Forest Products Industry

The first accredited, long-form Prefabrication Installation qualification delivered through Melbourne Polytechnic’s Future of Housing Construction Centre of Excellence was launched yesterday. Source: Timberbiz The Certificate III in Prefabrication Installation will train students for careers building prefabricated homes. Students will receive hands-on training and flexible blended learning. These skills are needed to work with modern methods of construction (MMC). The qualification was developed in consultation with industry through the Future of Housing Construction Centre of Excellence. It will be hosted at Melbourne Polytechnic’s Heidelberg West campus. “The Certificate III in Prefabrication Installation is the first-of-its-kind in Australia, established to prepare workers with the right tools and confidence needed for a career in modern methods of construction,” Melbourne Polytechnic CEO Frances Coppolillo said. The Centre of Excellence is a national hub for training, research and innovation across Australia’s building industry. Victoria is already home to more than 200 companies specialising in MMC, spanning design, manufacturing, transport, assembly and installation. Alongside the new Certificate III qualification, the Centre of Excellence is already delivering four industry-designed short courses. These help existing workers and businesses adopt modern methods of construction. The $50 million Future of Housing Construction Centre of Excellence is jointly funded by the Federal and State governments. “Building more homes, more efficiently starts with building the skilled workforce Australia needs,” Skills and Training Minister Andrew Giles said. “This new qualification will help more Australians develop the practical skills needed to embrace modern construction methods and deliver more homes, faster.” To find out more about national TAFE Centres of Excellence, visit www.vic.gov.au/national-tafe-centres-excellence  

The post Certificate III in prefab installation to train students in Melbourne appeared first on Timberbiz.

The world’s best and brightest in housing are invited to help build more high-quality homes, faster for the people of NSW using Modern Methods of Construction. Source: Timberbiz An Expression of Interest (EOI) is now open for businesses to establish or expand a manufacturing facility in NSW to produce prefabricated building components or large-scale modular housing, specifically for higher density housing types, including developing designs from the mid-rise pattern book. The State Government is set to turbocharge the way homes are built in NSW, unlocking the potential of MMC and lifting productivity in the building sector. Through the Modern Methods of Construction Industry Expansion Program (MMCIEP), the State Government is inviting businesses with expertise in advanced manufacturing, prefabrication and modular construction to invest in NSW and help transform the way homes are built. The program aims to grow local manufacturing, strengthen supply chains, create skilled jobs and accelerate the delivery of more homes across the state. The State Government will consider supporting the development of the facility through financial support, through the provision of suitable land, by agreement to purchase output from the facility, including housing and other public facilities, as well as considering alternative proposals where these represent value for money for taxpayers and will support the development of a sustainable industry in NSW. The EOI is the first stage of a two-stage procurement process, and proposals will be assessed on commercial readiness, demonstrated capability and capacity to deliver at scale. The launch follows the opening of the Housing Innovation in Construction Fund and Housing Innovation Network Grants Program, representing almost $4 million in investment to help grow the local MMC sector, commercialise new technologies and bring more innovative manufacturers into the NSW housing market. The Government is also investing $1.6 million to establish a new regulatory framework and introduce a certification system for MMC, formally recognising prefabricated buildings in NSW law and integrating MMC into the planning approvals system, as well as reforming procurement to open up more opportunities for MMC projects in NSW, using the Government’s purchasing power to help grow a strong and sustainable MMC industry. Together, these reforms are designed to give industry the confidence to invest in NSW, expand manufacturing capability and build a sustainable pipeline of modern construction projects for years to come. This is part of the State Government’s plan to build a better NSW with more high-quality homes and services, so young people, families and key local workers have somewhere to live in the communities they choose. The EOI closes at 3:00pm AEST on Wednesday, 29 July 2026. Businesses can access the EOI documentation and apply through the NSW Government’s tendering portal.

The post Expressions of interest invited to build faster homes in NSW appeared first on Timberbiz.

