Australian timber industry news

Metsä Group and Qutwo, a Finnish AI and quantum technology company, are launching a collaboration aimed at deepening the use of artificial intelligence at Metsä and bringing next-generation AI into the core processes of the forest industry. Source: Timberbiz Next-generation AI refers to solutions that can take into account a broader range of variables and simultaneously optimise complex systems. “Metsä has been leveraging AI for a long time in its production facilities and wood supply operations. Our partnership with Qutwo takes this to the next level. Together we can address increasingly complex challenges and develop new intelligence to support our business,” said Anni Rasinen, Director, Business AI at Metsä. Qutwo will provide Metsä with its AI and quantum platform, Qutwo OS. The aim is to increase the value derived from wood raw material and strengthen Metsä’s international competitiveness. “The competitiveness of European industry will depend on how quickly it develops next-generation AI. Metsä Group’s commitment to long-term development together with Qutwo creates capabilities that neither could build alone. This allows European companies to be at the forefront of technology rather than follow others,” said Peter Sarlin, Founder and Chairman of Qutwo. The first initiatives focus on improving productivity in mill converting lines and optimising wood procurement. In wood procurement, AI will enable better use of multiple factors at the same time, helping to guide the use of wood more efficiently from forest to mill and increase overall value. “Our goal is to significantly increase the value derived from wood and reduce variable costs between the forest and the mill. Together with Qutwo, we are advancing completely new types of development with considerable potential,” said Juha Jumppanen, EVP, Wood Supply and Forest Services at Metsä. Metsä already uses AI, for example, in predicting forest damage, pricing wood trade and silviculture services, and in valuing forest biodiversity. At the mills, the collaboration focuses particularly on improving productivity in tissue converting lines. Converting is the stage in the production process where the base paper from the paper machine is processed into finished tissue products. AI enables the optimization of the production process, improving efficiency, increasing production capacity, and strengthening Metsä’s competitiveness in the market. Qutwo has rapidly emerged as one of Europe’s most interesting players in AI and quantum computing. The collaboration with Metsä demonstrates how next-generation AI can solve demanding industrial challenges and help build sustainable competitive advantage for European industry in global markets.

The post Qutwo to provide Metsa with its AI to increase wood value appeared first on Timberbiz.

In 1943, as World War II made materials like steel scarcer, the US Navy turned to timber to construct airship hangars at Moffett Federal Airfield, located at what is now NASA Ames Research Centre. Source: Timberbiz The structures were built in just 208 days using Douglas fir, widely assumed to have been harvested from the forests of the Pacific Northwest, and became part of a strategic West Coast hub for blimp operations during the war. In 2014, Planetary Ventures, a subsidiary of Google, entered a long-term lease of the airfield and assumed management of the historic hangars. Though Hangar 3 stood for over 80 years, the structure was compromised by substantial engineering challenges. Ultimately, ongoing efforts to repair and preserve the historic structure could not prevent progressing damage, prompting the difficult decision to remove the now hazardous hangar. A typical demolition would have routed this historic timber to the landfill, but Google’s sustainability and real estate teams saw a different opportunity: salvaging the wood for reuse in modern buildings. Once engineering assessments confirmed Hangar 3 couldn’t be preserved in its original form, the question became how best to remove the structure. Typical demolition wasn’t an option: the wood within the structure had been exposed to a variety of chemicals, creating a high risk of contamination. So, the 1,000-foot-long structure would have to be systematically dismantled. Teams used high-reach excavators to surgically disassemble the hangar, salvaging approximately 119,000 board feet of the most structurally sound Douglas fir boards (roughly 178 tons of material). Some of this salvaged wood wasshipped back up to Spokane, Washington, for evaluation and remanufacturing and is now destined for a Google mass timber office prototype in the Dalles, Oregon. Reclaiming used lumber on such a large scale is often dismissed as unpredictable, labour-intensive and costly. Modern building codes assume builders are using freshly milled lumber, so there’s no easy path to certify reclaimed wood. In the absence of a roadmap, the Hangar 3 project team created their own. They consulted wood scientists, structural engineers and mass timber manufacturers to rigorously test the structural integrity of the salvaged timber. After planing the contaminated outer layers, testing yielded incredible news: the historic Douglas fir still possessed robust, predictable structural strength. In the end, approximately 66,000 board feet of the material successfully met the rigorous requirements for mass timber remanufacturing. The Hangar 3 journey underscores the opportunity presented by deconstruction and reuse. It shows that if we can view our existing physical assets as “material banks” for future uses, then we can minimize the economic and environmental costs of purchasing new materials. The timber salvaged from Hangar 3 is getting a new life in showcase installations across Google campuses in the Bay Area, California, and for mass timber construction at supporting office facilities on Google data centre campuses. You can read more about this, there is a white paper Reclaiming Structural Wood at Scale: From Airship Hangar to Portfolio Reuse at https://sustainability.google/reports/circularity-reclaiming-structural-wood/  

The post Google repurposes Douglas Fir from a WWII hangar appeared first on Timberbiz.

