Australian timber industry news

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.

The Wood Solution Thailand Forum, recently held in Bangkok, explored practical solutions for Thailand’s timber industry by connecting Swedish forestry expertise with the country’s forest sector. Source: SEI The forum was part of the Wood Solution Thailand Program, which brings together researchers, foresters, architects, investors, and policymakers from across Thailand and Sweden to build a sustainable timber construction ecosystem. Speaking at the forum, Mrs Arunrung Phothong Humphreys, Ambassador of Thailand to Sweden, explained why Sweden’s experience offers a powerful model. Sweden has a strong forestry sector, an advanced wood-processing industry and decades of experience balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship. She also pointed to the broader diplomatic foundation, noting that the relationship has been strengthened by the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed between the two countries, and described the project as a new model linking grassroots communities with emerging green industries. Emanuel Lundin, First Secretary at the Embassy of Sweden in Bangkok, highlighted how the partnership is turning years of dialogue into collective action: “The process is important … the journey matters as much as the eventual outcome.” Since 2022, partners including the Thailand-Nordic Countries Innovation Unit (TNIU), the Eco-Innovation Foundation (EIF), and SEI have worked to lay the groundwork for wood innovation in Thailand, aiming to establish timber construction as both an economic driver and a climate solution. The program’s engagement phase (March–June 2026) is designed to prepare the ground for a long-term initiative promoting sustainable wood-based construction, forest restoration and climate-smart bioeconomy solutions. “This is a great opportunity to address the climate change issue while creating an economic growth engine for Thailand, that’s the big picture,” Klas Bengtsson, Director of the Eco-Innovation Foundation (EIF) said. Marie Jürisoo, Centre Director of SEI Asia, introduced the engagement phase and its strategic role, explaining that it had been designed to accelerate momentum, deepen stakeholder participation and identify practical next steps. The engagement phase is supporting “pioneer initiatives” across the full value chain, from forest management to construction, demonstrating practical wood-based solutions. The forum showcased more than 10 such initiatives. Thanyaporn Wongtitirote, Coordinator of the Thailand and Nordic Countries Innovation Unit (TNIU)/Royal Thai Embassy in Stockholm, is involved in supporting the pioneer projects. She said: “The results are now adding up from what we’ve been discussing for many years. Now we’re making stronger connections across many groups and sectors and figuring out the key challenges and milestones.” One flagship model is the Phrae Sustainable Wood City initiative. Reflecting Phrae’s long association with teak, the project has already trained around 150 postgraduate students as future forestry, resource and environmental managers – and it is emerging as a potential model for nationwide development. We have five working frameworks: first, sustainable plantations like Sweden; second, modern processing technology using AI and innovation to increase quality and safety; third, wooden construction and teak products; fourth, education – we have three institutions that can connect with Sweden; fifth, policy, with provincial and local governments driving sustainability. “We have about 300,000 rai (48,000 hectares)  of plantations, 44,000 skilled people, around 200 wood-processing factories, and strong academic institutions such as Maejo University and three newly established forestry schools,” Veerit Kanlayapanik, Secretary to the President of the Phrae Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO) said. These initiatives are also driving rural income. The Grow Longevity Ecovillage, championed by Pordee Society, integrates sustainable agronomy, AI smart farming and wellness principles to build resilient communities. The project focuses on “right livelihood,” combining traditional ecological wisdom with modern innovation to ensure food safety and long-term health. Its founder Mr Sak (Chayadis Hutanuwatr) said: “The problem with planting teak is you have to wait 20–30 years with no income. But with smart farming – using sensors, organic fertilizer, automated shade – a couple can work about four hours a day and earn 30,000-40,000 baht per month after expenses. That’s real.” To support long-term success, the program is developing the Wood Solution Support Platform, an international network of experts and technology providers to help Thailand and other tropical countries build sustainable timber construction ecosystems. The effort also involves forming funding partnerships with bilateral, multilateral, philanthropic and private-sector actors to support the program’s next phases. Throughout, Sweden’s role has been supportive – bridging expertise between countries rather than imposing a one-size fits all solution. “What I witnessed was no longer a Swedish project. It was a Thai movement … the Swedish role had become almost invisible. Perhaps that is the highest achievement of all,” said Gregers Møller, editor-in-chief of ScandAsia, who joined the meeting online and wrote about it on the ScandAsia website. Thanapon Piman, SEI Asia’s Senior Research Fellow and the Project Lead said: “The long-term vision of the program is to provide forest-based climate solutions that can lead to a sustainable timber industry.” To implement this vision, the Wood Solution Thailand Program has set out a phased roadmap extending to 2037, showing how international partnership, sustainable forest use and innovative construction can work together to support rural income and climate action. As Marie Jürisoo put it: “This kind of initiative requires a whole-of-society approach and a collaborative mindset. We can all contribute in many ways.” The model now shifts its focus to implementing the long-term roadmap, scaling and building a sustainable timber future for Thailand.

