Private Forests Tasmania

Tasmanian Primary

Wood Processors:

2012 Chain of Custody Certification Survey

Ian Ravenwood

January 2013

2

© 2013 Private Forests Tasmania

All rights reserved.

Tasmanian primary wood processors: 2013 chain of custody certification survey

Acknowledgement

Private Forests Tasmania (PFT) thanks Dr Melanie (Lain) Dare for her valuable help and advice on the survey, in

particularly for reviewing survey questions, helping with layout, setting up the online version, and discussions on

interpretation. However, all responsibility for the final form of the survey and the report remains with the

author and PFT.

Mr Shane Rice is also thanked for his assistance with updating PFT‟s directory of primary wood processors.

The willing participation of so many of Tasmania‟s primary wood processors is also acknowledged – a project

like this can only be as good as the responses allow and we are very grateful that they gave up their valuable

time to complete another survey, particularly at a such a difficult time for the Tasmanian forest industry and

when many clearly had more pressing issues to deal with.

Disclaimer

This report may be of assistance to you but PFT and its employees do not guarantee that it is without flaw of

any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purpose and therefore disclaims all liability for any error,

loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this report.

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist knowledge and discussion and

to help advance forest management certification of Tasmania‟s non-industrial private forest resource. You must

not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your

particular circumstances.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are

reserved. However, dissemination of the survey results is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning

reproduction and rights should be addressed to the CEO, Private Forests Tasmania at the contact details

below.

Preferred Citation

Please cite this report as:

Ravenwood, I.C., 2013. ‘Tasmanian primary wood processors: 2012 chain of custody certification survey. Report of

Private Forests Tasmania, Hobart.

Private Forests Tasmania Contact Details

Private Forests Tasmania (ABN 64 980 192 831)

83 Melville Street

Hobart TAS 7000

Phone: 03 6233 7640

Fax: 03 6233 7009

Email: admin@privateforests.tas.gov.au

Web: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au Private Forests Tasmania is a Tasmanian statutory authority established under the Private Forests Act (1994).

It works to facilitate and expand the development of the private forest resource in Tasmania in a manner which

is consistent with sound forest and land management practices. This includes advising and assisting private

landowners in the management of native forests and the establishment and management of plantations on

private land. It works closely with private landowners and major stakeholders to develop and deliver a wide

range of services to ensure sustainable forest use.

3

Contents

Key Findings at a Glance .......................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Survey of Primary Wood Processors ........................................................................................................ 9

Objectives of the Survey ...................................................................................................................... 9

Study Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Results .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Survey Response ................................................................................................................................ 10

General information about the businesses surveyed ........................................................................ 10

Certification awareness, barriers, intentions and attitudes .............................................................. 15

Open comments ................................................................................................................................. 22

Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix 1: Factsheet provided with survey. ....................................................................................... 25

What is chain-of-custody and forest management certification? ........................................ 25

Appendix 2: The survey questionnaire. ................................................................................................ 26

4

Key Findings at a Glance

A survey about chain of custody certification was sent out in February 2012 to all of the

68 primary wood processors Private Forests Tasmania (PFT) had identified as still

operating in Tasmania at that time. Thirty two completed surveys were returned (a

47.1% response rate);

A majority of the 32 respondents (66.7%) processed native forest hardwood logs into

sawn timber although, in volume terms, they only accounted for 14.3% of the total for all

products. The largest volume (54.9%) was accounted for by the four respondents

processing pulpwood;

Twenty four respondents (75.0%) reported that they supplied the Tasmanian market,

though seven of those did not expect to still be doing so in five years time (i.e. by

February 2017);

Processors‟ overall knowledge of both the main chain of custody and forest management

certification schemes was very high, with 84.4% and 87.1 % of respondents having a basic

understanding or better of the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) and the Forest

Stewardship Council (FSC) schemes respectively;

Of the 32 respondents to the survey, 25 (78.1%) either had or intended to get chain of

custody certification within the next three years (i.e. by February 2015):

o Eleven of those (44.0%) already had chain of custody certification. Nine of these

processors had AFS certification, one had FSC certification, and one had certification

under both schemes;

o Nineteen of those 25 processors (76.0%), also intended to commence acquisition of

either AFS (12) or FSC (7), with 4 intending both AFS and FSC chain of custody

certification within the next 3 years (i.e. by February 2015). Some of these 19

processors already had chain of custody certification under one scheme and intended

to extend it to the other; o The 25 businesses that either had or intended to get certification had low

expectations of a price premium for certified wood. They also had very little

expectation that gaining certification would increase their profitability;

o Their reasons for obtaining certification centred strongly around markets: either to

expand them, or to retain them, or because of both customer and consumer

demand:

The majority (80.0%) of the 25 respondents that either had or intended to get

certified rated „acceptability to new markets‟ as the strongest criteria;

International recognition of the certification „brand‟ was also rated highly (80.0%);

The ability to supply „controlled wood‟ to their customers was also rated as „very

important‟ by 10 of the 25 processors (40%) in this group. A further 32.0%

scored it between „neutral‟ and „very important‟;

Acceptability to environmental groups was rated much less strongly (by 44.0%), as

was the creation of an environmental benefit (36.0%) and obtaining a price

premium (also 36.0%); and

Public relations and business image were only moderately important reasons for

obtaining certification;

5

Only six respondents (18.7% of those who responded) had no intention of certifying and

for one of those it was because they were planning to cease operations. Another

selected “unsure” as an answer to all the „barriers to certification‟ question options and it

is assumed that their understanding of certification was well below that of their peers:

o The four remaining respondents identified the largest barriers that lead to their

intention not to certify as being the cost of implementing and then maintaining chain

of custody certification. This was followed by a lack of benefit to their business; o The availability of or, conversely, the lack of certified logs did not feature as a

significant reason for the decision not to pursue chain of custody certification;

Only four of the 24 respondents supplying the Tasmanian market reported that their

customers were currently seeking AFS certified wood. Four also reported that their

Tasmanian customers were currently seeking FSC certified wood. This low demand for

certified wood in contrast to the numbers intending to commence certification suggests

that processors were thinking strategically and anticipating that demand would be

increasing in the future. It may also indicate that they believe pressures to certify will

come from NGOs and government rather than directly from their customers;

Slightly more customers from other States were seeking AFS certified wood (reported

by six processors) than FSC certified wood (four processors);

All respondents, whether certified, intending or not intending, were asked to score the

barriers to obtaining chain of custody certification:

o Just as the subset of processors who had no intention to seek certification, the

greatest barriers identified by the larger cohort were financial – both the cost of

getting and then maintaining certification featured strongly;

o The financial resources of processors were also a significant barrier. Many of those

that had or intended to get chain of custody certification were clearly doing so in

spite of its cost; and

o Most processors did not consider a lack of demand for certified product to be a large

barrier.

