The Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation (ACBF) media statement published on the 4th of February warrants a response. Dr Henry, the Chair of the ACBF, calls for a new and laudable strategy by recommending a $350 million investment package to enable a rapid transition out of native forest logging by supporting the plantation sector.
This provides the conditions for Australia to become a manufacturer of plantation-sourced engineered wood products, replacing $312 million in annual imports now subject to very high climate-related risks while creating new manufacturing jobs across regional Australia.
The first response must be how does $140M p.a. for 20 years or a one-off $350M investment substitute for a $2.9B p.a. industry that employs 8900 people.
There are major problems with this policy.
Firstly, the release confuses the native hardwood industry with the Australian softwood industry. The two industries might supply timber, but they operate quite separately.
Construction timbers (softwoods and engineered wood) are behind the coverings. Softwoods, for the most part, have little colour variation. Interiors or appearance-grade timber is what fits dwellings, homes or offices. Timber appearance grades are flooring, veneer, panelling and so on. There is a real difference here.
Second, and the most complex of all, is suitable land availability for softwood and hardwood plantations. Dr Henry might have ambitions, but he also needs to clearly set out the issues with acquiring suitable land, which will mean displacing existing agricultural uses, to provide credibility to his policy. The lack of detail makes his policy a political exercise on the eve of a federal election.
Third is suitable genetic development and stock in seedlings for plantations. The research ball has been dropped in this regard by successive State Governments. There are now only three states where this might occur, and ideally, the CSIRO needs to set up a government-funded body to fill the void.
Finally, the fourth issue is that the news release contains many errors.
Claim 1: The plantation sector has been badly let down by the peak timber industry lobby, which appears captured by the interests of the few remaining native forest loggers
Correction: WRONG. The peak timber body in Australia is the Australian Forests Products Association, which represents many more softwood interests than hardwood.
Claim 2: It is time to end taxpayer handouts and market distortions for native forest logging, and it is time to support and encourage the more economically rational and environmentally benign plantation industry.
Correction: NO, the financial analysis that produces such a statement is selective. Take the press release by the ACBF issued 16 December 2024, where the opening line states: “NSW taxpayers footed a bill of $29 million to destroy irreplaceable native forests last year”. Here is what the Annual Report of the state-owned Forestry Corporation NSW stated: “The Hardwood Forests Division faced significant constraints due to regulatory changes, legal proceedings, and reduced timber production, leading to a $29 million loss. The financial results reflect the Forestry Corporation’s dual role as both a timber supplier and the appointed public land manager for NSW State forests. This unique responsibility goes beyond timber production to include:
- Community access and tourism: Maintaining a vast network of roads and over 100 community recreation facilities.
- Fire Management: Being one of the four fire-fighting authorities in the state, responsible for firefighting and fire prevention.
- Conservation and research: Managing conservation programs and conducting ecological research.
These land management duties cover nearly 2 million hectares of public native forests and are only partially funded by the government. Timber revenue from about 1% of the forest harvested annually subsidises these activities. In 2023/24, our land management investment exceeded government funding by approximately $23 million.
Claim 3: With housing availability at crisis levels, we’re still building homes the same way we did fifty years ago. Meanwhile, countries like Sweden and Germany have slashed construction times and costs through advanced timber manufacturing. There are already prefabricated housing businesses operating.
Correction: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! When house frames were made of hardwood, frames were commonly made off-site in Australia. The introduction of softwood frames changed construction to on-site. New businesses have been opening precisely with prefabrication in mind. The Frame and Truss industry has boomed in construction and innovation in the past 20 years.
Claim 4: The policy paper highlights the growth potential of Australia’s plantation forestry and manufacturing sector, which currently employs 42,000 people, with 30,000 working in plantation product manufacturing, 5,000 in sawmilling, and 8,000 in growing and harvesting plantation timber.
Correction: These employment figures need to be sourced and not quoted. They do not conform with ABARE figures or numerous government and private surveys.
Claim 5: There has been a 31% decline in hardwood plantation estate between 2008-2022, with 90% of remaining hardwood plantations exported as wood chips. Native forest logging is in terminal decline, with volumes of wood harvested falling by 80% since 2004. The decline in hardwood Australian production commencing 2008 has to do with abnormal factors, including bushfires, floods in NSW, closure of WA and Vic native forest industries and anti-forestry lawfare in NSW.
Correction: There is no basis to write that 90% of hardwood plantation goes into woodchip. In Northern NSW and the western division, there is no wood chip plant, and the small group of hardwood plantations supply timber sawmills to produce high-value timber products, not wood chips. In the South of NSW, woodchip processing in Eden processes low-grade pulp and resides in native and softwood forests. That region also produces high-value saw log products.
