A major major fail by Gunns Ltd.

After all these months, they did not even try. They have even pulled Tasmania OUT of the Controlled Wood assessment acknowledging that they could not meet the requirements.

Reading the summary it was just a reinforcement of everything the public already knew and the FSC were not blinded by the bullshit of Gunns and Gunnernment.

In fact it seems that since the public pre-assessment meetings were held so many months ago, Gunns has decided to say “Fuck ‘em, keep going with our pulp plan and we’ll worry about the FSC bullshit later.”

Some thinly veiled ‘token’ gestures were made in organising the bullshit ENGO public ‘consultations’ but these were widely and immediately recognised as Gunns white-washing and mere feeding of the egos of the ENGOs involved.

The ‘Principles’ was no more than a more of the same strategy drafted by and for the forest industry then handed to the Tasmanian Government to put into practice, similar to the disgustingly outrageous PMAA.

Since then all we have seen is:
- a shuffling of the deck chairs at Gunns’ management level with increased monetary rewards to individuals proudly announced,
- a further deterioration of forest practices with FT charging deeper into the forests than ever before,
- a deliberate increase in clearfelling the water catchments of the major Tasmanian cities,
- a fire-sale of everything non-woodchip worth anything in Gunns’ assets just to pay the bank interest and employ additional spin doctors,
- the closure of almost all Gunns’ non-woodchip operations leaving hundreds of timber workers without a future just before xmas 2010,
- the ridiculous attempt to buy into more assets without any money which has lead to another doomed-to-fail share float,
- the withdrawal of any further Government assistance, State or Federal, because they just don’t know or can see where the last three quarters of a $Billion has gone, and
- the continued threats and intimidation of the Tasmanian public by the forest industry to accept the “Principles” or else!

Gunns has well and truly outdone themselves this time. Well done guys. Three cheers!

Fail, fail, fail.

If Gunns Shareholders read this document the shares should touch 25 cents, for no FSC means no Pulp Mill.
If the pulp wood is sourced from Tasmania, which as a State Gunns have now withdrawn from the certification process the pulp products are unsaleable as they will be produced from uncertified timber.
This means all the timber will have to come from the mainland within the Green Triangle, unless of course Gunns lie and cheat claiming mainland certification for Tasmanian timber ,but they would not do that,would they?

Re #2
A little too hard to hide I think.

2.If Gunns Shareholders read this document the shares should touch 25 cents, for no FSC means no Pulp Mill.

Then why not send it to them?

Thankyou #4 I am sure Gunns will inform the ASX if not I will.

#5 John,
You may like to include this key indicator from the GUNNS Plantations’ Manager also:
http://www2.gunns.com.au/plantations/general-information/pdf/Grower Update - GPL Woodlot Projects & ex-GSMAL schemes 26 Nov 2010.pdf
If this is the basis for responsible, commercially viable plantation management is, the ASX better be aware of the consequences.
Regards from the Change Agent

#2 & #4 - Read carefully, they only pulled TAS out of the controlled wood process, not the FSC certification process.  A little understanding would’t hurt, gents…

#5 & #6 - this one may work:
http://www2.gunns.com.au/plantations/general-information/pdf/Grower Update - GPL Woodlot Projects & ex-GSMAL schemes 26 Nov 2010.pdf

Re #7
Read carefully, Michael, the controlled wood process covers all their Tasmanian plantations. You know, all that stuff which was to 100% feed the pulp mill. That also means everything they wanted to add, which wasn’t FSC certified.

However, the FSC Forest Management assessment part that Gunns didn’t pull out of was found, how should I say, critically non-compliant.

Or this way John #5

http://www2.gunns.com.au/plantations/general-information/pdf/Grower Update - GPL Woodlot Projects & ex-GSMAL schemes 26 Nov 2010.pdf

GROWER UPDATE

GPL Woodlot Projects & ex-GSMAL Plantation forestry schemes

26 November 2010

The woodchip export market in Australia is operating in a rapidly changing environment.

Gunns Plantations Ltd (GPL) would like to update growers of recent developments in this area that are likely to have an impact upon
grower’s investments, particularly in the GPL Woodlot Projects.

