The UK timber industry is currently staring at a set of maps that don’t align. On the one hand, there is sweeping ambitions for a future built with sustainable domestic timber – but on the other, domestic timber yields face significant declines.
The NFI 50-year forecast shows we are about to enter one of our most productive periods of softwood availability. Availability will peak at 19.1 million m³ per annum between 2032 and 2036 – its highest point likely ever. This was of course driven by investments of the past – a post-war boom in tree planting, which helped reforest Britain.
On the surface, this is a victory. However, the forecast also reveals a steep decline – with yields set to crash to 11.5 million m³ by 2052. It brings sharply into a focus that while there may be positive talk on increasing the use of domestic timber in construction, this could be undercut without action to rapidly increase tree planting in the UK.
Sourced from the NFI forecast.
The conifer crisis
To smooth out that 2050 trough, we should be planting high-yield softwoods today. Instead, the NAO report on the Nature for Climate Fund finds that in the 2024-25 season, only 12% of trees planted were conifers, despite a government ambition of 30%.
This comes as current grant schemes heavily favour broadleaf planting for biodiversity and carbon. While admirable, the fact is an oak tree planted today won’t be a floor joist in 2050. The NAO rightly points out that Defra has failed to prioritise timber production.
In effect, we are subsidising a future where we have beautiful, diverse woodlands for walking, but little else. As our colleagues at Confor would say, this should be viewed as a national resilience issue – which requires more coordinated action from Government.
We need to start taking timber seriously by supporting the foresters, the contractors, and the seeds which can help make this happen. And we need to end the vacuum of land use certainty which undermines serious investment in our forests.
Reports such as the Land Use Framework should promise a vision where food production, nature recovery, and timber coexist. Yet, as the NAO notes, the government has yet to set clear priorities – and often productive timber often seems to be at the bottom of the heap.
What needs to be done?
The government’s position is currently one of “ambitious targets and modest delivery.” To turn this around, the industry must demand three specific shifts in the policy landscape:
- Prioritise productivity: We must move past the “conifer vs. broadleaf” binary. Policy must explicitly incentivise productive softwood planting within multifunctional landscapes. If we want 2050 to be the “Year of Timber,” we must plant today.
- Bridge the skills gap: We need a decade-long commitment to enable this through forestry apprenticeships and nursery innovation. Harvesting our future forests requires an investment in both trees and people.
- Spatial clarity: The Land Use Framework must evolve from a vision into a map. Landowners need to know where timber production is the priority, and it must be given appropriate support and value by the Government to support tree growing.
The bottom line
The 50-year forecast shows that the UK stands at a crossroad for timber in construction, with questions to be asked about what relationship we wish to hold between nature and our built environment. Are forests to be part of the living fabric of our cities, or separate entirely? Where do productive forests sit within our practical vision of land use?
While there may be lofty ambitions to use more domestic timber in construction, these NAO and Defra reports show we are tripping at the starting blocks. If we want more low-carbon, sustainable homes made with timber, the Government must stop treating forestry as a side-effect of nature policy, and start treating it as critical national infrastructure.
It was the investments of the past that mean we will now enter one of our most productive periods of softwood production. But what will we promise those who come after us? How will our planting today impact our future ambitions? And after the dust settles, will we have the mills, the workers, and the subsequent generations of trees to make it matter?