A conclusion that can be drawn from this project is that Tasmanian primary wood

processors, driven by signals coming from their customers and their perception of where the

marketplace in general is headed, are keen to have chain of custody certification. Chain of

custody certification by this sector will create a market for forest management certified logs.

That will, in turn, encourage non-industrial private forest owner support for forest

certification.

The large base of Tasmanian AFS forest management certified forest, mainly owned and/or

managed by the industrial companies and Forestry Tasmania, has overtime encouraged a

market for AFS certified wood. The not-for-profit organisation Fine Timbers Tasmania

(FTT) administers an AFS group chain of custody scheme1. FTT‟s growing membership can

tap into the availability of AFS certified logs from both industrial organisations as well as from

non-industrial private forest owners.

1 The „group‟ is composed of a network of small legally independent enterprises that have associated together for the

purpose of obtaining and maintaining chain of custody certification for the whole group.

6

There is, however, a need for a complementary FSC group chain of custody scheme2 in

Tasmania. Although one of the smaller forestry management company has FSC forest

management certification3, there is currently only one industrial forest owner and/or

manager in Tasmania that has FSC forest management certification4, and then only achieved

in recent times. Consequently there have not been the same drivers present that helped

develop the AFS group chain of custody certification scheme. Government and/or third

party support and funding for the development of a FSC group chain of custody scheme will

assist the further take-up of forest management certification by non-industrial private forest

owners in Tasmania.

2 Unlike AFS, FSC is prescriptive in its definition of „small enterprises‟. They are defined as having no more than 15

employees or having no more than 25 employees and an annual turnover of US$1,000,000. This reduces the pool of

small independent business that can be members of a FSC Group Chain of Custody Scheme compared to the AFS

Scheme. 3 SFM Forest Products 4 Norske Skog Boyer

7

Introduction

Social and environmental certification is not a new concept, with examples from the late

nineteenth century of union and consumer organisations in the USA promoting a label placed

on consumer products to identify them as either union made5 (the “Blue Label”, often

meaning produced by non-immigrant or white-only labour) or not produced in sweat-shops6

(the “White Label‟) since the 1870s and 1890 respectively. The first of many organic

agriculture certification and labelling systems, Demeter, appeared in 19247. In recent decades

eco-labels have proliferated and at the end of 2012 the Ecolabel Index8 included around 435

labels from 197 countries and 25 industrial sectors.

One such eco-label, forest certification9, is a system of private voluntary standards for

sustainable forest management developed and managed by independent bodies (i.e. “third-

parties”). The standards are made up of environmental, economic and social criteria and

associated performance expectations. Owners of forests with certified forest management

agree to abide by that standard. An enterprises‟ compliance with the criteria, regularly

audited by accredited certifying bodies, translates the standard into tangible practices on the

ground.

In 1941 the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) was created to certify the sustainability of

privately owned land and forests in the USA10. However, forest certification as we now

know it first appeared in 1993 with the registration of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC),

spearheaded by WWF with the support of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other

ENGOs as well as social activists and some European retailers and producers. It was to

become one of the first large-scale international applications of social environmental

certification.

Chain of custody certification schemes operate in conjunction with forest management

certification. They allow the accurate and verifiable tracking of certified wood from the

forest, through the changes of custodianship at the primary and secondary processors, on to

the manufacturer and finally to the retail product in an outlet, eco-labelled with the schemes‟

label or logo. That label provides the ultimate assurance to consumers that a wood-based

product has come from sustainable sources and that claim has been verified by a third party.

Wood processors who have chain-of-custody certification can process wood from certified

forest management areas or timber supplied from other chain-of-custody certified

processors and pass it on to their customers or retailers with paperwork (e.g. invoices,

delivery dockets, inventory records and shipment markings) demonstrating traceability back

to the original source. Through this integrated system, consumers are given confidence that

a product at the point of sale can be traced back through the supply chain and be shown to

5 Kelley, M. E. J. (1899). The Union Label. The North American Review, Vol 165, No. 488, pp. 26-36.

6 Kelley, Florence (Nov. 1899). Aims and Principles of the Consumers' League, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 3,

pp. 289-304. 7 Courville, S. (2006). Organic standards and certification. Chpt 9 Organic agriculture: a global perspective. P. Kristiansen, A.

Taji and J. Reganold eds. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, pp. 201-219. 8 See www.ecolabelindex.com

9 In this report ‘forest certification’ is used to describe the system in its broadest sense. It includes the key element of

‘forest management certification’, as well as the supporting components, ‘chain of custody certification’ and ‘non-controversial/controlled wood’.

10 http://foresthistory.org/ATFS/

8

have originated from native or plantation forests that have had their forest management

certified.

There are two performance based forest certification schemes in Australia, the Australian

Forestry Standard (the AFS or AS 4708:2007)11 and Forest Stewardship Council certification

(FSC)12. AFS is, in turn, recognised by the international mutual recognition scheme Program

for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC)13. Both schemes have a chain of custody

component. Participation by processors and forest owners in either scheme is voluntary.

To increase their access to markets, some Tasmanian forest owners and forest management

companies have forest management certification under both schemes.

Private Forests Tasmania‟s (PFT) primary mission is to facilitate the sustainable management

of native and plantation forestry on private land in Tasmania. Within this compass it is

working on a project to guide private forest growers down an appropriate forest

certification pathway.

Being ostensibly a market-driven system, the demand for forest management certification is

not created by non-industrial private forest owners creating a supply-side „push‟. Unless

their customers are demanding logs from certified forests or were about to do so, it would

be an expensive and futile exercise for forest owners to get their forest management

certified. The general impetus for all forest owners to certify their forest management is

created by demand-side „pull‟ factors, generated by consumers at the point of sale seeking

out credible eco-labelled wood products14. It cascades down the supply chain.

The nexus between forest management and chain of custody certification means that

understanding the knowledge and attitudes of Tasmanian primary wood processors to chain

of custody certification is integral to identifying pathways for private forest owners to certify

their forest management. It can also identify issues and knowledge gaps in the chain of

custody certification process that should receive attention and support so that the

certification of Tasmanian non-industrial private forests can gain momentum with the

processing sector and export log buyers.

The state-wide survey of primary wood processors reported here was conducted during the

first half of 2012 to help provide answers to these questions. Encouraging the supply chain

beyond the forest gate will provide positive context for non-industrial private forest owners

to seek forest management certification.

