Sammlung von Newsfeeds

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

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

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

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

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

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