Gunns Limited has recently announced that it would close several northern Tasmanian woodchipping sites as part of a major
operational restructure of its forest products division. I
would specifically refer Growers to the ASX announcement of Gunns Limited (GNS) dated 24th November 2010.
The announcement states that, “The recent rise in the value of the $AUD has made our products very uncompetitive in Asian markets.
There is also increased competition from plantation fibre as the vast areas planted in Australia over the past 15 years reach maturity.”

Although much of the impact is being borne by the natural forest (i.e. native forest) woodchip export sector, as Australia’s historical
major trading partner Japan moves away from woodchips sourced from natural forests, the exports of plantation grown woodchips
are also being heavily impacted. Japan is reducing its pulp and paper processing capacity as a consequence of the ongoing effects of
the global financial crisis and due to supply coming on-stream from newer, more efficient pulp mills in China, South Africa and South America.
Customers for ocean traded woodchips are also showing a strong preference for woodchips sourced from FSC certified sources.

As you are aware GNS is devoting considerable resources to a project aimed at achieving FSC certification for its managed plantations
(including those of Growers in both the GPL Woodlot Projects and the ex-GSMAL plantation schemes) in Tasmania, the Green Triangle
and Western Australia.

The availability of high quality eucalypt plantation grown woodchips exceeds current market demand due to the depressed markets
and the large areas that were planted in Australia on the back of MIS investment, particularly plantations that were planted in
1997-2000 and are now available for clearfall harvesting throughout Australia.

Further to the GPL update of the 22nd October 2010, after considerable deliberation, the Board of GPL has recently decided to accept
a stumpage price for thinnings from plantations comprising GPL’s Woodlot Projects 2000, 2001 and 2002 (planting Options 1 and 2).
The price was disappointing but deemed by the GPL Board, management and independent expert advice to be the best price available
given the market conditions at the time. The continuing deterioration of the markets for export woodchips, as evidenced by GNS’
announcement of the 24th November, however has now put GNS’ ability to conduct thinning operations in doubt.
Clearfall harvesting of E.globulus plantations in mainland Australia are continuing but are also suffering from the same market pressures.
In this environment of surplus supply, GNS’ Japanese customers are showing a preference for higher basic density, lower moisture content
wood from E.globulus clearfall operations than from younger, higher moisture content wood from the thinning of E.nitens plantations in Tasmania.
In addition, both Japanese and Chinese customers are showing a strong preference for cheaper wood sourced from competing countries.

The long term best interests of Growers in GPL’s Woodlot Projects are served by Gunns Limited being successful in establishing a modern,
efficient and globally competitive pulp mill at Bell Bay.

In addition, GNS has recently announced its plans to divest itself of its natural hardwood (native forest) processing operations including
the Somerset Veneer Mill, being one of the potential markets for Grower’s wood in Planting Option 2 (Veneer and Pulpwood Option) of
GPL’s Woodlot Projects.

Both the Board and management of GPL is giving particular attention to the implications of the above information for Planting
Option 2 (Veneer and Pulpwood) investors in GPL’s Woodlot Projects as timely thinning (harvesting) is essential for the successful achievement
of the aims of the Veneer and Pulpwood investment option.
Without timely thinning of the unpruned stems, the successful growing of veneer logs is jeopardised.

The Board of GPL will continue to provide regular updates for Growers on the market situation affecting Grower’s plantation forestry
investments, however, it must be noted that GNS’ ability to commercially thin Grower’s plantations is currently looking considerably doubtful.

Ian Blanden

Chief Executive Officer

Re #7 above

I shall try and spell out Gunns problem as exposed by this key document regarding their corporate future. Firstly, Part 1 of the Rainforest Alliance Document:
The Forest Management Pre Assessment P10 states:

“Plantations established by Gunns in areas converted from natural forest since 1994 normally do not qualify for certification.This could disqualify a significant portion of Gunns plantation estate in Tasmania.”
This is the wood required for a Tasmanian Pulp Mill and it will need to be FSC Accredited to make the end product from the Pulp Mill saleable.
Part 2 The Controlled Wood Evaluation.