Trees in China that were planted as part of huge reforestation projects appear to grow faster than those in natural forests, a new study finds. This is possibly because the reforestation trees are responding more strongly to the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, scientists say. Source: LiveScience China is quickly turning green. The country has planted 66 billion trees since 1978, with plans for 34 billion more by the middle of this century, as part of its “Great Green Wall” to slow the spread of the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts. These new forests absorb large amounts of CO2, but it is unclear exactly how they differ from natural ones, study first author Yuhang Luo, a landscape ecologist at Peking University in Shenzhen, China, told Live Science. Luo and his colleagues set out to study how differences between natural and planted forests, including species diversity, tree density and age, might affect how the forests respond to rising CO2 and climate change. “Planted forests are widely used in climate mitigation strategies, but most global ecosystem models do not distinguish between forest types or represent age-related dynamics adequately,” Luo said. “So, we felt it was important to clarify how these factors interact — not just for scientific understanding, but also for improving the models and assumptions that underpin real-world forest policy and carbon accounting.” Planted forests are those purposefully created by humans, such as those in the Great Green Wall. Natural forests, on the other hand, grow without human intervention. The researchers used satellite data to track leaf area index, a measure of canopy density and a key driver of carbon uptake, to determine how fast the different forest types grew, and found a striking difference: Planted forests increased their leaf area 66% faster than natural ones. Most of that difference was due to planted forests being, on average, much younger than the natural ones, and young trees grow faster than old ones. But even when comparing forests of similar age and growing conditions, the planted ones still grew 4.6% faster, and the difference was even more pronounced in mixed and evergreen forests. This is largely due to how planted forests are managed. They tend to feature fast-growing species like eucalyptus and poplar and are often actively managed, with people removing competing vegetation and even fertilizing them. These interventions reduce competition for light, water, and nutrients, amplifying the fertilization effect of rising atmospheric CO2. This discrepancy peaks in planted forests when trees are around 30 to 40 years old and then declines noticeably after age 40. In contrast, natural forests grow more slowly but steadily, so have an advantage over the long term. “Planted forests can be a powerful short-term tool for carbon uptake, but this advantage is temporary,” Luo said. “For long-term carbon storage and resilience, natural forests remain irreplaceable.” Kevin Dsouza, who worked on reforestation models during his postdoctoral research at the University of Waterloo and was not involved in the new study, said the results make intuitive sense, as the sprawling leaves of young, fast-growing trees could lead to increased carbon take-up. But he is not sure that leaf area is the best measurement for tracking growth and carbon sequestration. “It’s not a bad proxy, but it doesn’t give you the full picture,” he said. “The canopy is just the top of the tree, and the carbon is stored in all sorts of different places like wood, bark, roots and soil.” Another study of Chinese forests found that natural forests actually accumulate more carbon above ground than planted ones in their early years, Dsouza pointed out, so these results should be considered carefully alongside other factors. Luo said the findings show that most global climate models are missing something when it comes to understanding how various forest types play a role in carbon sequestration and climate change. “Land use management works in more subtle and specific ways than we had assumed,” he said. “It is not just about planting more trees. It is also about when you plant them, what species you choose, and how you manage them over time.” Luo hopes these findings will help guide reforestation efforts, to ensure we get the most benefit from planting new forests to help mitigate the effects of climate change. “Our work offers a more practical guide for forest-based climate action: when to plant, what to plant, how long the benefits last, and what current models are getting wrong. We hope that helps people make better decisions,” he said.  

The post Chinese reforestation trees growing faster than natural forests appeared first on Timberbiz.

Traceability was one of the strongest themes to emerge from the sold-out Threads of Tomorrow Summit in Auckland, New Zealand in June, highlighting the growing importance of transparent supply chains and credible verification of material origins and impacts. Source: Timberbiz FSC Australia and New Zealand joined industry leaders across the fashion and textiles sector at the event. The event brought together more than 220 people from across New Zealand’s fibre, textile and fashion value chain, from growers and farmers through to manufacturers, brands and retailers, for a day of discussion about where the industry is heading and what it will take to get there. Presented by Fashion & Textiles New Zealand, an FSC promotional licence holder, the summit was structured around three themes: Place, Possibility and Momentum. The morning began with a look at the current state of New Zealand’s fashion and textile sector, before shifting to discussions around design, storytelling, circularity and supply chain integrity. The final session focused on what comes next for the industry, including building business resilience, improving transparency and traceability, and finding new value in waste streams and by-products. As part of the Summit’s Innovation Hub, FSC showcased products from promotional licence holders and certificate holders, including Kazzi Kovers, Step One, Wattle Accessories, Sandos and Merry People. The display highlighted the many innovative ways forest-based materials are already being used across the sector and provided an opportunity to discuss responsible sourcing, certification and supply chain transparency with attendees. Trademarks and Partnerships Manager of FSC ANZ, Jennifer Nicita, said it was energising to connect with such passionate and driven voices from across the industry, all working towards a shared vision. “These collaborations reinforce the shift towards a more transparent and traceable industry, and a positive future for responsible fashion,” she said. FSC ANZ exhibited alongside other industry leaders in this space, including Wool Impact, Trust Trace, Inter-Weave and Wool Yarns, which brought a strong mix of perspectives across fibres, materials and traceability solutions.

The post FSC’s threads of tomorrow appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forest & Wood Products Australia (FWPA) Chief Executive Officer Andrew Leighton has concluded his tenure with the organisation following his decision to take on a new position as Chief Executive Officer of OneFortyOne Plantations. Source: Timberbiz To ensure continuity of leadership and operations, the FWPA board has appointed Craig Taylor as Acting Chief Executive Officer, effective from 1 July 2026, until a permanent CEO is appointed. Under Mr Leighton’s leadership, FWPA has strengthened its strategic focus, aligned investment priorities with member needs, and progressed key initiatives to support industry growth, market development and long-term research impact. He has played a key role in shaping a more integrated, industry-led approach to engagement, ensuring FWPA delivers clear, coordinated outcomes across research, marketing and stakeholder engagement. “It has been a privilege to work alongside such a committed team and an industry that is deeply invested in its future. I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together to strengthen collaboration, sharpen our focus and position FWPA to deliver meaningful outcomes for members,” Mr Leighton said. “I leave knowing the organisation is well placed, with a clear direction and strong foundations to continue building impact for the industry.” FWPA wishes to thank Andrew for his leadership and contribution to the organisation and the broader industry during his time as CEO. “Andrew’s achievements while he has been CEO are significant but most importantly, he moved the culture of the organisation towards one of service to the industry, our levy payers and members. The Board wishes him every success at OneFortyOne Plantations,” FWPA Chair Craig Taylor thanked Andrew said. The board’s search for FWPA’s next CEO is progressing, with applications now closed. The recruitment process is being managed by a subcommittee of the board with assistance from Pacific Search Partners. FWPA remains focused on delivering value to members and industry stakeholders and looks forward to updating stakeholders on the appointment process in due course.

