Sammlung von Newsfeeds

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.