Lately, wood has reemerged as both the newest and oldest answer to the construction industry’s carbon footprint challenges. However, building with wood captures only a fraction of the timber economy’s potential to reduce carbon emissions; prioritize forest ecosystem health and biodiversity; and improve local economies--leaving significant untapped potential.
Fortunately, to fully unlock the benefits of timber-based construction, the industry does not have to look far—just up the supply chain. By focusing on the forests that supply its timber, the construction industry can dramatically decrease its carbon impact and increase its ability to support ecosystem health, biodiversity, and local economies--well beyond current efforts.
Doing good: Using wood to decarbonize construction
Currently, the built environment accounts for about 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), including emissions created in constructing buildings and in energy use to support their ongoing operations.1 This impact is only expected to grow as global populations swell and urbanize, particularly in the Global South. For example, by 2050, the world’s urban population is expected to double2--with nearly 90% of the increase in Asia and Africa3. Given these trends, it is no surprise that many built environment professionals are seeking opportunities to reduce the industry’s impact.
To keep carbon out of the atmosphere, many architects, builders and other built environment professionals are exploring the use of more bio-based materials, such as wood, in construction. When managed well, forest-to-build value chains offer three interconnected opportunities to maximise carbon savings: sequestration, storage and substitution. Trees naturally sequester carbon dioxide; this carbon can be stored in forest products such as timber, and using wood instead of carbon-intensive materials like steel or cement provides an additional substitution benefit.
But to maximize the sequestration and storage opportunity, actors in the supply chain must know three consecutive things about the forest: 1). Where has the wood come from? 2). Is the forest that produced the wood sustainably managed? 3). Can the forest carbon stock be considered positive?
The good news is that end users now have many tools to track the origin of timber and timber products and their movement through the supply chain. In an effort to cut through the complex nature of mixed wood fibre supply chains and comply with legislative mandates such as the EUDR or the Lacey Act, several in-house or off-the-shelf solutions have emerged for companies wishing to trace and report on the origins of their timber imports. These tools include such options as log marking; DNA testing; cloud-based supply chain compliance platforms; government-sponsored timber traceability systems; RFID tags; and QR codes. Thankfully, traceability is becoming the norm across the industry.
To address concerns about wood use contributing to deforestation or forest degradation, many industry professionals also rely on third-party-certified forest management standards as a proxy for sustainable sourcing of their wood products. While these standards vary, they generally aim to provide assurance that the wood comes from well-managed forests. Audits may assess sustainable harvest levels; protection against conversion; reduced pesticide use; biodiversity, water quality, and rights of indigenous peoples. Some certification schemes even allow the companies who purchase their labeled products to report on the positive impacts of better forest management in the products’ source forests—another step forward.
However, across these tools, the climate functions of sourcing forests are often considered implicit. Indeed, the built environment industry struggles to find ways to easily define, distinguish, and report on climate-smart forest management—and therefore to support it.
Doing more good: A focus on forests
So how can an intent to increase biobased construction also serve to increase climate smart forest economies? Primarily, when industry professionals take the additional step of sourcing wood from climate smart forests.
In climate smart forests,4 forest managers focus on increasing carbon sequestration and storage while improving forests’ ability to provide other ecosystem services (ranging from habitat for biodiversity to air quality improvement).
They protect forests from loss, maintain forest integrity, restore degraded landscapes, and prevent conversion to more intensive management practices. They work to maximize forests’ impact on human health and community resilience. Where relevant, local communities and indigenous people are actively involved in forest management, ensuring respect for indigenous values and rights.
At harvest time, climate smart forest managers don’t always harvest the maximum allowable number of trees. Instead, they remove only what the forest can provide without negative impacts to the carbon sink balance. They also help forests adapt, replacing struggling tree species with ones better suited to warmer, drier conditions—and working with businesses in the wood products value chain to transform these trees into consumer products, such as mass timber. Revenue from the sale of forest products is used to fund efforts to improve forest management.
As the climate smart forest economy evolves, businesses across the value chain make different decisions, driven by policy and finance levers--or technology improvements. For example, the finance sector might use low-interest loans to incentivize long-lived wood products, such as timber and furniture, that can store carbon for the long term. Governments might use tax structures to encourage manufacturers to co-locate facilities, so waste from a process like mass timber production could be used as input for the manufacture of a product such as chipboard or insulation. Innovations in sawmill and product technology could make better use of currently discarded, low-value tree sections (such as branches and treetops); low-diameter wood (such as from tree thinning operations); and undervalued species (such as temperate hardwoods).
But can we really build climate smart forest economies?
While climate smart forest economies are still an emerging concept, some examples already exist. Take Oregon State University’s new Edward J Ray Hall in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, which the University built using many climate smart forest economy principles,5 thanks to the support of nonprofit organization Sustainable Northwest. Much of the wood used came from a forest restoration project in the Colville National Forest, where tree thinning reduced fire risk and improved critical habitats. (Other wood came from lands managed by the Yakama Nation, a local indigenous tribe). Timber from the forest thinning project was milled by Vaagen Brothers Lumber, a family-owned business that specializes in making commercially viable products from small trees harvested in forest thinning. Just down the street (and within 50 miles of where the wood was harvested), Vaagen Timbers further transformed the wood into structural cross-laminated timbers. Across the value chain, the project supported good jobs and economic development in several rural communities.
Still, despite promising examples such as this one, the idea of applying climate smart forest economy principles globally is daunting. It calls for those in the built environment to engage across the entire value chain—bringing uncertainties, unknown challenges, costs, and impacts. But as a warming climate increasingly affects our daily lives, as forests struggle to adapt while meeting the needs of a growing global population, sticking with business as usual is not a viable option. The world can continue on its current path, to its detriment. It can increase biobased construction, which will yield modest improvements. Or it can fully embrace climate smart forest economies, which promise true climate mitigation and adaptation benefits, ecosystem and biodiversity restoration, community economic development—and a better future for all.
If you work in the built environment, particularly in biobased construction, take the time to understand your full value chain—its opportunities and its risks. Ask questions, engage with your suppliers, and consider how your decisions can positively impact forests upstream. Not sure where to start or want to learn more? Reach out to CSFEP; we would love to support you in your journey: email Program Director Robyn van den Heuvel at robyn.vdh@csfep.org.
Comments