The knowledge, attitudes and intentions of non-industrial private forest owners with respect

to forest management certification were surveyed by the University of Tasmania during the

first half of 2012 and have been reported separately15. In combination, the two surveys will

11

See www.forestrystandard.org.au. The five yearly review and revision process for the Australian Standard for Sustainable Forest Management (AS 4708:2007) and Chain of Custody (AS 4707:2006) was underway at the time of the survey and the writing of this report.

12 www.fscaustralia.org/home

13 www.pefc.org/

14 In reality, the demand for certification currently focuses on commodity products (e.g. tissues) created by ENGO

campaigns targeting large corporate manufacturers (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleercut) 15

Dare, M. and R. Eversole (2012). Forest certification of Tasmania’s private forests: Exploring the understanding

and intent of Tasmanian non-industrial private forest growers towards the adoption of forest certification. Burnie, Institute for Regional Development, University of Tasmania: 80 pp.

9

enable better strategies to be developed to improve the uptake of forest management

certification by forest owners.

Survey of Primary Wood Processors

Objectives of the Survey

To determine the current level of participation and future intentions of Tasmanian

primary wood processors in chain of custody certification. Factors influencing decisions

to either certify or not certify (e.g. barriers to certification; reasons for not certifying;

reasons for certifying etc) were also explored. Characterisation of the processors‟

businesses was also included (e.g. wood volumes; wood types; products; markets etc);

To determine the level of demand by primary wood processors for wood that has been

derived from certified forests (e.g. wood sources; markets; price premiums; and

controlled wood option); and

To determine the degree of awareness of forest management certification by Tasmanian

primary wood processors (e.g. schemes; sources of information).

Study Methods

PFT maintains an in-house directory of Tasmanian „primary wood processors‟16. They

are defined as businesses that manufacture a product from previously unprocessed logs.

As this cohort is also surveyed annually by PFT so that the harvest from private property

can be reported17, businesses that export unprocessed logs are also included in the

directory;

As well as log exporters, primary wood processors include sawmills, wood chip mills,

pulp mills, post and pole plants, and veneer plants. It is made up of large (i.e. industrial

scale), medium and small businesses. It does not include exclusively dry and planing mills

(these are examples of secondary wood processors) or manufacturers, although some of

the primary wood processors included in the directory are also engaged in secondary

processing;

The number of primary wood processors operating in Tasmania at any given time can be

fluid, particular so at times, such as those during the survey, of instability in the industry.

The industry has been continually changing but processors more frequently either

temporarily or permanently close their businesses or sell them to other operators at

times like these;

The survey of the primary wood processors contained in PFT‟s directory was

commenced in February 2012. This study measured the level of chain-of-custody

certification in Tasmania, or intent to certify, for this group. It also explored drivers for

chain of custody certification, such as the factors that either encouraged or hindered

certification, and their requirement for logs from certified forests;

At the time of the survey PFT‟s directory listed around 70 businesses that identified

themselves as primary wood processors (with no minimum limit placed on the volume

16

PFT intends to publish the Tasmanian Primary Wood Processor Directory in 2013 as a resource for private forest owners. 17 See „Private Forests Tasmania Annual Report 2011-12‟ (2012), p.13 for an example of the reporting of this survey -

(http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/files/2012_annual_report_text.pdf).

10

processed)18. At the tail-end of these 70 businesses are very small operations (for

example, processing less than 500 m3 of logs per year), some that come and go at the

whim of their operators. It also includes portable mill operators. It is not always

possible to find contact details for these smaller operators;

The survey form was eventually mailed to 68 primary wood processors. Respondents

were given the option of completing the survey forms and returning them either via a

„reply paid‟ envelop, by scanning and emailing back or by faxing them back to PFT.

Alternatively, they were provided with a web address which allowed them to complete

the survey using a well known online survey tool19. Procedures were developed that

ensured only a single return was received from each respondent regardless of the

response method;

To improve the response rate, processors who had not returned surveys were regularly

followed-up over the following month via email and phone calls. A small number of these

then chose to complete the survey over the phone; and

A one-page explanation of forest management and chain of custody certification was

included with the survey20. When information was sought from respondents about their

awareness of certification schemes (i.e. Question 1) they were asked to reply in terms of

what their knowledge had been before reading this inclusion.

Results

Survey Response

Thirty two of the 68 businesses sent a survey responded (47.1%), though not every

respondent answered every question (n = 23 to 32);

The responses received were representative of all Tasmanian micro to medium size

processor businesses so there is unlikely to be a response bias. However, all of

Tasmania‟s large industrial forestry companies responded. There is, therefore, a degree

of sample bias; and

Twenty eight of the 32 processors that responded (87.5%) were privately owned

Australian companies, partnerships or joint ventures. The balance were either listed

public companies (both Australian and foreign) or privately owned foreign companies.

General information about the businesses surveyed

Q9 - What products do you produce and what approximate log volumes are used to produce each?

18 Schirmer, J., Dunn, C., Loxton, E. and Dare, M. (July 2011) („Socioeconomic impacts of forest industry change: a baseline study

of the Tasmanian forest industry’, CRC for Forestry Technical Report 214 (Interim), identified that wood processing, both

primary and secondary, was undertaken on 64 sites in Tasmania. In contrast, the survey being reported here was mailed

to 68 PFT-identified primary wood processors. 19 Survey Monkey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/ ©1999-2012 20 Appendix 1: „What is chain-of-custody and forest management certification?’, PFT (2012)

11

Figure 1: Number of processors for each product count.

Twenty seven businesses, collectively processing around 1.1 million cubic metres of logs

in 2011 FY, either responded to this question or PFT had prior data that could be used21;

One of the responding businesses had not operated during the 2011 FY and hence

reported zero products. Eighteen produced only one product, three produced two, and

four produced three. At the upper end, one processor produced five products (see

Figure 1);

Figure 2: Products, processors and log volume range per processor ('NF' = native forest; 'HW' = hardwood;

'SW' = softwood; 'Plant' = Plantation).

The majority (18 = 66.7%) processed native forest hardwood into sawn timber, although

the combined 2011 FY log volume for these mills was just 14.3% of the total volume of

21

Prior data was sourced from the 2012 annual private wood harvest data collected by PFT by another process (see footnote 17)

12

all products (just over 150,000 m3). Three mills processed between 0 to 500 m3, three

processed 501 - 1,000 m3, six processed 1,001 - 5,000 m3, two processed 5,001 - 10,000

m3, and the remaining four processed 10,001 - 50,000 m3 (see Figure 2);

The next most popular product was sawn softwood with 5 mills processing a combined

2011 FY volume of 120,000 m3, around 11.2% of the total volume of all products. Three

mills had relatively large softwood operations (between 10,001 and 10,000 m3), while the

remaining two milled less than 500 m3 per year; and

Figure 3: Combined volume for each product type ('NF' = native forest; 'HW' = hardwood; 'SW' = softwood;

'Plant' = Plantation).