When Komatsu’s Nigel Howard found out that his friend and mentor, forest industry icon Col McCulloch had been diagnosed with motor neuron disease it didn’t take him long to realise that being frustrated couldn’t help. The best thing he could do was to get on his bike and do something useful. Source: Timberbiz Next month, Mr Howard will set off on his BMW GS 1300 Adventure to undertake a 20,000 km, 38-day motorbike trip around Australia aiming to raise $150,000 for the fight against MND. As well as raising vital funds, Mr Howard is looking to start conversations and bring the timber and forestry community together. “Col told me about his diagnosis over a coffee. Like a lot of people I’d heard of MND but the reality didn’t really set in until we talked” he said. “When I started having conversations with other people in the industry, I discovered Col’s story isn’t unique – far too many people have a mate, a parent, a colleague or a spouse afflicted by the beast.” Mr Howard said it was an easy decision to bring together his passions of motorbike riding and the forest and timber community to plan the MND Beast Challenge. “If there’s one thing I’ve learned working in forestry, it’s that people show up when they’re needed. Every kilometre I ride is for people like Col, for families living with MND and for the hope that one day research can provide the answers we’re looking for,” he said. Mr Howard knows that one bloke on a motorbike isn’t going to cure the disease. But if the MND Beast Challenge can raise awareness, raise funds and get more people talking about the disease, then it will be worth every kilometre. He sets off from Daylesford on Thursday 20 August. To learn more about the MND Beast Challenge and to make a donation, head to https://www.mndbeastchallenge.com.au/

The post Riding for Col McCulloch’s fight with MND appeared first on Timberbiz.

Juken New Zealand (JNZ) has concluded consultation with employees regarding the future of Northland Mill and has made the difficult decision to proceed with the closure of the mill Yasufumi Tsuchiya Director of Juken New Zealand said in a statement. Source: Timberbiz This decision follows an extensive process to identify a buyer or alternative arrangement that would allow the mill to continue operating in a financially sustainable way. Over recent months, Mr Tsuchiya said the company explored a range of options, including a sale process and other potential business arrangements. Despite those efforts, we were unable to identify a viable pathway forward. The decision relates to Northland Mill only. The Northland Mill produces veneer only. Triboard and Strandboard produced at Triboard Mill and J-frame, J-ply and solid wood produced at Wairarapa Mill are not impacted by this announcement. The process to explore a potential sale of Triboard as a going concern remains ongoing. Mr Tsuchiya said in the statement that before reaching the decision about the Northland Mill, the company undertook a formal consultation process with employees and union representatives. He said they carefully considered the feedback received and would like to thank everyone who participated in that process. Mr Tsuchiya said that the company recognised the significance of this announcement for its employees, their whānau and the wider Northland community. Many people have dedicated years of service to Northland Mill, and he acknowledged the impact this decision will have. The focus now is supporting affected employees through the next stage of the process. This includes discussions about redeployment opportunities across JNL, as well as access to a range of services including financial advice, wellbeing support, and employment and training opportunities. The current plan is for the mill to close by 21 August 2026. Production activity will gradually reduce over the coming weeks as remaining work is completed. While the decision has been made to close Northland Mill, the company remains open to conversations with potential buyers and continues to explore opportunities relating to the land and assets. Further updates will be forthcoming if there are any developments. JNL said that it remains committed to New Zealand and to maintaining a sustainable forestry and manufacturing business here. Decisions relating to the Kaitaia mills have been made with the long-term viability of the wider business in mind.

The post Northland Mill closure imminent as it fails to find a buyer appeared first on Timberbiz.

