The big debate on timber – poll results and QandA

The Big Debate: Timber is the sustainability solution of our dreams, on Tuesday, kicked off with the passion and nuanced debating points we have come to expect from this important material for the sustainability industry.

We took pre-polls in the weeks leading up to the debate to see how people felt before hearing the arguments, then from the audience just before the debate and after the audience had heard the arguments.

The results clearly reflect the makeup of the audience, so we don’t claim to say they define representative attitudes, but what is most interesting is to see how minds are swayed by the arguments.

We’ve posted the results here. Below you’ll also see some of the questions and answers. Plus, some feedback.

You’ll notice some big differences in the post poll between the online debate on Tuesday and the one we held at the Circular Disruption Forum on 12 November in person. Note that the audience at CD was strongly represented by alternative material interests. 

Debate statement: Timber is the sustainability solution of our dreams.

The QandA session samples of questions

Steve Ryan (had several questions):

• Timothy says the price of carbon will drive economics towards timber. Does this hold up for native forest logging, given the emissions from logging native forests, or purely for plantation/planted forests?
• Susie: Have you any specific examples of where the Responsible Wood certification has failed to achieve its stated objectives in biodiversity protection and continual improvement?
• Matt: How does the proposed ACCUs (Australian Carbon Credit Unit scheme) INFM (Improved Native Forest Management method) [currently seeking comments on the draft proposal] relate to your statement that there are climate mitigation benefits for managed native forests? Given that the two activities that reduce carbon emissions are ending logging or reducing logging.
• Natalie: Given the legal problems being experienced by NSW Forestry Corporations and Vic Forests, do we have a problem with pressures to provide supply, leading to a culture of non-compliance?
• Natalie: Can timber processors in NSW be liable for processing timber sourced from forestry operations where illegal activity occurred?
• Matt: Why has the Australian native forest logging industry never been able to attain FSC certification?

Chris Buntine:

Are Chain of Custody requirements being adequately adopted in Australia across the supply chain? Without COC, sustainable timber can’t be recognised by third party sustainable building rating tools. Adoption has been haphazard in my experience.

Natalie Reynolds reply:

My firm assists approximately 50 companies per year to become certified to the relevant Chain of Custody Standard. This is being driven by large retailers and green building standards. The uptake is continuing to increase. Products cannot be included in GBCA buildings, for example, unless proven recycled or having a COC Certification to the gate

Chris Buntine:

Does our industry clearly understand the difference between FSC

and PEFC labels, which do have different levels of stringency? My understanding is that FSC is the gold standard, and Australian suppliers have struggled to meet these requirements.

How do we drive greater use of sustainably harvested timber for free standing housing, as the level of ambition and awareness by many builders currently seems quite low.

All structural framing timber sold in Australia comes from Pinus Radiata plantations that are certified from New Zealand or Australia; the only other timber in the market is from Canada, which is also certified. So effectively, builders don’t need to know; they get it anyway! Native forest species are not used for housing framing because they are too expensive and often don’t meet the Australian Standard requirements.

Geoff Swinbourne, Crafted Hardwoods

Many of the same voices who rely on climate science often reject or overlook another equally robust body of science — the science showing that sustainable, actively managed forests are healthier, more resilient, and more climate-positive than forests left unmanaged

Kieran McInerney:

What glues are used in engineered timber, and what are their environmental impacts?

Timothy Devlin replied:

Generally, a low VOC polyurethane-based adhesive. No formaldehyde. Relatively low volumes and minimal impact in the scheme of things. The steel in the connections has a much larger environmental impact.

McInerney also asked:

Is CLT a single use product?

Adrian Taylor replied:

It depends. If used in timber concrete composite, it is very hard to separate after use. If used in isolation, it can easily be reused. Generally, mass timber is mechanically joined when not hybrid or interfaced via steel, so it is far easier than conventional construction to be circular if designed to do so

McInerney:

How is termite infestation avoided in CLT, which is typically made of softwoods that are attractive and palatable to termites?

Timothy Devlin replied:

Via correct detailing and allowing for inspections.

McInerney also asked:

When CLT is encased for fire rating purposes, are termite inspections difficult/ imprecise?

Clare Parry:

Matt spoke about the sustainability and responsibility requirements of the timber industry, but we see trees hundreds of years old and in sensitive ecosystems logged by the Tasmanian government regularly, including for chipping. How can this still occur in a highly responsible industry?

Anonymous:

What is the main reason for deforestation in Australia?

Natalie Reynolds replied:

Conversion into alternative land uses – agriculture primarily.

Anonymous:

What age of trees do we consider old growth? Where does the belief that old growth forests in Australia are a positive thing?

Darren:

If we were to close native forests, how do we feel about increasing timber needs and requirements being solely imported? Less visibility, potentially from less regulated sources, subject to international availability & markets experienced in covid as examples.

Natalie Reynolds replied:

Not all timber from overseas has lower regulated sources. We get a huge amount from Europe and North America, for example, and many countries in Southeast Asia are rapidly improving their practices. I saw it in person last week.

Rick Walters:

What limits the use of land for native plantations? Wouldn’t this be interchangeable with some agricultural crops (with, of course, a much longer growth phase)? Don’t other countries get much more timber from plantations? Matt, are you arguing that we would have to lose native forests to grow plantations?

Jeremy Spencer:

Would an important measure of a successful forestry environment see the logs coming out of forests getting ever bigger over time…?

Survey comments included:

• “Covered a lot of territory on a complex topic”
• I really liked the “opposing views”
• “Great topic and good diversity of opinions.”
• “Susie has amazing knowledge of forestry. All members of the panel were really well informed in their particular area. Matt was good, even though we could not agree with all his views.”
• “Susie was great, as was Natalie. Everyone spoke from a point of great expertise”
• There should be more “backup for sorting through questions” [Fair call – we got through only a fraction!]