships to support farm forestry;
  3. Recognise and, where possible, quantify farm forestry’s economic, environmental and social benefits and costs;
  4. Promote the development of markets for farm forestry products and services.

The 16 actions are broken down into 33 measurable outcomes, listing deadlines and who is responsible for implementing the outcomes.

None of it has been implemented!!

The Federal and all State Governments and the forest industry all signed up to do this.

So much for commitment!

So much for leadership!

Perhaps the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian forest industry should revisit the NAS and recommit to implementing its recommendations.

Lapoinya and Forestry Tasmania profitability and commercial management

 

Here’s a great video interview with economics commentator John Lawrence who has been following the mismanagement of Forestry Tasmania for a very long time.

His comments relate somewhat to the current conflict around the logging at Lapoinya in north west Tasmania. But much of his observations relate to FTs general business operations.

I have two comments to make in relation to what Mr Lawrence has to say:

  1. John talks about FT profitability and covering the costs of harvesting and overheads. But the discussion is almost as if the objective is to breakeven. Forestry is a business! It’s about making profits NOT breaking even!! I think the best analogy is to remember that FT competes in the marketplace with private forest growers. And private forest growers do not grow trees in order to break even. They grow trees so they can make a profit. They grow trees so they can put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Forestry Tasmania needs to be run just like the private businesses against which it competes. Forestry Tasmania needs to set commercial performance objectives and meet them ever year without fail!
  2. Later in the interview John Lawrence talks about selling our native forest wood as if it were all special species. It’s about marketing and product placement. Every single log needs to achieve top dollar. It’s a great idea. I remember making the same recommendation 25 years ago to a meeting at FT. The FT senior managers at the meeting laughed at the idea.

But it’s way too late!

The forest industry should have been reformed along commercial lines back in the mid 1980s when the Hawke-Keating economic reforms were in progress. But the forest industry refused to reform. By my reckoning the last chance the forest industry had to reform was during the RFA process in the late 1990s. But once again the forest industry resisted change.

And now it’s too late!

The public native forest industry is all but gone. Decades of politics, conflict and waste have driven the industry to the point of extinction.

Any idea that there is still something that can be rescued is pure delusion.

Forestry Tasmania is now just a political play thing. A toy to help win the next State election.

The problem for Tasmania is that no politician has the courage to face the truth.

2015 The Year in Review

santa2015

It’s time to wish everyone a safe and happy festive season, and to recap on another year in the Tasmanian special timbers industry.

Another year with little progress getting Tasmanian farmers growing commercial blackwood, or in getting the various players in the blackwood market to open up and help rebuild the blackwood industry.

The forest industry continues to be overwhelmed by negative sentiment and politics.

The Good:

Stringfest

The Deloriane Stringfest 2015 was a quieter affair than 2014. The promise and potential of 2014 just didn’t seem to carry on this year. Still waiting to see if it’s on again in 2016.

Leonardo Guitar Research Project

A great project run by a group in Europe looking at promoting the use of non-tropical woods in guitars.

Time will tell what impact the project will have on the blackwood tonewood market.

Timber price lists

I was initially unwilling to investigate retail timber prices, but once I started……

Retail timber prices are hard to find on the internet. Few companies advertise their prices. Nevertheless retail pricing provides many interesting insights into why the forest industry is in such trouble.

Firstly is the general lack of transparency in timber pricing. Secondly is the frequent lack of relationship between price and the cost of growing the wood – the “cost of time”. And thirdly is the impact of the “salvage” and “public native forest” prices that undermine attempts at profitable tree growing.

One major outcome from my investigations is to highlight the high prices for premium timber. Select blackwood at $7,500 per cubic metre must provide some interest and incentive to existing and potential blackwood growers! The downside is other retailers selling the same wood for $2,500 per cubic metre. The latter is a guaranteed way to destroy the blackwood industry.

I will continue my retail price investigations in 2016. Stay tuned!

Blackwood in Western Australia

This was the great surprise for the year. Finding that commercial blackwood can be grown successfully in Margaret River in Western Australia is nothing short of a small miracle. Hopefully 2016 will see this story develop further.

Hydrowood

I’m putting the Hydrowood project into the positive list as I’m hoping it will provide much needed market profile, transparency and tradability. It provides an opportunity for the special timbers industry to demonstrate some commercial muscle. Yes there are downside risks with the project, not the least of which will be flooding the market with premium blackwood.

The first Hydrowood tender put 21 cubic metres of premium blackwood logs onto the market, with the plain grain logs selling for an average $625 per cubic metre! This was an excellent result for the first tender and attracted a great deal of interest.

The next 12 months will be very interesting indeed!