The post The Wood Solution Thailand Forum connecting with Sweden appeared first on Timberbiz.

US sawmill production fell in the first quarter, the second consecutive quarter of lower output according to the Federal Reserve G.17 Industrial Production report. Source: National Association of Home Builders Sawmill output has remained largely flat since 2023, after increasing in the post-pandemic period. The utilization rate for sawmills and wood preservation industries was 71.8% on a four-quarter moving average, up from 71.2% in the fourth quarter of 2025. The sawmill utilization rate, a measure of actual production relative to potential full production published quarterly by the Census Bureau, moved upward over 2025 as capacity for sawmills fell. Sawmill production, based on a four-quarter moving average, was 0.4% lower in the first quarter of 2026 compared to the fourth quarter but remained higher than a year ago by 1.7%. U.S. sawmills’ full production capacity, an estimation of what could have been produced if running at full production capability, was down 6.0% from a year ago. Lumber prices rose slightly in the first quarter. Softwood lumber prices rose 6.1% during the quarter but were down 3.8% from a year ago. Hardwood lumber prices continued to increase, rising 1.0% in the first quarter. This was the ninth consecutive quarter of price increases in hardwood lumber. Employment in sawmill and wood preservation industries continued to fall, dropping to roughly 82,800 workers in the first quarter. This marked the twelfth straight quarterly decline, bringing employment to its lowest level since 2010.

The post US sawmill production flat since 2023 appeared first on Timberbiz.

New rules will ensure everyday products sold in the UK including coffee and cocoa do not contribute to illegal deforestation around the world. Source: Timberbiz The world’s rainforests are to be better protected from deforestation as the government plans to take forward new rules in Great Britain including using powers in the Environment Act alongside legislation strengthening the UK Timber Regulation. Under the proposals UK businesses who trade in commodities sourced from rainforests such as soy, palm oil, cocoa and rubber will need to check that their supply chains are not contributing to illegal deforestation. These products are commonly found in everyday supermarket products including chocolate, cooking oils, shampoo and cosmetics. This move will help protect the habitats of some of the world’s most precious and endangered species, while giving British consumers confidence that the products in their shopping baskets are not contributing to illegal deforestation. Around 90% of global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion, much of it linked to the production of internationally traded commodities. In 2023, the UK’s consumption of these goods was associated with approximately 29,000 hectares of deforestation worldwide or around one and a half times the size of Manchester and 9.4 million tonnes of related carbon emissions. “Tackling global deforestation is one of the most effective ways we can address climate change and protect some of the world’s most unique and precious wildlife,” Nature Minister Mary Creagh said. “That is why we are leading by example and scrutinising our own supply chains. Eliminating products linked to illegal deforestation not only helps to protect precious ecosystems but is good for our collective resilience and long-term prosperity.” These new measures will help businesses better identify and reduce the risk that their imported products are linked to illegal deforestation and land clearing. The government will consult businesses, civil society and international partners later this year on the details of the proposed GB deforestation policy. This will include consulting on the introduction of these mandatory due diligence requirements for businesses in Great Britain including using powers such as under the Environment Act which target illegal deforestation, and by strengthening the existing UK Timber Regulation. To maintain Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access to both the UK Internal Market and the EU Single Market, the EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR) will apply in Northern Ireland in phases starting 30 December 2026. Crucially, to protect the UK Internal Market and streamline compliance, the upcoming consultation will propose that the GB regime covers the same core commodities and underlying information requirements as the regulation in Northern Ireland. This aligned approach is designed to prevent administrative duplication across the UK while helping British exporters to the EU meet consistent data and traceability standards. Businesses in Northern Ireland are encouraged to begin preparations now. In due course, the Government’s ambition is to transition to a deforestation-free standard which will require relevant products to be produced free from any deforestation, building on stakeholder efforts globally to decouple supply chains from forest loss and land conversion. These changes help deliver on the UK’s commitment under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, agreed at COP26, to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. It also supports the cross-government 2035 International Climate, Nature & Energy Strategic Framework.  