The new owners of one of Tasmania’s largest farms, which they plan to turn over to a pine plantation claim the property, is “low-quality, degraded land” and not currently being used for food production. Source: Timberbiz Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers last week announced the approval of the sale of Tasmania’s largest farm, Rushy Lagoon, to UK-based forestry investor Gresham House. The 22,000-hectare property will be converted from an agricultural estate into a $142 million pine plantation and carbon project. The Australian Forest Products Association has welcomed the sale, saying the plantation project will expand Australia’s sovereign capability in sustainable timber production. The project will combine commercial softwood plantations on low productive land with large-scale conservation and ecological restoration and sustainable grazing. This is expected to provide a major boost to Tasmania’s forestry industry. The Radiata Pine trees produced by the project are expected to be processed locally by Tasmanian-based sawmills and supplied into the Australian market. This will alleviate some of Tasmania’s wood supply pressures and help divert harvesting away from native forests. It is expected to stimulate the local economy, creating jobs for contractors, sawmill operators, field surveyors and planting crews. In addition, sustainable agricultural activities will continue in designated areas across the property. Direct benefits are expected to include: More than 190 new jobs over the life of the project. Production of approximately five million tonnes of timber and 3.2 million ACCUs. Timber will be grown under Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certification or Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and be processed by Tasmanian sawmills to help offset a critical shortage of construction timber in the Australian housing market.   However, farmers groups have criticised approval of the sale, claiming the project would turn productive farmland into a monoculture pine plantation in return for carbon credits. TasFarmers will hold a community meeting on Friday, 17 July at the Scottsdale Mechanics Institute, and have invited concerned members of the public to help send a message to the Prime Minister that they want the deal reversed. But a spokesman for the Tasmania Natural Asset Trust, an investment platform managed by UK forestry giant Gresham House, told The Mercury in Hobart “This is low-quality, degraded agricultural land, not prime farmland, and it isn’t currently in broad food production: dairy operations have historically used around 14% of the property, with current use around 5% of the land.” The areas proposed for plantation forestry on Rushy Lagoon are on areas classified as marginal, Class 5 and 6 under the Tasmanian Land Capability Classification System (Class 7 being the poorest), by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Tasmania.” The spokesman told The Mercury the operation would combine commercial softwood (Radiata Pine) plantations on low-productivity land with large-scale conservation, ecological restoration, sustainable grazing and potentially other agricultural opportunities. The spokesman said agriculture would remain an important part of the property. “Sustainable grazing will continue on land best suited to farming, and additional agricultural opportunities are also being explored. “This is not a choice between food and timber – Australia needs both.” The spokesman also addressed claims that a local buyer was locked out of the sales process for the 21,744ha property. “The property was widely marketed to the agricultural sector on several occasions from 2018 onwards. However, the vendor [the estate of New Zealand farmer Allan Pye] was unable to secure a sale at independently assessed market value,” he said. “Following these unsuccessful sales processes, Gresham House entered into a purchase agreement with the vendor. “Gresham House itself did attempt a separate sale process for the dairy operation but received no conforming bids.” The spokesman said agronomist and technical advisers attributed the limited interest to poor infrastructure, soil quality and distance to market, and supported a change in land use to forestry. But the National Farmers’ Federation has questioned the approval process behind the sale which it says has left stakeholders questioning the logic behind the decision. “We’re concerned that there were buyers that were potentially disadvantaged in the process of allowing the sale to a foreign forestry fund,” Mr Guerin said. “We are calling for a review of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation’s (CEFC) mandate. “It’s imperative that these processes are transparent. “We need to understand whether various conflicts of interest were addressed through the appropriate mechanisms, including the fact that a CEFC Director sits on the Foreign Investment Review Board which is supposed to assess the decision independently.” Mr Guerin said the community’s desires had not been respected. “We echo TasFarmers’ concerns that the decision goes against what 99% per cent of surveyed Tasmanians wanted for Rushy Lagoon,” Mr Guerin said. “Australian farmers must be consulted, given choices, and listened to. “There must be a balance between emissions goals, food security, and farm profitability. “We always want to see agricultural land being used for its best purpose. We must ensure that is the case in the sale of Rushy Lagoon,” Mr Guerin said.  