The largest volume products were native forest hardwood pulpwood and softwood

pulpwood chips (340,000 m3 representing 31.6% and 250,000 m3 representing 23.3% of

the total volume of all products respectively). Each of these products had two

processors that responded (see Figure 3).

13

Q10 – Which of the following markets do you currently sell your products to? What do you expect your

markets to be in five years time? Are they asking for certified wood?

Figure 4: Product markets now and in 5 years time, including demand for AFS or FSC certification.

There were a total of twenty seven respondents to this question with only three

reporting that they did not currently sell into the Tasmanian market, although two of

those currently supply into other Australian states (Figure 4). Both also indicated that

they did not expect Tasmania to be part of their market in five years time;

On the other hand, twenty four businesses reported that they currently supplied the

Tasmanian market but, tellingly in the light of current industry turmoil, seven of those did

not expect to still be supplying this market in five years time;

Only four processors were currently supplying into Tasmanian markets that wanted AFS

certified wood and the same number for markets wanting FSC certified wood;

Twenty one processors reported that they supplied product to other Australian states

but seven of those did not expect to still be supplying this market in five years time.

More processors reported a demand for AFS certified product in mainland markets than

in Tasmanian markets (six versus four);

Of the four processors that sold product into the Japanese market, only two expected to

still be doing so in 5 years time. Three of the four currently selling into Japan indicated

that market was asking for both AFS (PEFC) and FSC certified wood; and

More Tasmanian processors had current markets in China and other S.E. Asian countries

(6 and 5 respectively) than in Japan. Four of the six processors exporting to China

reported their market was asking for AFS certified wood while only two were seeking

FSC wood and two were not specifying certified wood at all.

For all current markets of processors (Tasmania, Mainland, Japan, China, etc), across the

board fewer were anticipated in 5 years time. This implies that some of the businesses

surveyed do not expect to be still operating in 5 years time.

14

Q11 - What type of forest owner do you source your logs from and do the logs come from certified

forests?

Figure 5: Number of processors procuring logs from specific sources

Thirty one responses were received to this question. Twenty three processors (74%)

sourced logs from Forestry Tasmania, and 17 of those received more than half their

supply from that source. Of the 23 processors sourcing logs from FT, 17 identified this

wood as certified, with the remaining six unsure as to whether it was certified or not

(Figure 5);

Ten processors sourced their logs from the larger forestry companies. Half received

more than half their logs from this source. Five knew they received certified wood while

the other five were unsure; and

Farmers and other non-industrial forest owners supplied logs to 17 of the 31 processors

that responded (55%).

Q12 - If you source logs from certified forests, do you pay more for certified logs than you do for non-

certified logs?

Twenty seven processors responded to this question. Twenty one of those either didn‟t

pay a premium (10) or were unsure (11); and

Only five processors believed that they paid a premium for certified logs22.

22

A sixth processor’s response was excluded from the data. Although they reported that they paid a premium for certified logs, in answering an earlier question they indicated that they did not source certified logs.

15

Certification awareness, barriers, intentions and attitudes

Q1 - Please rate your level of knowledge for each of these chain-of-custody and/or forest management

certification schemes prior to receiving our ‘What is chain-of-custody and forest management

certification?’ leaflet with this survey?

Figure 6: Awareness of chain of custody and forest management certification schemes

Processors are almost equally aware of AFS as they are FSC (Figure 6);

They have considerably less awareness of ISO14001 and PEFC;

84.4% have a basic understanding or better of AFS versus 87.1% for FSC (and 59.4%

and 65.5% for ISO14001 and PEFC respectively);

All processors had heard of FSC and all but one had heard of AFS. Seven and four

were unaware of ISO14001 and PEFC respectively; and

The difference in awareness of AFS compared to its international endorser, PEFC,

may be indicative of a knowledge gap with some processors on how the two are

linked or, alternatively, it could be reflecting that when supplying only the Australian

market PEFC is less relevant to a processor than is AFS.

16

Q2 - If your business is not chain-of custody certified and has no intention being so please indicate. If you

have or intend to get certification please indentify whether it is, or will be, AFS or FSC (or both). If intending

to get certification, indicate the timeframe for commencing certification process.

Figure 7: Current chain of custody certification status or certification intention

Twenty five processors out of the 32 that responded to the survey (78.1%) either have

or intend to get chain of custody certification (see Figure 7);

o Of those 25 processors, 11 (44.0%) already had certification (10 AFS and 2 FSC and

one processor that had both AFS and FSC certification). All 11 who were currently

certified intended to maintain their certification; and

o Of those 25 processors, 19 were intending to commence getting either AFS

certification (12), or FSC certification (7), or both AFS and FSC certification (4)

within the next 3 years, with one processor having already commenced the FSC

certification process.

Only six processors (18.7%) responded that they were not certified and had no intention

of being certified:

o One of these 6 processors, had “had enough (of the industry)” and was closing down

“whether he got IGA money or not”, so their motive for not certifying was related to

future business intentions rather than issues with certification per se;

Independent investigation has revealed that 5 of the 10 processors who already have AFS

chain of custody certification do so through Fine Timber Tasmania‟s group scheme. Two

processors who had indicated at the time of the survey that they were intending to achieve

certification within the next three years now also appear on FTT‟s Licensee list at the time

of report preparation23.

23

http://www.chainofcustody.com.au/licensees.php (accessed 12 June 2012)

17

Q3 - As your business is not certified and does not currently intend to become certified how important are

each of the following reasons for this decision (on a scale of 1 to 5 being from not important to very

important, with 3 = neutral)24.

Of the six processors who had no intention to getting certification, one was closing their

business (see comments above on Q2) and another answered either „unsure‟ or did not

answer at all to the reasons offered for not intending to certify;

Figure 8: Reasons for not intending to pursue chain of custody certification

The most important reasons selected for not intending to certify were the high cost of

implementing and then maintaining certification, although the “unsure” component for

the later was high for three out of the five respondents;

Another important reason was the perception that there would be no benefit to the

respondent‟s business, with three out of five respondents rating this as moderately

important;

Lack of incentive to certify from the government also rated strongly (60% above

„neutral‟) as did „certification is too complex‟ (also 60% above „neutral‟);

The availability of certified logs did not appear as a major reason for the decision not to

pursue chain of custody certification with three out of five respondents identifying it as

either moderately unimportant (score of 2) or were „neutral‟; and

24 Only those respondents who indicated in Question 2 that they had no intention of certifying were directed to Question

3. Consequently the sample size is small (n = 4 to 5) and it would be dangerous to overly finesse the interpretation of

the answers for this question.