The post UK government’s hard tackle on deforestation appeared first on Timberbiz.

Conservation groups are calling for the connection of state and national parks and nature reserves from the Illawarra to the Victorian border in a bid to better protect the region’s forests, wildlife habitats, water catchments and cultural landscapes. Source: AboutRegional The ‘Great Southern Forest’ is proposed by the National Parks Association of NSW (NPA) and would see the reclassification of about 365,000 hectares of State Forest into permanent protected areas, to be combined with the region’s existing 824,000 hectares of national parks and nature reserves along the South Coast. “Right now, native forests in southern NSW are being logged at an industrial scale, primarily for woodchips, putting our unique ecosystems and wildlife at risk,” NPA president Liz Jeremy said. “The Great Southern Forest is once-in-a-generation alternative that could reverse the fate of these forests and see them thrive again. “Stretching from the Illawarra to the Victorian border, the proposal would bring together 55 state forests, 24 flora reserves and 98 existing national parks and reserves into one of Australia’s largest connected conservation landscapes.” The proposal calls for the new park, which would stretch from Budderoo National Park in the north to Nadgee Nature Reserve in the south, to be managed as a unified ecological system, prioritising biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, cultural heritage, and community benefit; for all native forest logging in the region’s state forests to be ceased and for joint management arrangements to be established with First Nations communities. it aims to fill gaps in the ecosystem representation, strengthen wildlife corridors, increase the resilience of forests to climate change and secure large, intact landscapes essential for long-term conservation. “The Great Southern Forest proposal is a vital step in reversing species decline and safeguarding our region’s biodiversity,” NPA Far South Coast Branch president David Gallan said. “The proposal would protect more than 10,000 hectares of threatened ecological communities, support 12 endemic and four critically endangered flora species, and protect 61 threatened animal species, including the Yellow-bellied Glider, Swift Parrot, Southern Greater Glider, Spotted-tailed Quoll and Southern Brown Bandicoot. “We need proper protection for our native forests now, more than ever. Every Australian has a responsibility to conserve our unique natural heritage.” The greater environmental protection is also set to have tourism and economic benefits for the communities right along the coast. “With NSW national parks attracting more than 65 million visits each year and contributing more than $19 billion annually to regional economies, protecting these forests represents a significant opportunity to secure both environmental and economic benefits for generations to come,” Liz said. The proposal was launched on 19 June at Mogo, to more than 80 community leaders, conservation organisations, scientists, local residents and elected representatives, with hope that strong interest in the project will continue momentum towards meaningful change within the region. “The strong turnout today demonstrates growing community and local business support in securing a long-term future for the region’s forests,” NPA Eurobodalla convenor Joslyn van der Moolen said. “This proposal provides an opportunity to work with stakeholders on increasing their engagement with our public forests. We look forward to continuing conversations with communities, traditional owners, local tourism, and primary industry local business, recreation groups, local councils and government in the months ahead.” This article was first published by Keeli Dyson on Regional Illawarra  