 

The Not So Good:

World Heritage logging and the TWWHA Management Plan Review

The push by both major political parties in Tasmania to open the WHA to taxpayer-funded special timbers logging has been the main story for 2015.

It’s completely insane but this is Tasmania!

The UNESCO delegation recently visited Tasmania to get the local picture. No doubt they left here wondering what strange pathology inflicts this island state.

From what I’ve heard through my contacts I doubt whether UNESCO will support logging the WHA.

It will be entertaining to see how the politicians attempt to rescue their integrity.

(Yet another) Special Timbers Management Plan

The State Government (not Forestry Tasmania) is putting together yet another Special Timbers Management Plan to add to the other ST plans already on the shelf down at the State library. And like all the previous plans it will be a complete folly.

But wait! It’s not due to be released until 2017!! Just in time to ensure special timbers becomes a State election issue.

Groundhog Day in the Tasmanian special timbers industry!

Everything Forestry Tasmania

The Government forest agency and the public native forest resource continue to be the centre of forest policy, conflict and waste in Tasmania. They are the fundamental focus that drives the industry into decline.

Forestry Tasmania is bankrupt, selling what few remaining assets it has and dumping staff as quickly as possible. But the political rhetoric is all about building/saving the industry.

The sooner this charade ends the better it will be for Tasmania.

FSC certification

Forestry Tasmania’s application for Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification process has been a sham from both FT and the auditors point of view. Apparently engagement, transparency and deadlines are completely irrelevant in the FSC process. A year has passed with absolutely no word from either FT or the auditors (SCS Global Services). It’s pathetic!

Conclusion

I can’t imagine a more hostile political and business environment for a forest industry than in Tasmania. On almost a weekly basis the Tasmanian media broadcasts to the world how dysfunctional our politically driven forest industry really is.

Lack of Leadership

One of the main failings of the forest industry in Tasmania is the lack of leadership.

FIAT has traditionally “represented” the industry but the organisation is dominated by sawmillers and wood processors. There is no one representing private forest growers; and private growers have very different interests to wood processors.

The TFGA, as the major farming lobby in Tasmania, occasionally wades into the forestry debate but with no policy platform they more often than not shoot themselves and private growers in the foot.

So politicians and sawmillers are left to dominate the forestry debate.

The forest industry in Tasmania won’t develop until private tree growers have a strong, independent voice.

The only way to have a successful forest industry is for tree growing to be transparently profitable. No other business model will work.

Crystal ball

One really doesn’t need a crystal ball to see what 2016 will bring. Every day is Groundhog Day for the forest industry in Tasmania.

Forestry Tasmania will most likely fail in its first attempt at FSC Certification. This will result in much agitation, shouting and finger-pointing in State Parliament and sections of the community.

UNESCO will most likely reject the proposal to log the World Heritage Area, leaving the State government with a Special Timbers Management Strategy and no wood resource. That should be interesting!!

And what of blackwood as a commercial opportunity in 2016?

There is not a lot of cause for optimism that I can see. Mostly another year of forest industry politics and nonsense.

So dear readers I trust you have a safe and happy festive season. See you all in 2016.

Federal Government to abandon plans to log World Heritage Area if UNESCO will not ratify it

DTWWHAMP

In yesterdays news media:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-13/federal-government-could-abandon-plans-to-log-world-heritage/7024154

A UNESCO delegation recently visited the state to assess the practices and meet with stakeholders, with a final report expected next year.

The Federal Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Senator Anne Ruston, said the logging plan would be scrapped if UNESCO did not support it.

“When they [UNESCO] bring down that report I would be really surprised if the Federal Government did anything other than respect those decisions,” she said.

With the hardline, anti-conservation Tony Abbott administration now gone the politicians are already softening up the electorate and protecting their positions in the likely event that UNESCO will continue to not support logging special timbers in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Senator Ruston said she had some sympathy for users of specialty species timber.

“They also have an argument which is reasonable, that they have very low impact where they take those timbers from,” she said.

To forget the lessons of the last 30 years of bitter conflict over public native forest management in Tasmania would be foolish in the extreme. Tasmania has not changed and neither has our forest policy and management. Opening up the WHA to logging would be yet another forest industry disaster to add to an already long list of disasters.

Within the context of the past 30 years promises of “low impact” are utterly meaningless.

“It’s a major concern that the [special timbers] resource is now essentially behind closed doors.”

The remaining public native forest special timbers resource is “behind closed doors” precisely because of what has happened over the last 30 years.

The taxpayer-funded logging of public native forest old growth and rainforest for special timbers is over [subject to UNESCOs report].

Now when will Tasmania get a fully commercial and profitable forest industry?