18

None of the five respondents appeared to have a strong philosophical disagreement with

the concept of chain of custody certification, with one rating it as „not important‟, one as

moderately unimportant (score of 2) and two as „neutral‟.

Q4 – How important are each of the following reasons for your business obtaining chain-of custody

certification for your operations? (On a scale of 1 to 5 being from ‘not important’ to ‘very important’, with 3 =

neutral)

Figure 9: Reasons for obtaining or intending to obtain chain of custody certification (n= 24 to 25)

There is a relatively low expectation of a price premium25:

o Only one business out of 21 placed more than a neutral importance (a score of „4‟)

on receiving a higher price for certified timber as a reason for getting certified. Four

respondents (16%) were „unsure‟ that receiving a price premium was a reason for

them to seek chain of custody certification; and

o The expectation of increased profitability was also low with only five businesses

(20%) greater than neutral on this as an important reason for obtaining certification

(there were also four businesses that responded with „unsure‟).

25 This is consistent with international experience where price premiums for certified products, including wood, are the

exception and tend to concentrated around niche products (Anderson, R. C., D. N. Laband, Hansen, E.N. and Knowles, C.D. (2005). Price Premiums in the Mist. Research Brief, Wood Science & Engineering, Oregon State University: 2 p.

19

Receiving a price premium is not necessarily the same as achieving increased profitability,

although achieving the former would certainly help the latter. Without a price premium,

profitability can still increase because of new markets and increased market share as a result

of certification.

„The market‟ features very strongly in reasons for obtaining certification26:

o Fifteen out of 25 responses (60.0%) scored „expansion of markets‟ an emphatic „very

important‟;

o „To keep existing markets‟ also scored highly, with 12 out of 24 (50.0%) scoring it as

„very important‟;

o Gaining the ability to supply „controlled wood27‟ was identified as another strong

reason for certification, with 10 out of 25 (40.0%) scoring this as „very important‟;

o Processors‟ customers demanding certified wood was also a strong incentive for

seeking certification: it too had 10 out of 25 respondents (40.0%) scoring it as „very

important‟; and

o Customers and retail consumers demanding certified wood also featured as modestly

important reasons for pursuing chain of custody certification (56% and 40%

respectively scored it a moderate or very important reason for obtaining chain of

custody certification).

Not surprisingly, public perceptions provided moderately important reasons for obtaining

chain of custody certification with 17 out of 25 responses (68.0%) giving both „benefit to

business image‟ and „public relations benefits‟ greater than a „neutral‟ score; and

Processors were to some degree split on whether the „concerns of environmental

groups‟ were a reason for obtaining chain of custody certification. Twenty eight percent

of respondents scored it as either „not important‟ or „moderately unimportant‟ while 40%

scored it as „moderately important‟ or „very important‟, with 28% „neutral‟;

Similarly, „improving the knowledge of end-users rated‟ was also split with 28% of

respondents scoring it as either „not important‟ or „moderately unimportant‟ while 32%

scored it as „moderately important‟ or „very important‟, with 36% „neutral‟; and

Seventeen out of 25 processors (68%) rated „because other processors were getting

certified‟ as „neutral‟ or less important. This is consistent with a view that most

Tasmanian small to medium size processors are individualistic and independent „free

spirits‟. Three processors (12.0%) scored it as „very important‟ and are probably

representative of those who „look over the fence‟ to get guidance on what they should

be doing!

26 The benefit of certification in accessing markets is recognised worldwide (e.g. Leslie, A. (2004). "The impacts and

mechanics of certification." International Forestry Review 6(1): 30-39.). 27 „Controlled wood‟ is virgin material originating in non- certified forests or plantations that is non-controversial (PEFC) or

not from „unacceptable sources‟ (FSC). The emphasis is on processes to avoid material from illegal logging, but also

includes avoidance of genetically modified organisms, sourcing wood from the conversion of natural forests to plantations

and wood harvested from high conservation forests, particularly for FSC.

20

Q5 – Please rate how important the following criteria are when selecting a particular chain-of-custody

certification scheme for your business? (on a scale of 1 to 5 being from not important to very important, with

3 = neutral).

Figure 10: Reasons for selecting a particular chain of custody scheme

The most important criteria when processors select a chain of custody scheme are:

o „Acceptability to new markets‟: 20 out of 25 processors (80%) considered this to be

either „moderately important‟ or „very important‟, while only four respondents (16%)

were „neutral‟ to this criteria;

o „Internationally recognised brand‟: 20 out of 25 processors (80%) rated this as either

„moderately important‟ or „very important‟. Only three (12%) scored it as „neutral‟;

o „A scheme that is likely to survive long term‟: 20 out of 24 processors (80%) scored

this as either „moderately important‟ or „very important‟ (4% neutral); and

o „Desired by customers‟: 19 out of 25 processors (76%) rated this as either

„moderately important‟ or „very important, while only two (8%) scored it as „neutral‟.

Less important criteria were:

o „Acceptability to environmental groups‟: 11 out of 25 processors (44%) considered

this to be either „moderately important‟ or „very important‟, while seven respondents

(28%) were „neutral‟ to this criteria; and

o „Recommendation by industry bodies‟: nine out of 25 (36%) considered this to be

either „moderately important‟ or „very important‟ (and 36% were neutral);

o Nine out of 25 (36%) also scored „creating an environmental benefit‟, „having control

over the certification process‟, and „the likelihood of a price premium‟ as either

„moderately important‟ or „very important‟.

21

This is a positive result. It reveals a good pragmatic understanding by most processors, both

large and small, of the key criteria to use when they are selecting a chain of custody

certification system. They are considering them for the right reasons: not primarily because

environmental groups are clamouring for it, but because their customers and markets want

it.

Q6 – How much of a barrier were or will be the following for your business in obtaining, or attempting to

obtain, chain-of custody certification for your operation? (On a scale of 1 to 4 - from ‘not a barrier’, ‘small

barrier’, ‘medium barrier’, then ‘large barrier’).