The post Conservation groups call for state park from NSW to Victoria appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forest and Wood Products Australia has confirmed the next phase of industry investment in timber durability and performance-in-use research, following consideration of the 2026 Mid-Term Review of the National Centre for Timber Durability and Design Life (NCTDDL). Source: Timberbiz The FWPA Board has decided to continue funding the Centre through to 30 June 2028, in line with the current agreement, while not extending the existing Centre funding model beyond that date. This provides time for a structured transition, allowing current projects, including commitments to PhD students, to be completed. FWPA said the decision reflects a positive and forward-looking outcome for industry, recognising the substantial contribution the Centre has made since 2017 while creating a pathway for new, innovative and more industry-led approaches to future investment. Timber durability and performance-in-use remain high priorities for FWPA and the broader forest and wood products sector. Future investment will build on the knowledge, relationships and capability developed through the NCTDDL, with greater emphasis on industry leadership, collaboration, extension and adoption. “The Centre has helped strengthen the sector’s understanding of timber durability and created a valuable foundation for the next stage of research, development and practical application,” FWPA Head of Research, Development & Extension, Ian Blanden said. “The work undertaken through the NCTDDL has advanced knowledge, supported collaboration and helped build capability across important areas of timber durability and performance. FWPA sincerely thanks the Centre’s leadership, researchers, students, industry participants, university partners and all contributors for their dedication and expertise.” Mr Blanden said the transition period would allow FWPA and industry partners to shape future arrangements that respond directly to industry priorities and emerging opportunities. “This is about building on the Centre’s achievements and forging the way forward with a model that is even more closely aligned to industry needs,” Mr Blanden said. The NCTDDL has been supported by FWPA in partnership with the University of the Sunshine Coast and the University of Queensland, with the Centre taking a national and international approach to timber durability research. FWPA will continue to consult with industry stakeholders, research partners and advisory groups as future arrangements are developed. FWPA said the decision marks an important milestone in a long-term investment journey, ensuring the industry can recognise the Centre’s achievements while moving confidently towards future programs shaped by sector priorities, adoption pathways and practical impact.

The post Funding for the National Centre for Timber Durability extended appeared first on Timberbiz.

Forest & Wood Communities Australia (FWCA) has written to Macquarie University researcher Dr Carmen da Silva seeking clarification regarding comments made during a recent ABC Sydney Radio interview in which she stated that Australians need to “try to stop native forest logging” in order to help protect native bees. Source: Timberbiz FWCA Chair Steve Dobbyns said the organisation welcomed the research and acknowledged the importance of understanding the challenges facing Australia’s native bee populations under a changing climate. “Native bees are an important but often overlooked component of Australia’s biodiversity, and research that improves our understanding of their ecology and climate vulnerability should be encouraged,” Mr Dobbyns said. “However, after reviewing Dr da Silva’s recently published paper, FWCA has been unable to identify how a recommendation to cease native forest logging arose from research that appears not to have examined forestry as a causal factor.” Mr Dobbyns said the study focused on the thermal tolerance of 95 Australian native bee species and examined how nesting behaviour influences vulnerability to rising temperatures. “The paper investigated climate vulnerability, heat tolerance and nesting ecology,” he said. “It did not compare logged and unlogged forests, assess the impacts of timber harvesting on bee populations, measure bee abundance before and after harvesting operations, or attempt to isolate forestry impacts from other environmental variables.” FWCA has asked Dr da Silva to clarify whether her statement that Australia should stop native forest logging was: a conclusion arising from the research itself; based on a separate body of scientific literature not discussed in the interview; or a personal opinion regarding native forest management policy. “If there is a body of scientific evidence demonstrating that contemporary regulated native forest harvesting contributes to native bee decline, then that evidence should be identified and openly discussed,” Mr Dobbyns said. “If not, then it is important that the distinction between scientific findings and personal policy views is made clear.” Mr Dobbyns said the issue was not about restricting academic freedom but about maintaining public confidence in science. “Researchers are entitled to hold and express personal views on public policy issues,” he said. “However, when policy recommendations are presented during discussion of scientific research, many listeners will reasonably assume those recommendations are supported by the evidence being discussed.” “Where that connection is unclear, it is appropriate to seek clarification.” Mr Dobbyns also noted that the study identified climate warming and temperature exposure as the primary mechanisms influencing native bee vulnerability. “This naturally raises broader questions about other landscape-scale disturbances that may alter forest microclimates, including drought, forest decline and severe bushfires,” he said. “High-intensity bushfires can remove canopy cover, increase ground temperatures, destroy nesting resources and reduce flowering across extensive landscapes for many years.” “These factors appear directly relevant to the mechanisms identified in the study and may warrant further investigation.” Mr Dobbyns said FWCA looked forward to Dr da Silva’s response. “Good science is strengthened through open discussion, scrutiny and evidence,” he said. “We are simply seeking clarification about the scientific basis for a statement that has the potential to influence public policy and public perceptions about native forest management.”