The post Rushy Lagoon is not a choice between food and forestry appeared first on Timberbiz.

The Neville Smith Group has confirmed its full support for the Forest Congress Shared Vision Statement, joining Palawa Elders, scientists, environmentalists, industry and community leaders in a common position on the future of Tasmania’s forests. Source: Timberbiz The statement calls for an immediate end to old-growth logging, responding to a Palawa-led call to protect these forests as enduring cultural treasures, alongside the ongoing, responsible management of Tasmania’s native forest resources. “After three years of collaborative Forest Congress stakeholder engagement, the Neville Smith Group (NSG) has formalised its commitment to the shared future vision for Tasmanian forestry,” Andrew Walker, CEO of Neville Smith Group, said. “We support a Palawa-led, whole-of-landscape, pragmatic, science-backed, long-term proposition for native forestry in Tasmania, not an ideological one. Indigenous voices were absent from previous agreements, including the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, and Palawa leadership belongs at the centre of forest management going forward, alongside forest scientists, growers, landowners, processors and local communities. “This finds the right balance between protecting old-growth forests as cultural and ecological treasures, whilst securing the long-term future for native forestry, meeting national timber demand, and supporting regional Tasmanian communities. “NSG is a majority plantation and ongoing regrowth native business, established 25 years ago, on the basis of processing smaller, younger certified logs. The Plantation Nitens logs were previously destined only for wood chip export, now elevated up the value chain via cutting edge technology. “After a deliberate 4-year transition period to majority plantation supply, our native regrowth log supply has now been re-balanced to align with our Tasmanian sawmilling capacity. “We have recently advised our former Victorian customer, that the previous short-term surplus of native regrowth logs will not be available from 31st July 2026 onwards. “By ending old-growth supply (currently less than 3% of total supply to NSG), it removes a remaining point of contention, paves the way for innovation, investment and additional on-island processing in Tasmania. “We have formally notified Sustainable Timber Tasmania of our decision to not receive old-growth logs, with immediate effect. “Australia is a net annual importer of timber products, and we must ensure that native forests in lower regulatory global jurisdictions are not deforested, to meet our insatiable national timber demand. Tasmania manages its forests as well as anywhere in the world, and the regeneration of our native forests after harvest is testament to our sustainable practices. “The continuation of renewable native regrowth and plantation resource bases underpins the perpetual supply of wood-based products for housing, commercial projects, manufacturing sector, and strengthens our national resilience. As the largest plantation hardwood sawn timber processor in Australia, future investment and further industry transition is only possible with log supply security. “Wood is the ultimate renewable, healthy forests mean healthy communities. “We call on the Tasmanian and Australian Governments to join communities and industry in supporting a lasting transition, one that backs Palawa-led cultural practice, restores landscapes, supports regional communities and secures the future of the best-managed native forests in the world.”