Figure 11: Extent of barriers to obtaining chain of custody certification (n=28 to 29)

Financial based barriers were seen to be the greatest:

o Sixty percent identified the financial resources of the business as being a medium or

greater barrier to obtaining certification, with 21% identifying it as not being a barrier;

o Likewise, the cost of getting certification then maintaining it was identified by 66% and

62% respectively as being a medium or greater barrier to obtaining certification with

17% and 10% respectively identifying it as not being a barrier;

Surprisingly, 80% scored lack of demand for certified product as either not a barrier

(59%) or only a small barrier (21%) to obtaining certification;

22

Fifty five percent stated that both the „current relevance to (the processor‟s) business‟

and if „it was too early (now) to make a decision (about certification)‟ were not barriers

to obtaining certification. An additional 14% and 10% respectively identified these as only

small barriers;

Access to relevant information on certification was not seen to be a large barrier.

Seventy six percent identified it as either a small barrier (28%) or as not being a barrier

at all (48%). Only one processor (3%) scored this as a large barrier28;

Both management and employee skills needed to obtain chain of custody certification

were seen as being either „not a barrier‟ or a „small barrier‟ with 69% and 73%

respectively of respondents. The complexity of getting and keeping certification was

seen as a larger barrier (48% with 24% identifying it as „not a barrier‟ and 24% as a „small

barrier‟ only);

The time required to get certified was considered to be „not a barrier‟ or a „small barrier‟

by 55% of respondents and only 31% identified it as either a „medium barrier‟ (28%) or a

large barrier (14%); and

The biggest barrier to certification (44% scoring it as either a „medium barrier‟ or „a large

barrier‟) was the lack of clarity on which way the industry will go.

Q7 – We are also interested in any other quality management systems you use. Please select the

schemes or systems your business has in place.

This question was included because there is evidence that businesses that have other QA

schemes in place (e.g. more sophistication) find it easier to adopt chain of custody

certification;

The data will be stratified to investigate this.

Open comments – Respondents were provided an opportunity to comment on other aspects of

certification they considered important but had not been included in the survey:

A supplier of specialty timber (including veneer) into the musical instrument makers‟

market was concerned that certification did not lend itself to low volume operations. He

stored this high value and appreciating product for long periods (more than 10 years in

some cases) and the lack of retrospectivity with certification was also an impediment;

On price premiums: “We pay more for sawlogs from FT than private forests but unsure

if reflection of certification or inefficiencies of FT”;

“Unless compulsory will not bother”

“Not willing to consider certification at this stage due to (the) uncertainty of the forest

industry”;

“If they (logs) all come off Crown land then cannot see the point of this”; and

“Not a believer in certification, greens only ones to benefit. ..Unnecessary admin

expense.... imported product pushing us out of market ...”

28

Intuitively this could have been expected to be a larger barrier. It can be hard to source relevant information. This counterintuitive may be a case of processors ‘not knowing what they don’t know’.

23

Discussion

It has been contended earlier in this report that, in a strict market sense, forest management

certification should follow a natural order: firstly with consumers‟ need for wood products

made from timber that they can be certain comes from sustainably managed forests, flowing

from the retailer down to the manufacturer. They, in turn, demand the certified wood they

need to meet this need from secondary and primary wood processors. Finally, the

processors demand certified wood from the forest grower. That model suggests a purely

market-driven „pull‟ driving the process.

In reality, however, it may not be that simple. For example, at the other end of the

spectrum, social scientists see certification as a method of social regulation used by NGOs,

industries and governments to fulfil their agendas. Substantial consumer demand has been

seen to more commonly follow than lead the formation of certification standards.

Gulbrandsen (2006)29 argued that the targeting and intense pressure applied to firms by

transnational environment group networks primarily led to their decisions to participate in

non-state eco-labelling schemes rather than consumer demand30. Businesses will also seek

eco-labelling to differentiate product or gain access to „green‟ procurement practices31.

Regardless of the model and even if ones focus is primarily on non-industrial private forest

owners and maximising the likelihood of them adopting forest management certification

schemes, it is reasonable to put simultaneous effort into both owner forest management

certification and processor chain of custody certification. Which comes first, particularly in

the early stages, will only be relevant if one side ends up „orphaned‟ by a lack of intention or

commitment by the other to adopt certification.

This survey has disclosed a strong intent by Tasmania‟s primary wood processors to obtain

chain of custody certification. Most have a good understanding of what it is and why it may

be important to achieve.

Conclusion

Tasmanian primary wood processors, driven by signals coming from their customers and

their perception of where the marketplace in general is headed, are keen to have chain of

custody certification. Chain of custody certification by this sector will create a market for

forest management certified logs. Knowing that the wood processors they deal with have

chain of custody certification should, in turn, encourages non-industrial private forest owner

support for forest certification.

The large base of Tasmanian AFS forest management certified forest, mainly owned and/or

managed by the industrial companies and Forestry Tasmania, has overtime encouraged a

market for AFS certified wood. The not-for-profit organisation Fine Timbers Tasmania

29

Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2006), Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant?. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30: 477–489.

30 One of the most notable examples is Greepeace’s ‘Kleercut’ campaign against tissue maker Kimberly-Clark, owner of,

inter alia, the Kleenex brand (see http://www.kleercut.net/en/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleercut). 31

See, for example, the UK Public Procurement Policy on Timber (http://www.cpet.org.uk/uk-government-timber-procurement-policy/evidence-of-compliance).

24

(FTT) administers an AFS group chain of custody scheme32 and their growing membership

can tap into the availability of AFS certified logs from both industrial organisations as well as

from non-industrial private forest owners.

There is, however, a need for a complimentary FSC group chain of custody scheme33 in

Tasmania. Although one of the smaller forestry management company has FSC forest

management certification34, there is currently only one industrial forest owner and/or

manager in Tasmania that has FSC forest management certification35, and then only achieved

in recent times. Consequently there have not been the same drivers present that helped

develop the AFS group chain of custody certification scheme. Government and/or third

party support and funding for the development of a FSC group chain of custody scheme will

assist the further take-up of forest management certification by non-industrial private forest

owners in Tasmania.

32 The „group‟ is composed of a network of small legally independent enterprises that have associated together for the

purpose of obtaining and maintaining chain of custody certification for the whole group. 33 Unlike AFS, FSC is prescriptive in its definition of „small enterprises‟. They are defined as having no more than 15

employees or having no more than 25 employees and an annual turnover of US$1,000,000. This reduces the pool of

small independent business that can be members of a FSC group chain of custody scheme compared to the AFS scheme. 34 SFM Forest Products 35 Norske Skog Boyer

25

Appendix 1: Factsheet provided with survey.

What is chain-of-custody and forest management certification?

Forest management certification provides assurance that wood-based products come from sustainable sources. Chain of Custody certification systems allow the tracking of certified wood from the forest to the final product.

Through this integrated system, including the eco-label that appears on retail products (such as a

ream of photocopy paper purchased from an office supplier), consumers are given confidence that a

product can be traced back through the supply chain and shown to have originated from native forests

or plantations that have had their forest management certified.