The post Bee accurate Macquarie University appeared first on Timberbiz.

Juken New Zealand has begun a formal consultation process with employees regarding a proposal to close its Northland Mill after failing to find a buyer. The company is to make a final decision on the Northland Mill’s fate by 16 July. Source: Timberbiz Workers First Northland members are shocked and disappointed following the announcement that the mill has failed to find a buyer and is proposed for closure. “We’re disappointed that no buyer has been found for Northland Mill but there is still a window for central Government to step up and push for a solution. Now is the time for a localised solution to save our manufacturing industry and our skilled woodworkers,” Workers First Marcus Coverdale said. The Northland Mill employs around 60 people, with 40 Workers First members who have redundancy provisions and may be able to access redeployment or other options. The potential closure of Northland Mill would be the seventh major wood processing site lost under the current National-NZ First-ACT Government. The company says the proposal reflects challenging market conditions, including falling demand in key markets, rising costs and insufficient work to keep the mill operating sustainably. JNL has made an extensive effort to identify a buyer or alternative pathway that would allow the site to continue operating, but this has not resulted in a viable option at this time. Triboard isn’t impacted by the proposal, and the process to explore a potential sale of that site as a going concern is continuing. According to Workers First the Triboard Mill appears to have found a buyer, or at least, was not proposed for closure. “In terms of sustainability, between the two mills, the full log is used. The top of a log is refined for the tri-board product, and the middle for veneers and mulch. Without a buyer found for the Northland Mill, we’ll be taking the top of the log for tri-board and sending the other raw two-thirds overseas without any value added,” said Mr Coverdale. No final decisions have been made. The company says it is committed to a thorough consultation process and is seeking feedback from employees and union representatives before determining next steps. We recognise the impact this will have on employees and their families and are providing access to support services throughout the process. Juken New Zealand owns 30,000 hectares of sustainably managed and certified plantation forests, providing ongoing employment to over 200 forestry workers in Tairawhiti and 100 in Wairarapa. The company has three working mills in Kaitaia and Wairarapa making wood products for local and export markets, with about 450 manufacturing employees combined. Owned by WoodOne Ltd, which established Juken New Zealand in 1990 and has since invested more than $NZ720 million into its forest and processing operations in NZ.

The post Juken NZ fails to find a buyer for its Northland Mill appeared first on Timberbiz.

Australia must decide what it wants from its timber supply, according to Forestry Australia. The organisation believes that ending native forest harvesting at home does not reduce the demand for timber; it simply shifts that demand elsewhere, including to suppliers the country cannot always vouch for. Source: Timberbiz Forestry Australia believes that when Victoria ended native timber harvesting in 2024, six years ahead of its previously scheduled 2030 end date, the demand for hardwood did not stop. Building supply chains looked interstate and overseas to make up the shortfall, with native hardwood once cut in Victoria now being sourced from Tasmania. Forestry Australia President Dr Michelle Freeman said the consequences were predictable. “When Victoria brought native forestry to an early close, the timber used in our floors, windows, furniture and joinery didn’t stop being needed, it just had to come from somewhere else, interstate or overseas,” she said. “We can either grow it here; in forests we manage to some of the highest standards in the world or import it from places where we have far less certainty about how it was produced.” Dr Freeman raised the issue in an interview on 3AW’s Mornings with Tom Elliott:  “Stopping timber harvesting in one area doesn’t magically make demand for that timber go away. Australians want and need timber products, and they should,” Dr Freeman said. Forestry Australia welcomed the ABC Four Corners program Timber Turmoil for highlighting a critically important issue: that ending local, regulated native forest harvesting in one area has significant flow-on effects to other states, to private land and, critically, to vulnerable forests overseas, which Australia becomes increasingly reliant on to meet ongoing demand. Native forest harvesting in Australia is renewable, regulated and certified. It occurs within a framework of legislation, codes of practice, operational controls, monitoring, independent auditing and internationally recognised forest certification frameworks. The alternative to locally grown timber is rarely no timber at all, but a switch to materials with a heavier environmental footprint, or to imports. “If we’re not sourcing timber from our own backyard, we have to get it from elsewhere or substitute it with other products that are almost always non-renewable, like steel, concrete or plastic,” Dr Freeman said. According to Dr Freeman, harvesting and conservation are not competing goals. A well-managed native forest supports biodiversity; stores carbon and protects water catchments while remaining resilient to bushfire and continuing to supply timber. Sustaining all those values is becoming harder as forests come under growing pressure from severe bushfires, invasive species, pests, disease and a changing climate, which is exactly why active, professional management matters. On the integrity of local supply, Dr Freeman said Australian operations were subject to strong oversight. “Harvesting in Australia is highly regulated and independently certified,” she said, noting the high level of scrutiny on operations, “particularly from environmental groups. They really can’t be getting away with doing anything untoward.” The greater risk lies in winding back well-managed local supply and leaning harder on imports that are difficult to trace, too often from forests run to standards far weaker than Australia’s. Dr Freeman said Australia already ran a timber trade deficit of around $2 billion a year, a significant proportion of it drawn from what she called high-risk countries, “those where the sustainability, environmental and social credentials are hard to verify”. She said this included conflict timber from Russia entering Australia via China. “So, Australia really needs to decide what it wants. For me personally, I would much rather we sourced our timber needs locally, from our own forests, where we know where it’s come from and we can verify it.”  