The post Leadership transition at FWPA appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forestry Australia has raised concerns following the Australian Government’s approval of the Improved Native Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests Method, warning that the method creates risks that could undermine confidence in Australia’s carbon market. Source: Timberbiz The method was approved by Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Josh Wilson and will help fund the New South Wales Great Koala National, by stopping native timber harvesting in multiple-use public native forests. Forestry Australia President Dr Michelle Freeman said the organisation is very supportive of high-integrity carbon crediting for native forests, but that the method as approved had significant problems. “Forestry Australia strongly supports the development of high-integrity carbon methods for native forests. Our concern is that this method, as approved, falls short in a number of areas, including additionality, leakage and low ability to generate carbon outcomes.” At a time when media reports are highlighting that native hardwood previously sourced from Victoria is now being supplied from Tasmania, it is deeply concerning that the method will substantially underestimate the real leakage that occurs when harvesting stops. “If approved methods fail to fully account for leakage, or do not properly distinguish between genuine carbon abatement and policy-driven land-use change, such as in the case of the Great Koala National Park, then confidence in the ACCU Scheme is put at risk. Carbon markets must be grounded in science, transparency and integrity.” Forestry Australia also has concerns regarding the future stewardship of these forests. “Although the method allows for broader management activities in principle, the relevant provisions are so restrictive that they would, in effect, largely prevent active forest management for fire risk mitigation, forest health and long-term resilience. Despite the name, the method does not represent genuine improved native forest management.” Healthy, resilient and actively managed forests play an important role in storing carbon, reducing emissions and supporting biodiversity, cultural, social and economic outcomes. Improved outcomes could come from a range of evidence-based activities rather than from ceasing a single activity, Dr Freeman said. “Healthy forests require active management. Improved outcomes can come from restoration, ecological thinning, cultural burning, fuel management, assisted regeneration, more selective silviculture and other evidence-based interventions. Australia needs a carbon method that supports active, adaptive and science-based forest management across all tenures, not a one-off mechanism focused on stopping one activity in a very small part of the native forest estate.” Forestry Australia strongly supports investment in native forest management and the development of credible carbon methods that recognise the climate value of healthy, resilient forests, and has called for the risks in the approved method to be transparently addressed so that the ACCU Scheme can maintain the confidence of the market and the community.

The post New native forest carbon scheme must be grounded in science and integrity appeared first on Timberbiz.

The Federal Government’s new carbon credits method for ‘protecting’ native forests will allow fossil fuel companies to greenwash their climate pollution and expand coal and gas production, according to The Australia Institute. Source: Timberbiz A new carbon accounting method, proposed to fund the creation of the Great Koala National Park in NSW, pits forest and biodiversity protection against acting on climate change, when those objectives are inseparable. “The science doesn’t say that it is okay for us to approve new gas and coal mines, as long as we save some trees at the same time. However, under this Great Koala National Park offsets scheme, that is exactly what is being proposed,” said Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute. The Australia Institute says its research has shown that: Half of Australians (48%) agree that so-called carbon offsets are greenwash. Three in five Australians (62%) agree that so-called carbon offsets help polluters look like they are reducing emissions even when they aren’t. Three in five Australians (61%) say that stopping new gas and coal projects is an effective way to reduce emissions.   “It is simply climate denial to pretend that saving a forest can ‘offset’ the harm of approving a new gas or coal mine and expanding fossil fuel pollution,” Dr Denniss said. “Australia institute research has shown there is no shortage of offsets boondoggles in Australia, but there is a shortage of the bravery required to confront the fossil fuel industry and their friends in the carbon offset industry. “It is obscene to suggest that the only way we can save native forests is to allow the fossil fuel industry to use those forests to greenwash their growing emissions.” The Australia Institute says it provides intellectual and policy leadership and conducts research that drives the public debate and secures policy outcomes that make Australia better. The institutes motto is research that matters.

The post Forest offset plan will allow greenwashing and expansion of coal and gas appeared first on Timberbiz.

Federal Member for Lyne, Alison Penfold MP, has condemned Chris Bowen’s approval of the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) methodology, saying it will accelerate job losses across the NSW North Coast while fundamentally undermining the integrity of Australia’s carbon credit scheme. Source: Timberbiz Ms Penfold said the Minister’s decision clears the way for the NSW Labor Government to generate millions of dollars in Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) by locking up State Forests as part of the proposed Great Koala National Park. “Workers have already lost their jobs because of the NSW Government’s harvesting moratorium, and this decision will only encourage further permanent job losses across the North Coast,” Ms Penfold said. “The people paying the price are not politicians in Sydney or Canberra. They are timber workers, contractors, truck drivers, sawmill employees, mechanics, small businesses and regional families who have built their lives around a sustainable forestry industry. “The Minister was required under the legislation to consider the likely economic and social impacts before approving this methodology. He concluded those impacts could be appropriately mitigated. I simply cannot fathom how he reached that conclusion. “Has Chris Bowen met the workers who have already lost their livelihoods? Has he spoken to the businesses already forced to make impossible decisions because of Labor’s forestry policies?” Ms Penfold said the decision represented far more than another environmental policy. “It fundamentally changes the purpose of Australia’s carbon credit scheme. “The ACCU scheme was established to encourage genuine new emissions reductions and carbon sequestration projects. It was never intended to reward governments for shutting down existing industries and then claiming carbon credits for doing so. “The Minns Government announced the Great Koala National Park first and then went looking for a funding source. Chris Bowen has now handed them exactly what they wanted. “Instead of encouraging genuinely additional carbon abatement, this methodology allows governments to monetise a political decision to prohibit an existing lawful activity. “If governments can create carbon credits simply by locking up productive land, we’ve fundamentally changed what Australia’s carbon market was created to do.” Ms Penfold said the decision reinforced a growing belief across regional Australia that Labor simply does not understand or value regional industries. “When Labor weighs up the interests of inner-city environmental activists against the livelihoods of people who live and work in regional Australia, regional communities lose every time. “This is another example of Labor treating regional industries as expendable while expecting country Australians to carry the economic burden.” Ms Penfold said the Minister’s decision was precisely the outcome she sought to prevent when she recently introduced her Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2026. “I introduced my Private Member’s Bill because I could see exactly where this was heading. “My Bill would have protected the integrity of the ACCU scheme by preventing governments from using Commonwealth carbon credits to fund political land-use decisions instead of genuine carbon abatement. “Unfortunately, Chris Bowen has chosen to ignore those concerns.” Ms Penfold called on the Government to immediately release the full advice, modelling and analysis provided by the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee that supported the Minister’s decision. “If Chris Bowen is confident this methodology satisfies the integrity standards required by law, he should release every piece of advice that underpinned his decision.” She also called on the Parliament to disallow the methodology. “The Parliament now has the opportunity to stop this dangerous precedent before lasting damage is done to Australia’s carbon markets and before Commonwealth carbon credits are used to subsidise a policy that has already cost North Coast jobs and threatens many more. “I urge every Member and Senator to stand with regional Australia, restore the integrity of the ACCU scheme and support the disallowance of this regulation.”