Owners of forests with certified forest management have agreed to abide by a set of internationally

recognised principles and criteria relating to environmental and socio-economic practices - balancing

people, planet and profit. Wood processors who have chain-of-custody certification can process wood

from certified forest management areas or timber supplied from other chain-of-custody certified

processors and pass it on to their customers or retailers with paperwork (e.g. invoices, delivery

dockets, inventory records and shipment markings) demonstrating traceability back to the original

source.

In Australia we have two main performance based certification schemes, the Australian Forestry

Standard (AFS or AS4708:2007) or Forest Stewardship Council certification (FSC). AFS is, in turn,

recognised by the international mutual recognition scheme, Program for the Endorsement of Forestry

Certification (PEFC).

Participation in the schemes is voluntary. Processors and forest owners can chose which one they

use. To increase their potential market access, some Tasmanian forest owners have forest

management certification under both (for example, SFM and Norske Skog). Some forest owners and

managers also use a processed based certification scheme known as ‘ISO14001 - Environmental

Management System’.

To gain certification a processor’s systems are assessed by an external auditor for conformance with

the certification bodies’ standards. This can take more than one audit, especially if major non-

conformances are identified in the initial pre-certification audit.

Achieving certification allows use of the schemes logo on products made from wood sourced from

certified forests, as in the copy paper example above. Regular (usually annual) audits are then

required to satisfy the certifier that standards continue to be met. Every three or five years (depending

on the scheme) a more comprehensive recertification audit is required.

C002059 is Australian Papers' Chain-of-Custody number

26

Appendix 2: The survey questionnaire.

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 1 BIN xxx-xxx

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors

Private Forests Tasmania’s 2012 Chain-of-Custody and Forest Management Certification Survey

This survey asks questions about chain-of-custody and/or forest management certification. The attached PFT leaflet ‘What is chain-of-custody and forest management certification?’ is a brief beginner’s guide to certification.

If at all, a processor will have “chain-of-custody” rather than forest management certification unless they are also a forest owner or manager. Chain-of-custody provides traceability, right through to retail consumers, for wood from forests with forest management certification. Chain-of-custody and forest management certification are complementary.

The majority of large Tasmanian industrial forest growers (Forestry Tasmania, Gunns, Norske Skog, and FEA) have forest management certification but, apart from areas on farms under the management control of the large industrial companies (e.g. in leases and joint ventures), very little of the remaining private forest is certified. The exceptions are areas managed by SFM Forest Products and the ‘Lagoon of Islands’ property in the Highlands.

We are conducting this survey so that PFT can develop practical ways for Tasmanian private forest owners to achieve certification in a way that is consistent with the needs of forest industry processors. As such, this survey asks for information regarding your awareness of the various chain-of-custody and forest management certification schemes as well as your intentions regarding chain-of-custody certification. We are also interested in the current and future markets for your processed timber products.

Your participation in this survey is confidential. Only PFT staff undertaking the project will have access to the information you provide and at no stage will details about your business or its activities be passed on to other organisations unless you provide prior written permission.

Your responses will be combined with other participating processors and we will only be reporting summary statistics. Importantly, your business identity will not be identifiable in published results of the study, unless you have given explicit written permission for this to occur.

Private Forests Tasmania (PFT) was established in 1994 as a statutory authority under the Private Forests Act (1994). We provide strategic and policy advice to Government on private forestry issues, and represent Tasmanian private forest owners’ interests nationally. We also work to

facilitate and expand the development of the private forest resource in Tasmania. This includes advising and assisting private landowners in the management of native forests and the

establishment and management of plantations on private land. We work closely with private landowners and major stakeholders, including processors, to develop and deliver a wide range of

services to ensure sustainable forest use.

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 2 BIN xxx-xxx

Instructions

This survey should be completed by either the business owner or representative. It has been emailed to all the Tasmanian primary forest products processors we are aware of. It has also been posted to those we don’t have email addresses for.

To make it easier for you, the survey can be completed using any ONE of the following options:

1. Using the survey form received in the post: a. Either complete the copy of the survey provided and:

i. Return it in the Reply Paid envelope; or ii. Fax it to Tracey King at 03 6434 6200; or

iii. Email a scanned copy of it to tracey.king@privateforests.tas.gov.au; b. Or complete the survey online.

You will need to enter www.surveymonkey.com/s/PFT2012-chainofcustody-survey into your browser’s Address Bar (a.k.a. the URL Bar) and then follow the instructions. When the survey opens the first question will ask you to enter this unique Business Identifier Number: xxx-xxx (this is to help us reconcile the source of completed surveys we receive).

2. Or using the survey form received by email (as an attachment):

a. Open the attached survey form file (it is a Microsoft Word file) and fill in the form on-screen. Then save the completed survey and email it back as a file attachment to tracey.king@privateforests.tas.gov.au;

b. Or complete the survey online at www.surveymonkey.com/s/PFT2012-chainofcustody-survey by clicking on the internet link in the email and following the instructions that appear. The first question will ask you to enter this unique Business Identifier Number: xxx-xxx (this is to help us reconcile the source of completed surveys we receive by all methods of completion)

Completing the survey online is the easiest and quickest option if you have internet access. It automatically skips questions that are not relevant to your business, based on your answers to earlier questions. The survey is presented in two sections:

Section 1 – Chain-of-custody and forest management certification This section asks you seven questions about chain-of-custody, and your knowledge and views about it.

Section 2 – General information about your business This section asks five questions regarding general information about your business, including business ownership type, log sources, your products, and where (geographically) your markets are.

The survey should take around 5 to 10 minutes to complete. The success of this survey depends on the participation of processing businesses.

If you need assistance completing the survey or have any questions about it, please contact Tracey King on 6434 7260 or at the following email address: tracey.king@privateforests.tas.gov.au

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 3 BIN xxx-xxx

Section 1. Chain-of-Custody and Forest Management Certification This section asks questions about chain-of-custody and forest management certification. This information helps us to understand whether processors are chain-of-custody accredited or plan to be in the future.

Q1 Awareness of chain-of-custody and forest management certification schemes Please rate your level of knowledge for each of these chain-of-custody and/or forest management certification

schemes prior to receiving our ‘What is chain-of-custody and forest management certification?’ leaflet with

this survey? (Please check ( ) only one box per scheme)

Awareness of chain-of-custody and/or forest management certification schemes

Never heard of it

Basic Understanding

Extensive understanding

1 2 3 4 5

Australian Forestry Standard (AFS)

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

ISO 14001 Environmental Management System

Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC)

Other (please specify)

If you answered in Question 1 that you had never heard of any of the above chain-of-custody or forest management certification schemes prior to receiving this survey, please proceed to Question 7 now.