“The Gunns holdings on permanent(freehold) and semi permanent (managed)forest estates in Tasmania will be omitted from the scope of the Controlled Wood Evaluation in Tasmania.”
I suggest that Gunns having been warned in the first part of the document that they will not get FSC over Native Forest converted to plantations in Tasmania, have taken the course that rather than have this fact exposed before a hostile public they must immediately withdraw their Tasmanian Estate from the process of FSC Certification.

This now leaves them with three simple choices, Cheat, Scrap the Pulp Mill, or go Bust. That is why if,  they do not submit this price sensitive document to the ASX,  I will.

#11 - Sigh, John, you still fail to understand what has been presented to you.

Yes, areas that have been converted post ‘94 normally do not qualify for FSC certification.  Gunns took over North Forests circa 2000, so any areas converted post 2000 will most likely be unavailable for (the full) FSC certification.  This still leaves a fair chunk of Gunns’ estate available for FSC certification, which pending the amendments required by the above document will be certified.

Now, the remaining areas of Gunns’ estate that have been converted post 2000 can still be eligible for Controlled Wood Status.  From the document “Gunns has indicated
that the removal of Tasmania from the scope is temporary to allow sufficient time to close out the major CARs.”

Pretty simple stuff John!

Hawkins (#11), a man again on a self-selected mission after viewing an event through his special coloured lenses.  Why won’t it be as futile as your recent Qixotic hounding of Senator Abetz?

Re #12
Sigh, Michael, you still fail to understand what you yourself have just presented, and of what is required for FSC and Controlled Wood status (both mega-fails if you read the document).

But, first you say “areas that have been converted post ‘94 normally do not qualify for FSC certification”, then you say “the remaining areas of Gunns’ estate that have been converted post 2000 can still be eligible for Controlled Wood Status…”

My arithmetic, and understanding that 2000 is actually “post ‘94”, says your sums don’t add up.

That aside:
1. it can’t be both, and
2. Gunns have pulled Tasmania OUT of the Controlled Wood assessment.

Re #13
Anything actually on topic to add?

#12. From the document “Gunns has indicated that the removal of Tasmania from the scope is temporary to allow sufficient time to close out the major CARs.” .... Michael

This is not the RPDC you know. Nobody is going to come forward and give Gunns a special licence for their timber. They need FSC certification or it is curtains for the mill and with every action they take, the likelihood is looking more and more remote. Bit like the Black Knight in Monty Python—- ‘only a flesh wound’!

In the words of J B-P “don’t you worry “crf

Regarding #10, #11 and #13

The GUNNS Growers Update is now outdated again, as the Rainforest Alliance informed Stakeholders in recent days that GUNNS has pulled out of the FSC Controlled Wood Assessment process but Ian Blanden stated:
“... As you are aware GNS is devoting considerable resources to a project aimed at achieving FSC certification for its managed plantations (including those of Growers in both the GPL Woodlot Projects and the ex-GSMAL plantation schemes) in Tasmania, the Green Triangle and Western Australia.”
At the GUNNS AGM in November I asked the question if GUNNS was aware that due to the fact that most of their Hardwood Plantations on Forest Conversion land were established since 1998 and the November 1994 deadline these plantations would not be FSC certified? Consequently how would they consider to not address this issue , and if they thought that FSC Light (Controlled Wood Status) was simply a ‘Rubber Stamp’ process?

The response was: ” The next one please”.
If Gunns still believe that they could argue that they are not responsible for the North Plantations and the Great Southern Plantations and potentially the FEA plantations on forest conversion areas, they would consequently need to show a paradigm shift in management and cooperation with the community to restore such areas back to sustainable “working forests”.
Anything less would not be in the spirit of FSC.
The other issue so far overlooked or ignored is the fact that Water quality and quantity are High Conservation Values, as everyone cooks with water and we can’t do without polluion free, clean water.
We shall see.

Gunns Ltd’s share price snuck below 60 cents today for the first time since early October.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nsw/content/2010/12/s3100429.htm

North Coast timber industry
By Miranda Saunders

Thursday, 23/12/2010

Key players in the North Coast Forest industry are seeking support from the Federal Government for solutions they’ve come up with to deal with the failed managed investment schemes.

Southern Cross University’s Professor of Forestry Jerry Vanclay says one of the ways to manage failed MIS plantations is use the timber waste to produce biofuels.

He says the North Coast timber industry is uniquely different to others around the country.