The post Australia must decide on its hardwood future appeared first on Timberbiz.

Australian Sustainable Hardwoods Pty Ltd (ASH) is aware of a recent program containing misleading, factually incorrect and damaging claims about ASH. We are deeply disappointed and we are actively working through our legal options. Source: Timberbiz The conclusion of the story was determined before filming began. The program showed heavy bias and ignored facts that did not fit their narrative, including clear, documented evidence supplied to them that contradicted the claims they chose to air. ASH’s Managing Director, Vince Hurley, participated in a 2.5-hour interview in which he answered every question and allegation put to him. The editing of that interview was, to put it plainly, dubious. ASH provided access to multiple scientists who specialise in their respective fields. None of this was aired. Instead, the program chose to platform activists with a shared, predetermined view, and in some cases appears to have reworded terminology in ways designed to lead viewers to incorrect conclusions, replacing accurate contractual language with loaded terms like ‘subsidy’ and ‘compensation’. Timber in Australia is sustainably managed and is the ultimate renewable. Let us address the facts directly. The figures stated were wrong ASH did not receive $61 million in 2017. ASH received $3 million, which was applied entirely to union-negotiated, enhanced redundancy entitlements for workers. Our net position from that transaction: zero. ASH received contractual failure to supply penalty payments from VicForests (two years of undersupply) and the Victorian Government (contract withdrawal). This is not compensation. It is not a subsidy. It is a penalty payment that VicForests and the Government was contractually required to make. The total of penalty payments to ASH was $49 million. That payment was taxed so the total amount received by ASH was $34 million. Every cent of that $34 million, and more, was reinvested into replacement stock, additional employment, plant and equipment. The penalty payment ASH received was one third of the revenue that would have been generated if contracted VicForests supply continued. It was significantly less than what it cost ASH to retool operations, develop new products, open new markets and transition to plantation fibre. We have not gained from this. We have absorbed the loss and continued. Importantly, we have made significant gains in developing markets for plantation hardwood. Something few others have been able to do. ASH ceasing operations following the closure of Victoria’s native timber supply would have cost the Victorian taxpayer an additional $30 million instead of maintaining employment for over 200 employees in regional communities and strengthening economic activity. ASH has produced over $500 million in economic activity since 2017 including paying over $100 million in Government taxes and charges. A good result for the Victorian taxpayer. Western Junction Sawmill (WJS) was purchased in 2021 and is not owned by ASH nor the Victorian Government. WJS is now investing in value added manufacturing on the site. On wood fibre ASH does not receive logs from Tasmania. One 100% of timber purchased by ASH from Tasmania is sawn timber from WJS. WJS purchase plantation hardwood and low-grade regrowth sawlogs produced as a byproduct of forest operations. These sawlogs were destined for export and the wood chip market. Instead, they are upgraded into high-value timber products for Australian consumers. A good result for forestry, conservation and the Tasmanian taxpayer. There is no increase in harvesting and there is no basis to the claim of a rapid loss of old trees. ASH has three main fibre sources, and our operations do not survive mainly on feedstock from Tasmanian native forests as implied by the program. The report failed to emphasise the significance of plantation oak, nor mention ASH’s Glacial Oak feedstock entirely. This is not an oversight. It is selective journalism. On terminology and framing The episode framed this story as ‘logging versus environmentalists.’ That framing is both misleading and telling. There is no logging in isolation. Logging is one activity within forestry. Forestry is the science of managing forests for all their values, ecological, social and economic, for the long-term benefit of all Australians. These are not the same thing and conflating them is not journalism. It is a narrative device. On certification and standards Every aspect of ASH’s operations is independently, third-party certified as sustainable and fully compliant with Australian Standards. The opinions of unsustainable practices made by activists in this program carry no such certification and have not been independently verified as factual. They should not have been given equal weight in responsible journalism, let alone greater weight. Regrowth native forestry and/or plantation forestry do not need protecting from logging. The values that exist in the forest are a result of careful forest management. Not in spite of it. Forestry (not logging) manages the long-term sustainability of forest products. On the future of the timber industry Timber is not a ‘zombie industry’ as described in the program. ASH is a business that is unique in Australia. Manufacturing products for which the only alternative is imported timber, often inferior in quality and of dubious environmental origin. Closing domestic forestry does not help the environment. It exports the problem to countries with lower standards and less oversight. ASH has navigated an extraordinarily difficult transition: new fibre, new products, new markets, new manufacturing and new production, all in a short period of time, during a cost-of-living crisis, in a depressed market. We have come through it.