The post Neville Smith Group to stop accepting old-growth logs appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forest certification is meant to ensure forests are being managed responsibly. But in Australia, questions remain about the benefits it delivers beyond legal compliance. Australia’s forest debates are full of confident claims. Some argue that native forest harvesting can be sustainable if properly regulated and independently certified, while others argue that certification mainly gives a social licence to forest logging that should no longer occur. Both those for and against native forest harvesting often speak with certainty. And both are at the whim of the forest certification process – the tool that verifies timber and wood products come from responsibly managed, sustainable forests. But there is a more basic question we have not answered well enough: what does forest certification actually do? In research I recently published with colleagues, we reviewed the literature on forest certification in Australia, hoping to understand whether it delivers benefits beyond existing legal requirements. This idea – understanding about benefits that would not have otherwise been realised without it – is known as ‘additionality’. Put simply, are certified forest managers doing things they would not otherwise have done, or are they simply complying with the law? Certification reassures markets, governments and the public that forest products – things like timber and wood chips – come from responsibly managed forests. It can influence procurement, market access, corporate reputation and public trust. In contested areas like native forestry for timber production, certification becomes part of the evidence people use to judge whether forest management is acceptable. But some stakeholders argue that existing laws don’t go far enough to ensure environmental and social outcomes, making certification’s contribution beyond the legal baseline particularly important. So, we need to know whether certification is simply a compliance badge or whether it produces real environmental, social and governance benefits. The answer is mixed. Certification has introduced regular third-party audits, more formal planning systems and stronger expectations around transparency. These are not trivial benefits. Certification can make forest managers document decisions more carefully, respond to concerns from conservation groups and demonstrate how environmental risks are being managed. It can show whether procedures are followed, non-conformities are identified (e.g. inadequate protection of threatened species habitat), and corrective actions are taken. But that is not the same as showing whether biodiversity, habitat quality, regeneration, water values or ecosystem conditions are improving over decades because of certification. When it comes to long-term ecological outcomes, the evidence is much thinner than many people might expect. That doesn’t mean certification has no ecological value. It means we often lack the right kind of evidence to prove it. Are we ticking a box or making a difference? Imagine a forest manager is certified and complies with all relevant legal and certification requirements. At a later date, spatial analysis might show that parts of the certified forest overlap with areas identified by researchers as having high conservation value, meaning timber harvesting, even when certified, should not have occurred in that ecosystem. While this doesn’t automatically prove a breach in certification rules or a failure of certification itself, it highlights that the legislation doesn’t go as far as some conservation scientists, communities or advocates think it should. At best, certification can strengthen procedural recognition. Whether it supports more substantive change depends on how forest managers implement those requirements and whether they track those changes. The missing piece in Australia is long-term monitoring. Asking the right questions Australia has excellent forest scientists, remote sensing capacity, and biodiversity expertise. We have also had important monitoring programs, including FORESTCHECK in Western Australia, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval Monitoring Program in New South Wales and Victoria’s forest monitoring systems. But these efforts have not yet been brought together into a national research agenda capable of testing forestry sustainability – or certification additionality. At best, certification can strengthen procedural recognition. Whether it supports more substantive change depends on how forest managers implement those requirements and whether they track those changes. The missing piece in Australia is long-term monitoring. Asking the right questions Australia has excellent forest scientists, remote sensing capacity, and biodiversity expertise. We have also had important monitoring programs, including FORESTCHECK in Western Australia, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval Monitoring Program in New South Wales and Victoria’s forest monitoring systems. But these efforts have not yet been brought together into a national research agenda capable of testing forestry sustainability – or certification additionality. That means comparing harvested and unharvested forests, forests under different regulatory settings, areas before and after changes in certification standards, and forests managed for fire, drought, invasive species or climate change. This work is difficult. But without it, claims about sustainability will remain vulnerable. Certification as an opportunity, not an obligation The forest industry also has to be candid about this. For decades, certification has been used to demonstrate that forest management is responsible and independently audited. But it could have been used more strategically to generate public evidence about ecological performance. Certification should help forest managers move from “trust us, we’re certified” to “here is what long-term monitoring shows”. But even that won’t end Australia’s forest wars. Some conflicts are about values, not only evidence, and some oppose native forest harvesting in principle. But better evidence will improve the debate. For forest policy makers and research funders, this is the opportunity – Australia needs a proactive forest research agenda. Certification should not be treated only as a market instrument. It should also be treated as infrastructure for public learning. The additionality question is deliberately uncomfortable. Are we certifying forests simply to comply with the law? Or are we using certification to drive measurable improvements in forest condition, transparency, accountability and public trust? The answer should be the latter, and forestry needs the evidence to prove it. This article was first published in Melbourne University’s Pursuit magazine (https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/). You can read the original there. Dr Alex Van Der Meer Simo Is a Research Fellow in Forest Certification, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne

The post Opinion: Dr Alex Van Der Meer Simo – what are the benefits of forest certification appeared first on Timberbiz.