The post Improved Native Forest Management scheme is no improvement at all appeared first on Timberbiz.

Four of Australia’s most senior forest scientists have questioned the evidence underpinning native forest harvesting bans. In a new paper in the peer-reviewed journal Australian Forestry, they argue that closures of commercial native forest harvesting on public land in Victoria and Western Australia, and the push to extend such bans into New South Wales and Tasmania, rest on contested science. Source: Timberbiz The lead author is Dr John Raison, a former Chief Research Scientist at CSIRO who has spent nearly five decades studying native forests. He is joined by former CSIRO scientists Dr Sadanandan Nambiar AO, Dr Glen Kile, and University of Melbourne hydrologist Associate Professor Leon Bren. Between them, the authors bring more than 200 years of experience in sustainable forest management. The paper examines the scientific literature on six common claims made against native forest harvesting, spanning forest loss, water, fire and wildlife. They find a far more complex and nuanced picture than what is commonly portrayed to the public and in political discourse. Much of the science drawn upon to justify native forest harvesting closures comes from a singular narrow viewpoint that does not encompass or recognise the breadth of local and landscape-scale research that provides a counter-perspective. Blanket bans on harvesting, the authors warn, are only deepening the challenges Australia already confronts regarding maintaining the skills, capacity and resourcing needed to manage forests for their ongoing health and resilience and to meet domestic demand for wood products through locally sourced wood products. Australian Forestry managing editor Dr Mohammad Ghaffariyan said the paper brought together more than two centuries of combined research experience to ask a straightforward question about what the published evidence shows. “Australian Forestry exists to put work of this calibre in front of the people making decisions about our forests. Readers will weigh the findings for themselves, but the debate is better for having the evidence on the table,” he said.

The post Former CSIRO scientists question native forest bans appeared first on Timberbiz.

Dr John Raison, Former Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO penned an open letter to the managing director of the ABC. This is that letter. The management of Australia’s vast and diverse native forests, understandably, is open to a range of views and often conflicting suggestions and actions. The provision of balanced information to enable informed public discussion would help the community, and the ABC should play a constructive role. Unfortunately, the recent ABC 4 Corners program [‘Timber turmoil’, 22 June] was yet another catering for the anti-forestry campaign, designed and delivered accordingly. Understandably, it has been widely criticised as biased, unfair and factually flawed by many stakeholders. It was seriously deficient in reporting on the science underpinning sustainable management, including harvesting, of Australia’s native forests. We are advised that the ABC was provided with relevant scientific background papers and offers from senior scientists to be interviewed – but to no avail. We recently published a detailed scientific analysis and rebuttal of the main claims and allegations made by activists against the harvesting of native forests (Raison et al., 2026). The program repeated many of the false claims and ignored all alternative science-based information Prof Lindenmayer (author of a book entitled ‘The Forest Wars’, 2024) had several appearances and was interviewed (and used to promote the program). He repeated his well-publicised (including via several ABC programs) claims including that harvesting is accelerating the loss of old habitat trees and other biodiversity values, is increasing bushfire risks and threatens water supply. He accused state forest management agencies of ‘rape and pillage’ of native forests. These serious allegations were left unquestioned by the presenter. All the claims above have been strongly challenged or debunked by critical scientific research and analysis published by several academics and researchers, and by experienced forest managers. The aging process and repeated wildfires are the main factors driving loss of old trees, not harvesting. Detailed studies over extensive areas have shown that harvesting does not increase either the severity or area burnt by wildfires at the landscape scale because harvested areas are small and dispersed. Fire weather, heavy fuel loads and steep topography are the main drivers of extensive wildfires. Good planning and regulated harvesting are effective in protecting water values – repeated claims that harvest of mountain ash forests is a threat to Melbourne’s water are based on flawed and outdated modelling. In this program and on several occasions previously, the ABC seeks only the opinions and conclusions on native forestry from one academic source, as though Australia has no other science-based expertise spanning our diverse native forests and how to sustainably manage them. The extensive on-ground experience of many hundreds of dedicated forest managers across the country seems to matter little. This skewed approach is a disservice to the community and does not reflect well on our national broadcaster. The program used emotive techniques to create a negative image of native forest harvesting. Thus, we saw the reporter and Prof. Lindenmayer standing on large stumps to create the impression that cutting down old-growth trees is common when in fact almost all areas now harvested are regrowth originating after earlier harvesting or wildfire. Nationally, about 95 % of current harvesting uses lower impact selective removal trees – but background images used in the program mostly show intensive higher impact harvesting operations. Then an activist spotlights to locate a glider and argues that their identification of ‘den’ trees will save gliders from harvesting. No mention is made of the considerable efforts made by the Forestry Corporation in pre-harvest surveys, and in modifying harvest plans and practices to protect endangered species. First class long-term research and monitoring by scientists from the NSW Forestry Corporation, the NSW Environment Department and CSIRO which shows that koala numbers are increasing, and that regulated sustainable harvests have no impact on their populations is not even mentioned. The activist from the Wilderness Society made the usual allegation, without providing any evidence, that harvesting is destroying forests and creating major threats to biodiversity, especially old-growth forests. The program made much of so-called “timber turmoil”! At the hub of the story was the discovery (by the ABC and anti-forestry ‘detectives’) that a small quantity of logs from Tasmanian public forests are being sold and transported to Victoria for processing. What is improper or wrong about that? The logs are being legally sourced from sustainably managed, independently certified, forests and being converted into high value, strong, long lasting (storing carbon) and beautiful wood products which we use. Those industries support rural economies and jobs for hundreds of fellow Australians and is exactly what we should do and promote. Such activities are internationally recognised as one effective way to support climate change mitigation. The allegations made by Prof. Lindenmayer and by the Wilderness Society that Victorian taxpayers are subsidising a ‘zombie’ industry are flimsy and highly disrespectful. Broad claims and campaigns against native forestry, including calls for a total ban on harvesting, are largely based on misinformation, selective or flawed use of science, misplaced focus on iconic fauna and exaggerated accounts of occasional management failures. Such campaigns hinder the development of better policies and practices that can benefit both the environment and the community. What we urgently need is not more “Forest Wars” or one-sided activism, but science-based forest policies that support informed conservation and enable sustainable forest management for multiple forest values and community benefits.   Dr John Raison, Former Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Dr Sadanandan Nambiar AO, Former Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO References: D.B. Lindenmayer 2024. The forest wars: the ugly truth about what’s happening in our tall forests. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin J. Raison, E. K. S. Nambiar, G. A. Kile & L. J. Bren. 2026 Australia’s native forests can be sustainably managed for wood production together with other important forest values. Australian Forestry, DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2026.2663997

