Timber demand does not disappear when harvesting stops [AU]Friday 26 Jun 2026
When Victoria ended native timber harvesting in 2024, six years ahead of its previously scheduled 2030 end date, the demand for hardwood did not stop. Building supply chains looked interstate and overseas to make up the shortfall, with native hardwood once cut in Victoria now being sourced from Tasmania. Forestry Australia President Dr Michelle Freeman said the consequences were predictable: “When Victoria brought native forestry to an early close, the timber used in our floors, windows, furniture and joinery didn’t stop being needed, it just had to come from somewhere else, interstate or overseas. We can either grow it here, in forests we manage to some of the highest standards in the world or import it from places where we have far less certainty about how it was produced,” Dr Freeman said. Dr Freeman raised the issue in an interview on 3AW’s Mornings with Tom Elliott on Monday. “Stopping timber harvesting in one area doesn’t magically make demand for that timber go away. Australians want and need timber products, and they should,” Dr Freeman said. Forestry Australia welcomed the ABC Four Corners program, Timber Turmoil, for highlighting a critically important issue: that ending local, regulated native forest harvesting in one area has significant flow-on effects to other states, to private land and, critically, to vulnerable forests overseas, which Australia becomes increasingly reliant on to meet ongoing demand. Native forest harvesting in Australia is renewable, regulated and certified. It occurs within a framework of legislation, codes of practice, operational controls, monitoring, independent auditing and internationally recognised forest certification frameworks. The alternative to locally grown timber is rarely no timber at all, but a switch to materials with a heavier environmental footprint, or to imports. “If we’re not sourcing timber from our own backyard, we have to get it from elsewhere, or substitute it with other products that are almost always non-renewable, like steel, concrete or plastic,” Dr Freeman said. According to Dr Freeman, harvesting and conservation are not competing goals. A well-managed native forest supports biodiversity; stores carbon and protects water catchments while remaining resilient to bushfire and continuing to supply timber. Sustaining all those values is becoming harder as forests come under growing pressure from severe bushfires, invasive species, pests, disease and a changing climate, which is exactly why active, professional management matters. On the integrity of local supply, Dr Freeman said Australian operations were subject to strong oversight. “Harvesting in Australia is highly regulated and independently certified,” she said, noting the high level of scrutiny on operations, “particularly from environmental groups. They really can’t be getting away with doing anything untoward.” The greater risk lies in winding back well-managed local supply and leaning harder on imports that are difficult to trace, too often from forests run to standards far weaker than Australia’s. Dr Freeman said Australia already runs a timber trade deficit of around $2 billion a year, a significant proportion of it drawn from what she called high-risk countries, “those where the sustainability, environmental and social credentials are hard to verify.” She said this included conflict timber from Russia entering Australia via China. “So Australia really needs to decide what it wants. For me personally, I would much rather we sourced our timber needs locally, from our own forests, where we know where it’s come from and we can verify it,” Dr Freeman said. Read the full transcript of Dr Freeman’s interview with Tom Elliott on 3AW Mornings: Banning Native Forestry Won’t Stop Demand for Timber here. Source & image credit: Forestry Australia --- Further Reading: Four Corners chooses activism over forestry facts A flawed ABC Four Corners investigation tonight into Australia’s sustainable native forestry sector was one-sided, unbalanced and lacked important scientific evidence and industry context. AFPA Acting CEO Richard Hyett said the misleading program was not interested in accurately reflecting the latest science, environmental credentials and economic importance of Australia’s innovative forestry industry. “Tonight’s story was not balanced, accurate or fair, and blatantly prioritised activism over credible journalism,” Mr Hyett said. More >> Source: AFPA | ||
Copyright 2004-2026 © Innovatek Ltd. All rights reserved. |