The post ASH addresses the false claims in the ABC program appeared first on Timberbiz.

For more than two decades, Tasmania’s Regional Forest Agreement has delivered stable forest management, a rigorous reserve system, and the long-term investment confidence that sustains thousands of regional jobs. That stability is now under serious threat and the Federal Government’s own words are beginning to reveal why. In a recent interview the Federal Environmental Minister had the opportunity to give the native forest industry certainty about the new environmental reforms however, his response suggested the resource could be further restricted. This appears inconsistent with repeated assurances from the Federal Government that its position on native forestry has not changed and that it will not abandon timber workers. Either the reforms preserve the current operating framework, or they do not. Before we go further, let us be clear about what is at stake. Tasmania’s forestry sector is a fully integrated system. The RFA underpins activity across public and private land, across plantations, manufacturing, and the wood that builds Tasmanian homes. Undermining the RFA doesn’t affect just one part of the industry it undermines the entire sector. A persistent misconception in this debate is that the RFA operates as a loophole that allows forestry to sidestep environmental scrutiny. This is fundamentally wrong, and a Federal Court judge said as much in 2024. The Court confirmed that an RFA provides an alternative mechanism by which the objects of the EPBC Act can be achieved not avoided through an intergovernmental framework that allocates environmental responsibility to the State. The current RFA exemption sunsets on 1 July 2027. What the industry needs is certainty that any future accredited framework will allow the same level of sustainable harvesting as exists today. Without that assurance, businesses cannot plan, invest, or guarantee future timber supply. The Minister has also argued that if Tasmania’s forestry standards are genuinely world-class, the industry should have nothing to fear from new national environmental standards. While superficially reasonable, that argument misses the point. The issue is not whether our practices meet the standards it is that the standards have not yet been defined, and industry doesn’t know whether they will be workable in practice. Growers and processors are being asked to invest, plan and operate without knowing the rules they will be required to meet. Until the new standards are settled, uncertainty will continue to hang over the industry’s future. The TFPA is not seeking special treatment or reduced environmental accountability. We are asking for something straightforward. A clear, public guarantee, backed by a credible transition pathway, that no Tasmanian forest business will be worse off under these reforms. We have engaged in good faith. Now it’s up to the Federal Government to provide the certainty we need.   By Nick Steel, TPFA CEO, as published in The Mercury newspaper in Hobart

The post Opinion: Nick Steel – The Feds need to provide certainty for Tasmania appeared first on Timberbiz.