The post Forest wars – an open letter to the ABC’s managing director Hugh Marks appeared first on Timberbiz.

For more than 25 years, the IKEA-launched Sow a Seed project has contributed to the restoration of rainforests in Malaysian Borneo. Now a new phase, the Living Rainforest Restoration Lab, has been launched shifting focus toward research and knowledge sharing on these vital ecosystems. Source: Timberbiz The journey started in 1998, when IKEA’s founder Ingvar Kamprad initiated what would become Sow a Seed; a long standing and large-scale restoration project in the rainforests of Borneo. Jointly headed by SLU and the Malaysian Sabah Foundation, Sow a Seed is one of the world’s longest standing restorations of its kind. “This program is exceptional in its commitment to long-term impact. By combining a rare 25-year legacy of restoration work with a funding model spanning two consecutive decades, it creates a unique platform for generating knowledge that simply cannot emerge from short-term research,” said Petter Axelsson, researcher at SLU within the Sow a Seed-program. Large areas of rainforest in Borneo have been destroyed through irresponsible logging and wildfires in the 1980s and ’90s. But through the Sow a Seed-program they have come alive again. More than five million trees of more than 90 different indigenous tree species have repopulated the 18 500-ha area of rainforest. Wildlife has now returned. Borneo elephants, clouded leopards and orangutans have been spotted in the regrown forests, and today the area has been granted the highest level of forest protection in Malaysia. “There is growing awareness of the urgent need to halt biodiversity loss, and Sow a Seed is an important example of what’s possible. Over the past 28 years, it has not only helped restore rainforest and biodiversity but also built valuable knowledge along the way. “These insights demonstrate that regeneration is achievable and that what is learned here can help guide the recovery of other degraded rainforests in the future,” said Lena Julle, Chief Sustainability Officer, Inter IKEA Group. These achievements are evidence that regeneration and biodiversity restoration of even badly damaged rainforest is possible. The launch of the Living Rainforest Restoration Lab then marks a new chapter where focus shifts from restoration to deepened research and to sharing the newfound knowledge. “We aim to empower policymakers and the growing number of restoration practitioners with better knowledge, so that more rainforests can be restored more efficiently,” said Ulrik Ilstedt, program leader at SLU. IKEA will fund the research program for 10 years. It comprises 24 projects jointly led by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and Malaysian universities and is one of SLU’s largest ongoing research initiatives. As a real-world research platform, the Lab will generate knowledge on how degraded tropical rainforests recover over time and which methods deliver the strongest long-term results. By combining long-term field data, restored landscapes, and scientific expertise, it provides insights into biodiversity recovery, ecosystem functions, and climate benefits, including carbon storage, water regulation, and soil health. “A substantial part of the program is dedicated to spreading the knowledge of best practices. The 24 research projects in this program will therefore make a significant contribution to our global targets to conserve biodiversity and mitigate climate change on a substantially larger scale than the initial project,” said Ulrik Ilstedt.

The post A new phase for the IKEA Sow a Seed project appeared first on Timberbiz.

The forestry sector in Fiji will receive FJ$25.7 million in the 2026–2027 National Budget to support growth, create opportunities, and increase benefits for resource owners. Source: FBC Fiji This includes FJ$2.5 million for the Commercial Maritime Pine Subsidy Program, which will, in turn, help pine growers in Kadavu, Lomaiviti, and Lau with transport costs to markets and improve their income. Minister for Finance Esrom Immanuel announced that at least FJ$3.7 million has been allocated to the Fiji Pine Trust Extension Program to support harvesting, replanting, nursery work, and maritime activities. He adds that a total of FJ$2 million has been allocated to build the Wainiyabia Jetty in Lakeba, a further FJ$1.5 million allocated to the Maritime Pine Development Program to support pine activities in Kadavu, Moce, Moala, Levuka, and Lakeba to cater for harvesting, timber processing, facilities, and training. Immanuel says the REDD+ Program will commence in this financial year, with FJ$500,000 allocated to promote sustainable forest management, reduce deforestation, and help Fiji access international climate funding. He further announced that Fiji Mahogany Development has been allocated FJ$196,000 to support the growth and sustainable management of the mahogany industry. To encourage investment, he says the government will introduce a five-year tax holiday for businesses investing at least FJ$5 million in new mahogany processing facilities. Immanuel adds that the incentive aims to boost local processing, create jobs and increase the value of Fiji’s forestry products and add value to Fiji’s forestry products.

The post Fiji’s forest sector receives funding boost to open opportunities appeared first on Timberbiz.

