Forum Archive Index - September 2003

[Robin Benson <rob@hammerheadmedia.co.uk>]

This begs the question of whether NZ should be aiming to sell timber  
cheaper than anybody else. Sure, selling a tree for more than the fifty  
cents it cost to grow makes a profit (what about transport, milling,  
marketing and retailing costs?) but surely there are bigger cats to  
skin?

On July 28 I pointed out an article:

> Humble radiata going Danish
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/ 
> businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3515141
>
> McDunk et al ... this is instructive for New Zealand ...  
> ip+design+technology+proximity to markets=success. Adding value is  
> critical in this global economy.

Now, there are many reasons why the Danish GDP leaves the NZ figure for  
dead (access to markets, etc.), but one is that the Danes add value  
where possible, place a high value on R&D, and emphasise marketing,  
design, technology and methods. Why? Because with an absence of natural  
resources, they have to. The Swedes and Finns are at it also. They have  
to. The influx of cheap formerly-Eastern Bloc wood means that just  
selling wood in Europe on the basis of price just doesn't cut it  
(sorry) any more.

The next question: is anybody in NZ up for adding value and investing  
in the future rather than just shipping out logs for others to skim off  
the cream?

I wonder what GPG's plans are/were? They have a clue, but is it the  
right clue for the NZ forest industry?

Robin

On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 12:55 AM, Duncan MacGregor wrote:

> A ten year old pine tree that costs 50c to buy will produce 8 fence  
> posts without even pruning or any other expense.      They can be cut  
> milled and treated and sold overseas cheaper than most countries can  
> ever do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/