News 
 Local News 
 News 
 Business 
 No new deal for timber: Gunns 

No new deal for timber: Gunns

08 Jan, 2010 09:25 AM
THE long-term wood supply agreement between Forestry Tasmania and Gunns will not be renegotiated to exclude native timber.

On Wednesday Gunns announced that its proposed $2.5billion pulp mill would operate totally on plantation timber, sparking calls from The Wilderness Society to renegotiate the wood supply deal to exclude native forest woodchips.

The Wilderness Society says the wood supply deal locks in more than one million tonnes of native forest wood for the next 20 years.

Gunns spokesman Matt Horan said yesterday that operations outside of the pulp mill were reliant on the wood supply deal and that it would not be renegotiated.

Mr Horan would not comment on the cost implications of the decision to make the pulp mill feedstock 100 per cent plantation wood.

"We will not make any further comment on the announcement," he said.

Forestry Tasmania managing director Bob Gordon said that Gunns' announcement was not unexpected.

"It is a matter of fact that pulp mills prefer young plantation wood and it was always intended that the Gunns mill would be plantation-based," he said.

Mr Gordon said that the wood supply deal covered a range of products including saw and veneer log, biomass and pulpwood, including a significant component from Forestry Tasmania's own plantations.

The Wilderness Society pulp mill campaigner Paul Oosting called on Premier David Bartlett to put pressure on the two companies to draw up a new agreement.

"Until Tasmanians see Gunns' native forest wood supply deals renegotiated and ancient forests properly protected, Tasmania's forests will continue to be logged, burnt and exported overseas and they won't have confidence that native forests will never be used in the mill," said Mr Oosting.

But Mr Bartlett said that it was out of his hands.

"It's a commercial arrangement between Forestry Tasmania and Gunns," he said, refusing to answer any more questions on the issue.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Matt Horan is in error, the pulp mill was not always to be plantation based - Gunns may have said so enough times, but anyone who could do the maths knew it wasn't true. The wood agreement is a commercial arrangement that does not give Tasmania full value for our resources. Hardly a deal to skite about - it's not an example of good community outcomes for future partners.
Posted by jose, 8/01/2010 6:04:51 PM, on The Examiner
Gunns didn't want the Pulp Mill at Hampshire because they claimed it cost to much to transport logs there from the Northeast. Sorry but what is the cost to transport logs from Victoria by ship?
Posted by Paul, 9/01/2010 8:43:21 PM, on The Examiner
How come Gunns want to keep a contract to log native forest for twenty years to supply the mill? Unless they rip up the contract, Gunns are not being fair dinkum about this matter.
Posted by Garry Stannus, 10/01/2010 10:32:47 PM, on The Examiner

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles




The Examiner Newspaper







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...