A proposed change to England’s fire-safety guidance could make it much harder to use timber in load-bearing structures above 11 metres. Source: Fordaq The consultation on changes to Approved Document B, the fire-safety guidance used under the Building Regulations in England, closes on 1 July 2026. Under the draft text, load-bearing elements of structure in buildings with a storey more than 11 metres above ground level should be made from materials or products achieving at least class A2-s3, d2. Most structural timber and mass timber products do not normally meet this reaction-to-fire classification. The proposal would move the debate beyond external walls and cladding. It could affect the structural frame itself in a much wider group of mid-rise residential, commercial and mixed-use buildings. This matters because mass timber and CLT are increasingly used in projects where developers want faster construction and lower embodied carbon compared with concrete or steel. The draft guidance still allows an alternative fire-engineered route. However, industry critics argue that this can add cost, delay and uncertainty, especially for standard mid-rise schemes where clients and insurers prefer a clearer approval path. For the timber industry, the main risk is not an immediate ban, but a practical one: if the guidance makes approvals more difficult, designers may choose concrete or steel earlier in the project. That would reduce the role of mass timber in one of its most important growth segments.

The post Proposed change to England’s fire safety a risk to mass timber appeared first on Timberbiz.

New Forests has acquired 44,200 acres of forestry assets in Washington State. The property, which was acquired from Campbell Global, is a plantation forest consisting primarily of Douglas-fir and western hemlock. Source: Timberbiz It is located near domestic processing infrastructure and key log export facilities, supporting strong market access for timber products. Additionally, the forest supports a diverse ecological landscape including the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, North American black bear, black-tailed deer, and Roosevelt elk. Extensive natural vegetation, river and creek systems, and wildlife presence create opportunities to deliver meaningful conservation and biodiversity enhancement outcomes. New Forests intends to maintain an active harvest program while exploring opportunities for carbon project development, with potential other revenues from conservation easements and renewable energy. The acquisition represents a significant placement milestone and expands New Forests’ footprint across the US which includes assets in Northern California, Southwestern Oregon and the US South, the largest forestry region in the world. “This quality asset provides us with scaled entry into the Pacific Northwest forestry market, which is the second largest forestry market in the US,” Jeff Briggs, Managing Director, New Forests North America, said. “It aligns with our overall thesis that sustainable forest management in North America has the potential to deliver attractive investment returns while positively contributing to the local economy and environment.”

The post New Forests acquires plantation forest in Washington appeared first on Timberbiz.

The National Centre for Timber Durability and Design Life – Annual Showcase 2026 will be held at UniSC Moreton Bay on 9 July 2026 from 8:30am. Source: Timberbiz This in-person event will highlight the latest research, innovation and industry engagement across the Centre’s work in timber durability, design life, circularity and sustainable construction. Attendees will have the opportunity to hear from Centre researchers/students/partners and connect with industry professionals and take part in discussions on current challenges and future directions. Hosted at UniSC Moreton Bay, this year’s showcase will also give guests the chance to experience the campus and learn more about its notable mass timber buildings. More information at: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/national-centre-for-timber-durability-and-design-life-annual-showcase-2026-tickets-1987465010347

The post National Centre for Timber Durability annual showcase appeared first on Timberbiz.

The New Zealand Government has approved up to NZ$22.4 million in funding to support the rail component of Te Utanganui, a major new freight hub in Palmerston North, Rail Minister Winston Peters and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones announced. Source: Timberbiz Te Utanganui is an intermodal distribution hub in the lower North Island that links rail, road, air and sea. The Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) loan will support pre-construction and construction stages of the Bunnythorpe Regional Freight Hub, one of three projects in the wider Te Utanganui freight hub program. Te Utanganui is already one of New Zealand’s key freight and distribution hubs. Right in the middle of the North Island, with major road, rail and port links. It is perfectly placed to move goods faster, smarter and more efficiently around the country. The flow-on economic benefits from having a high-performing central rail hub will be felt at both a regional and national scale. “This is critical freight infrastructure that will improve efficiency using rail and roads, strengthen supply chains, and drive economic growth in the lower North Island,” Mr Peters said. “The full development will require investment commitments from freight and port companies, but this investment enables the next stage of works to develop and to continue to secure the landholdings to generate value for the taxpayer.” The funding will be delivered in stages, with NZ$1.9m allocated to pre-construction, followed by up to NZ$20.5m for construction once a robust business case and delivery plan have been confirmed. Mr Jones says government support was key to the project staying on track. “Early-stage infrastructure is expensive and doesn’t usually create immediate income for investors. Through the RIF, we have helped de-risk the wider project to enable private sector investors’ confidence to co-invest.” Mr Jones said. Led by Manawatū’s Central Economic Development Agency, the project will be delivered with local councils, iwi, KiwiRail and private co-funders. Around 100-300 jobs are expected to be created during early works on the freight hub, with significantly more jobs created over time as the wider Te Utanganui program develops, potentially supporting thousands of roles across logistics, manufacturing and related industries. “This funding helps address the infrastructure gap constraining economic growth in the lower North Island regions. It will unlock industrial land, build resilience and strengthen efficiency in the logistics network,” Mr Jones says. “This investment will enable our regions to grow and set them on a strong path for the future.”  

The post Government allocates funding to NZ freight hub appeared first on Timberbiz.

The Forest Harvesting Safety Project is setting new safety standards in Queensland’s state-owned native timber harvesting by aligning safety responsibilities and providing practical tools. Source: Timberbiz The Forest Harvesting Safety Project is setting new safety standards and requirements for those undertaking selective harvesting of native timber in state-owned native forests. A key component is the introduction of a Harvesting Safety Planning and Induction process to ensure that holders of supply agreements issued under the authority of the Forestry Act 1959 integrate safety into their operations and demonstrate what controls are in place to ensure safety on their harvesting area. To support the process, the Department of Primary Industries Queensland (DPI) collaborated with industry stakeholders to develop a safety plan template that can be tailored to meet the unique needs of individual businesses and harvesting areas. The template is available on Timber Queensland’s Work Health & Safety | Qld Native Forestry website. In February and March 2026, DPI engaged directly with more than 80% of supply agreement holders across Queensland. These one-on-one sessions provided guidance on the new requirements and demonstrated how to effectively use the safety plan template. Feedback was positive, with many participants expressing confidence in the safety plan template and the support provided by DPI throughout the roll-out. As a result, all active harvesting areas now have a harvesting safety plan developed by the supply agreement holder. This process will continue to be implemented for new harvesting areas to ensure consistent safety standards. The next stage of the Forest Harvesting Safety Project will focus on revising communication and responses to any identified safety issues. The Forest Harvesting Safety Project represents a significant step forward in promoting safety in Queensland’s native forestry sector. By working closely with agreement holders and contractors, DPI aims to create safer workplaces and improve outcomes for selective native timber harvesting activities.