Q2 Chain-of-custody certification intention If your business is not chain-of custody certified and has no intention being so please check ( )the ‘True’ box . If

you have or intend to get certification please indentify whether AFS or FSC (or both). (Please check ( ) only the boxes that most reflect your current status or intentions)

Chain-of-custody certification True

Our business is not certified and has no intention of getting certified

If the answer is “True” please now proceed directly to Question 3, otherwise continue

AFS FSC

We are considering commencing certification within the next year

We are considering commencing certification in the next 1 to 3 years

We are considering commencing certification in 3 years or more

We are in the process of becoming chain-of-custody certified

We are currently certified but not sure about re-certifying

We are currently certified and intend to remain so

Please proceed to Question 4

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 4 BIN xxx-xxx

Q3 Reasons for not currently intending to become chain-of-custody certified

As you business is not certified and does not currently intend to become certified (from the first part of Question 2)

how important are each of the following reasons for this decision. (Please check ( )only one box per reason)

Reasons for not obtaining chain-of custody certification

Not important Neutral Very important Not sure

1 2 3 4 5

It will not bring benefits to my business

There is no certified wood available

There is a lack of incentive from government

The implementation cost is high

The ongoing cost is high

We already use wood from sustainably managed forests

We do not agree with the idea of chain-of-custody and forest certification

It will not affect our market share

It is to complex

Other (please specify)

Please proceed to Question 6

Q4 Reasons for obtaining chain-of-custody certification How important are each of the following reasons for your business obtaining chain-of custody certification for your operations? (Please check ( ) only one box per reason)

My reasons for obtaining chain-of custody certification

Not important Neutral Very important Not sure

1 2 3 4 5

To keep my existing markets

To expand my markets

My customers are demanding certified wood

Retail consumers are demanding goods made from certified wood

My customers will pay me a higher price for certified timber

Because it leads to more sustainable management of Tasmania’s forests

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 5 BIN xxx-xxx

It allows me to supply ‘controlled wood1’ to my customers

Because it will lead to higher profits

Because it will offer public relations benefits

Because it improves the knowledge of end-users about wood

To satisfy the concerns of environmental groups

Because it will benefit my businesses public image

Because other processors were getting certified

Other (please specify)

Q5 Selection of chain-of-custody certification standard Please rate how important the following criteria are when selecting a particular chain-of-custody certification scheme for your business? (Please check ( ) only one box per criteria)

Importance of criteria when selecting a chain-of custody certification scheme

Not important Neutral Very important Not sure

1 2 3 4 5

Internationally recognised brand

Desired by customers

Acceptable to new markets

Acceptable to environmental groups

The certification scheme is likely to survive in the long tem

Acceptable to environmental groups

Gives me control over the certification process

More chance of a price premium from my customers

Creates environmental benefits

Recommended by our industry body

Impact on company’s image

Other (please specify)

1 ‘Controlled wood’ is not from certified forests but is wood that can be mixed with majority certified wood because it still meets

certain legal, social and environmental criteria.

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 6 BIN xxx-xxx

Q6 Barriers to chain-of-custody certification How much of a barrier were or will be the following for your business in obtaining, or attempting to obtain, chain-of custody certification for your operation? (Please check ( ) only one box per Barrier)

Barriers to chain-of custody certification

Not a barrier

Small barrier

Medium barrier

Large barrier

Not sure

1 2 3 4

Limited financial resources

Complexity of getting and keeping certification

Access to relevant information

Number of schemes to consider

Time required to seek forest certification

Cost of getting certification

Cost of maintaining certification

Employee skills needed

Management skills needed

It is too early to make a decision

Current relevance to our business

Lack of demand for certified product

Lack of clarity on which way the industry will go

Other (please specify)

Q7 About your other quality management systems We are also interested in any other quality management systems you use. Please select the schemes or systems

your business has in place. (Please check ( ) all that apply)

Safety and/or Injury Map Australian Timber Industry Certification

ISO 14001 Environmental Management System Internal safety management systems

ISO 9001 Quality Management System Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 7 BIN xxx-xxx

Section 2. General information about your business This section asks questions about your business. This information helps us to understand how approaches to chain-of-custody may vary across business types, markets, and log sources.

Q8 Ownership status of your business

What is the ownership status of your business? (Please check ( ) only one box)

Private company, predominantly Australian ownership

Private company, predominantly foreign owned

Australian Stock Exchange listed company

Foreign stock exchange listed company

Partnership

Sole trader

Other (please specify):

Q9 Products and Log Volumes

What products do you produce and what approximate log volumes are used to produce each?

Product Type Total annual log intake

(for year ended 30 June 2011) Units (tonnes or m3)

Native forest hardwood sawn timber

Native forest hardwood veneer

Plantation hardwood sawn timber

Plantation hardwood veneer

Softwood sawn timber

Softwood wood chips

Softwood veneer

Particle Board

Firewood

Other (please specify)

Q10 Markets for your products

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 8 BIN xxx-xxx

Which of the following markets do you currently sell your products to? What do you expect your markets to be in five years time? Are they asking for certified wood? (Please check ( ) all that apply)

Country (or State) Current In 5 years Asking for AFS/PEFC?

Asking for FSC?

Tasmania

Mainland Australia

Japan

Korea

China

Other SE Asia

European Union

USA

Other (please specify)

Q11 Wood sources What type of forest owner do you source your logs from and do the logs come from certified forests? (Please provide the percentage from each source, remembering that the total for all sources will add up to 100%. For each wood source also check ( ) either the Yes, No or Unsure box as to whether it is forest management certified)

Log Source Percentage Certified Forest

Yes No Unsure

Forestry Tasmania %

Large Forestry Companies %

Farmers %

Smaller private forestry block owners %

Other (please specify)

%

Q12 Price premiums If you confirmed in the previous question (Q11) that you source logs from certified forests, do you pay more for

certified logs than you do for non-certified logs? (Please check ( ) only one box)

Do you pay more for logs from certified forests?

Yes No Unsure If ‘Yes’ what is the average % increase

%

Tasmanian Primary Forest Products Processors Survey – 2012

Page 9 BIN xxx-xxx

Please add any other comments about chain-of-custody or forest management certification that you think are important but have not been included in this survey:

Please indicate if you are interested in being posted or emailed a summary copy of the study results.

I would like to be sent a summary report of the study’s result.

I would prefer to be emailed or posted the summary report

My contact details:

Name:

Email:

Phone number:

Postal address:

Thank you for participating in the survey