“One of the most important differences is we don’t do broad acre clearing so you won’t see any of those big clear fells you see on TV. In this region most of our harvesting is single tree selection.”

The North Coast does share a similarity with other forestry areas around the country and that’s what to do with the large stands of timber which were part of failed managed investment schemes.

Local industry representatives have formulated ideas as to what to do with the timber in order to recover costs for farmers.

But they say that requires a cash injection from the Federal Government.

“The challenge we’ve got is there is no immediate market for the trees in those schemes and if the administrators get together and decide the best option is to sell that, it’s not clear that there is an attractive buyer for that market. It’s in the communities interest to foster some research into developing a market for the small trees, the thinnings.”

In this report: Professor Jerry Vanclay, SCU Researcher; Andrew Hurford, Hurford Timbers

#13 crf - why criticise someone for being on a self selected mission - is it somehow superior to be on a mission selected by others?

And don’t we all see reality through a lens largely made from our own experience and preferences?

(Langfield) you fail to recognise that because Gunns became the forest manager in 2000 then any plantation conversion from 1994-2000 will be available for full FSC certifiaction because they weren’t the responsible entity at the time of conversion.  As for the areas of converted from 2000-2008 they will be available for Controlled wood certification.

Re #21
You, Michael, fail to recognise that Gunns has withdrawn its Tasmanian plantation estate from the Controlled Wood Certification process.

However, I am sure Frank Strie would be able to clarify the eligibility status of said plantations.

Would you be able to post the FSC website address with all the eligibility criteria points, Frank?

Geoff Brough (#20), I did not imply a self-selected mission is likely to be SUPERIOR to one selected by others.  In fact, it’s more likely to be INFERIOR because of the obsessions that lead to the selection made by the person.  But I think you know that.

In reality it is only ever likely to be a self made “mission”.  No one is going to ‘select’ it for him. 

It needn’t be a mission at all (i.e. hounding Abtez or dobbing Gunns in to the ASX on his imagined grounds - maybe Hawkins should tell us what the ASX reply was).

I can see a pattern of behaviour which isn’t as simple as “reality through a lens largely made from our own experience and preferences”.  It’s plain ugly and vindictive behaviour I’m seeing.

#22 - I’ve already posted this numerous times, Langfield, but apparently the editors don’t like you being asked if you know the defintion of the word “temporary”...

Regarding #21 Michael - who?
May I strongly suggest you do your homework properly and as you may think or call it you believe that only because GUNNS Limited was not or is not directly responsible for the forest conversion projects conducted / executed by other much like minded businesses, like the purchased operations from Boral and North Forest Products, and / or where GUNNS have now taken on the “responsibility” as plantation manager from the former MIS companies such as broken Great Southern Plantations (just to name one), that there is a chance for GNS to get controlled wood status or even full FSC?
Because the FSC process is not a ‘one off’ rubber stamp, or a simplistic quick tick of approval process, but an ongoing, living and active process with full stakeholder consultation etc. this will not happen neither this year nor next.
If GUNNS even think that they could trick their way into this or try cunningly to get a foot in the FSC door, they have something coming.  They would be just wasting time, money and energy.
The reputation of GUNNS and Forestry Tasmania is so very bad these days, that without trust, they will have no hope. Mr Greg L’Estrange Chief Executive Officer of GUNNS admitted that reality himself.
As if we Australians are not in a position to learn from the mistakes from the past.
Because most of us are aware of the fscwatch website, we know well that we (all interested and informed stakeholders and business operators) will need to put the facts on the table and inform the certifiers and FSC Australia and FSC International. 
and #22 http://www.fscaustralia.org  and http://www.fsc.org
Have fun.

crf # 23
I see you do not listen so I give you the quote in full,‘Don’t you worry about that”.
For your information:
I have not finished with Abetz.
The ASX have not,as yet,replied.
I will keep you informed,thank you for your concerns.

#10. I believe Gunns helped themselves avoid bankruptcy when they discovered that they had overlooked the huge management charges for all the MIS plantations they had taken over and were administering, yet they cannot find enough finance to prune their assets! I wonder what will happen when they start billing for their next round of management services and as they had had calculated these fees into their future cashflow, where does this now leave them financially?