The post Ensuring safety in native timber harvesting in Queensland appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forest & Wood Communities Australia says the ABC’s Four Corners program Timber Turmoil was a deeply disappointing and one-sided piece of journalism that failed timber workers, regional communities and the Australian public. Source: Timberbiz The program was framed from the outset as an anti-native forestry story. It did not genuinely investigate the complex trade-offs involved in Australian forest policy. It did not properly examine the consequences of closing well-regulated local timber supply. It did not properly test activist claims. It did not give adequate weight to timber workers, forestry families, regional towns, manufacturers, builders, forest scientists, economists or Australian consumers. Instead, Four Corners gave Australians a pre-determined narrative: activists were presented as guardians of the forest, while timber workers and manufacturers were framed as remnants of an industry that should disappear. That is not balanced journalism. It is advocacy dressed up as investigation. One of the clearest examples was the way Four Corners presented the financial position of Australian Sustainable Hardwoods. The ABC led viewers to believe Victorian taxpayers had put “more than $110 million into ASH”, bundling together a claimed $61 million government buy-in, $49 million described as compensation and transition funding, and a further $9 million in equipment and grants. ASH has now directly refuted that framing. According to ASH, it did not receive $61 million in 2017. It received $3 million, which was applied entirely to union-negotiated enhanced redundancy entitlements for workers, leaving ASH with a net position of zero. ASH has also stated that the $49 million was not a subsidy or discretionary payment to continue native forestry. It was a contractual failure-to-supply penalty arising from VicForests and the Victorian Government failing to meet legally agreed timber supply obligations. After tax, the actual amount received by ASH was $34 million, and ASH says every cent of that, and more, was reinvested into replacement stock, employment, plant, equipment and manufacturing capability. That is a very different story from the one Four Corners presented. What makes this even more concerning is that Four Corners brought in a forensic accounting expert to examine ASH’s books, yet the program still arrived at an assumption that ASH was being propped up by taxpayer money, rather than properly distinguishing between shareholder arrangements, redundancy entitlements, grants, tax treatment, contractual penalties and reinvestment into productive manufacturing assets. This was not a minor accounting nuance. It was central to the program’s narrative. The ABC effectively bundled unlike figures together to produce the largest and most damaging number possible, then used that number to support a pre-determined story about native forestry, taxpayer funding and industry decline. On ASH’s correction, the relevant failure-to-supply payment was not “more than $110 million”. It was $34 million after tax, paid because government policy destroyed ASH’s contracted supply base, and reinvested by ASH to keep a major regional manufacturer and employer operating. That distinction should have been obvious to any serious financial investigation. The fact it was missed, even after Four Corners sought accounting commentary, reinforces FWCA’s concern that the program was not a balanced investigation. It was a selective prosecution of the timber industry. The ABC also failed to properly explain that ASH is developing high-value Australian timber products, including engineered timber, from plantation and regrowth resources that might otherwise have been lower-value products or exports. That should have been a central part of any honest examination of the future of timber manufacturing in Australia. Four Corners also failed regional workers. It spoke about towns that depend on timber but barely allowed timber workers to speak for themselves. It spoke about regional communities but did not properly show what happens when mills close, jobs disappear, contractors leave, local supply chains collapse and bushfire capability is weakened. The same failure occurred in New South Wales. The program briefly acknowledged that the Great Koala National Park decision has removed 40% of wood supply in northern NSW but failed to properly examine what that means for mills, builders, housing affordability, regional employment or imports. It did not properly ask the obvious question: if Australians still want and need hardwood, where will it come from? That omission is extraordinary. FWCA has repeatedly warned that closing Australian native timber industries does not end timber demand. It simply shifts demand offshore. Recent import analysis highlighted by FWCA shows that 46% of timber traded in Australia is already imported, with a significant proportion of those imports coming from countries with high deforestation risk. For every 1,000 cubic metres of reduced Australian native forest sawlog production, around 813 cubic metres of solid wood products are imported to replace it. That is not an environmental win. That is environmental leakage. Australia has some of the most regulated forestry operations in the world. Our native forestry operates under strict rules, codes, prescriptions, regeneration requirements, threatened species protections, audits and public scrutiny. When that supply is shut down, the demand does not disappear. It is increasingly met by timber from countries where illegal logging, deforestation, weaker worker protections and weaker environmental governance are far greater risks. A serious Four Corners investigation would have asked whether locking up Australian forests while importing more timber from high-risk jurisdictions actually helps the global environment. It would have asked whether Australian consumers are being misled into thinking forest policy has no offshore consequences. It would have asked whether regional communities are being sacrificed for a political slogan. It did not. The ABC’s own editorial principles require accuracy, impartiality, fairness and a diversity of significant perspectives. This program fell well short. It elevated activist claims, used emotive framing, underplayed corrections and context, and failed to properly represent the people most affected by the policies being discussed. FWCA is calling on the ABC to correct the record, publish ASH’s corrections prominently, provide a proper right of reply to the timber industry, and commission a follow-up report that genuinely examines the full consequences of shutting down Australian native forestry. That follow-up must include timber workers, regional communities, sawmillers, contractors, builders, forest scientists, economists and Australian consumers. It must […]

The post Four Corners’ selective storytelling with dodgy accounting appeared first on Timberbiz.

The Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) has expressed disappointment following the Federal Government’s alarming decision to register a new carbon credit method, warning it undermines the integrity and credibility of Australia’s carbon market. Source: Timberbiz AFPA Acting CEO Richard Hyett said the decision prioritised politics over science and would damage the public confidence and transparency of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme. “For more than 18 months, the sustainable forest products industry has consistently raised serious concerns that this new method does not meet the ACCU scheme’s own requirements for integrity, transparency or additionality,” Mr Hyett said. “It’s fair to say, I am gutted by this controversial decision.” Mr Hyett said the method would generate carbon credits without delivering genuine additional emissions reductions or abatement and was based on science that has been challenged by independent experts and government scientists. “There is a complete lack of transparency surrounding this proposal, as key modelling, technical analysis and supporting documentation had not been released for proper public scrutiny,” Mr Hyett said. “The method – developed by the Australian National University (ANU) – also fails to adequately account for issues such as bushfire risk, carbon leakage to overseas markets and the long-term financial liabilities it could create for taxpayers.” Mr Hyett warned the method could also flood the carbon market with low-integrity ACCUs, reducing confidence in legitimate carbon projects and weakening investment in genuine climate action. “This short-sighted decision risks undermining Australia’s sustainable multiple-use public production forests, which already deliver environmental, economic and climate benefits through active forest management,” Mr Hyett said. “The only apparent beneficiary of this method is the NSW Government, which wants someone else to pay to fund their election commitment to develop the Great Koala National Park.” “Australia’s carbon credit scheme was designed to encourage real carbon abatement and high-integrity environmental outcomes, and it’s important the scheme remains focused on delivering genuine emissions reductions rather than being used to retrospectively fund policy decisions.”

The post Industry raises alarm over carbon credit approval appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forest & Wood Communities Australia says the Federal Government’s new Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forest methodology contains serious carbon-integrity and economic flaws, and risks rewarding governments for shutting down sustainable regional industries. Source: Timberbiz Forest & Wood Communities Australia has warned that the new Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests carbon methodology risks issuing Australian Carbon Credit Units for abatement that may not exist in the atmosphere, while undermining one of regional NSW’s most important renewable manufacturing supply chains. FWCA Chair and Director Steve Dobbyns said the methodology is being presented as a climate and economic opportunity, but in practice it could reward governments for closing sustainable public native forest industries while pushing timber production, jobs, emissions and biodiversity impacts somewhere else. “This is not climate action if it simply shifts timber production offshore or into other supply chains with higher environmental risks,” Mr Dobbyns said. “The atmosphere does not care whether emissions are moved across a state border, into private forests, into imported timber, or into substitute materials like steel, concrete and plastics. If the wood is still needed, the carbon impact has to be counted honestly.” The INFM method recognises leakage risk and includes deductions for harvesting in excluded areas, increased harvesting in other public native forests, increased harvesting in private native forests, and broader indirect leakage. However, the most important category – indirect leakage, which is intended to account for emissions and removals outside the project area – is capped at 40%. Mr Dobbyns said that cap is the central problem. “Recent work by Venn et al. found that reduced domestic native forest harvesting has been a structural driver of Australia’s growing import dependency, with a long-run timber harvest leakage rate of 81.3%,” he said. “In plain English, for every 1,000 cubic metres of native forest timber production removed from Australia, the modelling indicates Australia imports approximately 813 cubic metres of solid wood products from overseas in the long run. “That is not a minor leakage effect. That is most of the timber being replaced through imports.” The Venn et al. analysis also found that native forest hardwood and plantation softwood are complementary goods in the Australian market, not simple substitutes. That means closing native forest supply is not automatically offset by plantation pine. Instead, reduced native forest harvesting has materially increased Australia’s dependence on imported solid wood products. FWCA said the finding directly challenges the credibility of the INFM methodology. “A carbon method that caps indirect leakage at 40% cannot credibly account for evidence showing timber harvest leakage of 81.3%,” Mr Dobbyns said. “If a state government removes 1,000 cubic metres of native forest timber supply and Australia then imports 813 cubic metres to replace it, the atmosphere does not see that as a 100% climate gain. The forest and emissions impacts have simply been pushed into other jurisdictions. “And if those imports come from countries with weaker forest governance, higher illegality risk, longer transport chains or higher embodied emissions, the climate and biodiversity outcomes may be worse — not better.” Using a simple carbon-crediting example, if a project claims 100 tonnes of gross abatement and actual leakage is 81.3%, the real net climate benefit may be only 18.7 tonnes. But if the methodology caps the indirect leakage deduction at 40%, the project may still be credited as if 60 tonnes of abatement remains. “That is not conservative accounting,” Mr Dobbyns said. “That is capped accounting. It creates a built-in over-crediting risk.” FWCA said there is another serious consequence that has received little public attention: the INFM method does not simply stop harvesting inside a proposed carbon protection area. Through its leakage rules, it creates a financial penalty if harvesting increases elsewhere. “The INFM method does not directly ban harvesting on neighbouring land, but it effectively puts a carbon-credit penalty on increased harvesting elsewhere in the State,” Mr Dobbyns said. “That means governments chasing ACCUs have a financial incentive to constrain timber supply not only inside the proposed park, but across private native forests as well. “This should concern every private native forest owner, contractor, sawmiller, processor and regional community that depends on hardwood timber supply. “Once governments start relying on carbon credits from stopping harvesting, any increase in timber production elsewhere can become a threat to those credits. That creates pressure to suppress supply across the wider landscape, even where harvesting remains lawful, sustainable and properly regulated.” FWCA said the economics of the proposal are just as troubling. Supporters of the Great Koala National Park carbon-credit proposal have claimed it could generate $300 million over 15 years. That sounds large until it is compared with the existing timber economy the policy threatens to displace. “That $300 million over 15 years is only about $20 million per year,” Mr Dobbyns said. “By contrast, the North East NSW hardwood timber industry currently contributes around $700 million in gross value add every year, generates around $1.84 billion in gross revenue, and supports approximately 5,700 full-time equivalent jobs. “Over the same 15-year period, that is about $10.5 billion in gross value add from the existing hardwood industry in North East NSW alone.” Mr Dobbyns said the 15-year comparison understates the issue, because the INFM method creates a 100-year permanence obligation. “If governments want to lock up productive forests for 100 years, then the economic comparison must also be made over 100 years,” he said. “On current figures, the existing North East NSW hardwood industry represents around $70 billion in gross value add, $184 billion in gross revenue, and the equivalent of 570,000 full-time job-years over a century. “That is the real economy at risk. “So, the public is being asked to accept the destruction of a real, renewable, regionally based industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars every year, in exchange for speculative carbon-credit income that is a fraction of the economic value already being generated.” Mr Dobbyns said the comparison exposed a major flaw in the way the INFM debate is being presented. […]

The post New INFM carbon method – paper credits destroying economic value appeared first on Timberbiz.