dadpad
6th October 2006, 11:32 PM
Reprinted from a private growers newsletter
Why Australia should look beyond industrial forestry
Australia's timber comes from four main sources. Our hardwood sawlog resources are supplied predominantly from our native forests, however, these needs are increasingly being topped up by imports as we restrict commercial forestry in our public forests. Hardwood chips are supplied from our native forests although pulpwood plantations - that have been established at a rapid rate in the last ten years - are beginning to supply some domestic and export markets. And finally, our softwood chip and sawlog requirements are provided primarily from domestic industrial exotic softwood plantations.
As our governments come under increasing pressure to remove commercial forestry from public forests, our country faces an ethical dilemma in supplying our future hardwood sawlog needs. Research points to the fact that existing pulpwood plantations are unlikely to provide sawlog resources, given the absence of thinning and pruning. Therefore we have three options, (i) we can continue to import timber to make up the deficit, (ii) we can increase the amount of public forests we cut, or (iii) we can developa viable hardwood sawlog plantation industry.
The first option is not a long-term solution given that Australia already has a wood products trade deficit of more than $2 billion and pressure has already begun to mount on the federal government for importing timber from Asia Pacific nations with poor forestry practices. The second option is also unlikely to be a long-term solution given Australia’s direction in recent years to vastly reduce commercial activities in public forests. The final option, to develop a viable hardwood sawlog plantation industry, is the most likely scenario, however it is uncertain what format it will take.
Historically, Australia has opted for large industrial formats for plantation forestry. Both our softwood industry and the hardwood plantation chip industry are testament to this. This format is highly cost effective because of the economy of scale. In addition, it enables large areas to be developed in a relatively short space of time. This has been demonstrated in the Green Triangle region of Victoria and South Australia, where approximately 160,000 hectares of blue gum plantations have been established in the last 9 years. Of this resource, a total of approximately 135,000 hectares (84%) is managed by just three companies. The industrial model also enables better coordination of wood product markets.This occurs because there are so few forest owners/managers involved and those owners/managers often have their own markets. In contrast, many European countries incur enormous extra costs incoordinating multiple harvesting operations and negotiating with thousands of landowners to achieve sawn timber volumes that could otherwise be achieved under an industrial model in a single clearfall.
The alternative to industrial forestry is grower-based forestry. In this format, rural landowners have a stake in the industry. They maintain ownership of the land and participate in the forestry investment (either funding it entirely or via a joint venture).
Although industrial forestry has enormous economic advantages over grower-based private forestry, the latter has important environmental, social and agricultural benefits that should be valued if the two are to be compared accurately. From a catchment perspective, grower-based forestry makes a lot of sense. The single greatest need for trees is across the landscape alongside agricultural activities. In this format, trees can deliver benefits throughout the catchment rather than in consolidated clumps -such is the case in the industrial format. Key challenges such as salinity, biodiversity, improved agriculturalproductivity and water quality, would all benefit far more from, for example, 10 well-placed 10-hectareplantations across the catchment than a single 100-hectare industrial plantation. In addition, the landownership is retained and therefore socially, there are less dramatic changes occurring in the rural areas. Furthermore, the retained ownership increases participation in forestry, which reduces the general public’s ignorance of the industry in general.
Australia’s hardwood sawlog needs could be achieved through an industrial forestry format. However, to take the easy road would be to miss out on the many benefits that grower-based forestry can deliver.
Why Australia should look beyond industrial forestry
Australia's timber comes from four main sources. Our hardwood sawlog resources are supplied predominantly from our native forests, however, these needs are increasingly being topped up by imports as we restrict commercial forestry in our public forests. Hardwood chips are supplied from our native forests although pulpwood plantations - that have been established at a rapid rate in the last ten years - are beginning to supply some domestic and export markets. And finally, our softwood chip and sawlog requirements are provided primarily from domestic industrial exotic softwood plantations.
As our governments come under increasing pressure to remove commercial forestry from public forests, our country faces an ethical dilemma in supplying our future hardwood sawlog needs. Research points to the fact that existing pulpwood plantations are unlikely to provide sawlog resources, given the absence of thinning and pruning. Therefore we have three options, (i) we can continue to import timber to make up the deficit, (ii) we can increase the amount of public forests we cut, or (iii) we can developa viable hardwood sawlog plantation industry.
The first option is not a long-term solution given that Australia already has a wood products trade deficit of more than $2 billion and pressure has already begun to mount on the federal government for importing timber from Asia Pacific nations with poor forestry practices. The second option is also unlikely to be a long-term solution given Australia’s direction in recent years to vastly reduce commercial activities in public forests. The final option, to develop a viable hardwood sawlog plantation industry, is the most likely scenario, however it is uncertain what format it will take.
Historically, Australia has opted for large industrial formats for plantation forestry. Both our softwood industry and the hardwood plantation chip industry are testament to this. This format is highly cost effective because of the economy of scale. In addition, it enables large areas to be developed in a relatively short space of time. This has been demonstrated in the Green Triangle region of Victoria and South Australia, where approximately 160,000 hectares of blue gum plantations have been established in the last 9 years. Of this resource, a total of approximately 135,000 hectares (84%) is managed by just three companies. The industrial model also enables better coordination of wood product markets.This occurs because there are so few forest owners/managers involved and those owners/managers often have their own markets. In contrast, many European countries incur enormous extra costs incoordinating multiple harvesting operations and negotiating with thousands of landowners to achieve sawn timber volumes that could otherwise be achieved under an industrial model in a single clearfall.
The alternative to industrial forestry is grower-based forestry. In this format, rural landowners have a stake in the industry. They maintain ownership of the land and participate in the forestry investment (either funding it entirely or via a joint venture).
Although industrial forestry has enormous economic advantages over grower-based private forestry, the latter has important environmental, social and agricultural benefits that should be valued if the two are to be compared accurately. From a catchment perspective, grower-based forestry makes a lot of sense. The single greatest need for trees is across the landscape alongside agricultural activities. In this format, trees can deliver benefits throughout the catchment rather than in consolidated clumps -such is the case in the industrial format. Key challenges such as salinity, biodiversity, improved agriculturalproductivity and water quality, would all benefit far more from, for example, 10 well-placed 10-hectareplantations across the catchment than a single 100-hectare industrial plantation. In addition, the landownership is retained and therefore socially, there are less dramatic changes occurring in the rural areas. Furthermore, the retained ownership increases participation in forestry, which reduces the general public’s ignorance of the industry in general.
Australia’s hardwood sawlog needs could be achieved through an industrial forestry format. However, to take the easy road would be to miss out on the many benefits that grower-based forestry can deliver.