Interview: the skeptic's view on Sustainable forestry & biomaterials — what would change their mind

Forests sequester approximately 7.6 billion metric tons of CO2 annually—roughly 1.5 times the entire United States carbon footprint—yet the sustainable forestry sector faces persistent skepticism about whether certification schemes, mass timber construction, and forest carbon credits deliver genuine climate benefits or merely create elaborate systems for greenwashing. With the global certified forest products market exceeding $450 billion in 2025 and cross-laminated timber (CLT) installations growing at 25% annually in North America, the stakes for distinguishing substantive impact from performative sustainability have never been higher. This interview-style exploration presents the skeptic's case against conventional wisdom in sustainable forestry and biomaterials, examines the evidence on both sides, and identifies what specific developments would convert skeptics into believers.

Why It Matters

The sustainable forestry and biomaterials sector sits at a critical juncture. According to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), certified forest area reached 160 million hectares globally by late 2024, with the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) claiming an additional 280 million hectares. Yet these impressive numbers mask troubling realities: an estimated 15-20% of timber entering international markets still originates from illegal logging operations, and the carbon stored in harvested wood products remains hotly contested in climate accounting frameworks.

The mass timber revolution has accelerated dramatically. The 2024 Mass Timber Report documented 1,800+ mass timber buildings completed or under construction across North America, representing a 340% increase from 2019 levels. CLT production capacity in the US expanded to 650,000 cubic meters annually, with major facilities from Katerra (before its 2021 bankruptcy), Vaagen Timbers, and SmartLam driving adoption. Europe leads with over 3,200 mass timber structures, anchored by projects like Mjøstårnet in Norway (85.4 meters tall) and the Sara Cultural Centre in Sweden.

Forest carbon credits generated approximately $1.7 billion in voluntary market transactions during 2024, according to Ecosystem Marketplace data. However, investigative journalism from outlets including The Guardian and Bloomberg revealed that up to 90% of rainforest offset credits may be "phantom credits"—representing carbon that was never actually at risk of release. This credibility crisis has prompted major buyers including Nestlé and Shell to pause or restructure their forest offset purchases.

The biomaterials opportunity extends beyond construction. Bio-based composites, lignin-derived chemicals, and cellulose nanofibers represent a $12 billion market growing at 8.5% CAGR, with applications spanning automotive panels, packaging, and advanced textiles. Companies like Stora Enso, UPM, and Borregaard have invested billions in bio-refineries capable of extracting value from every component of harvested timber.

Key Concepts

FSC and PEFC Certification

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) represent the dominant certification systems for sustainable forest management. FSC operates a global standard with chain-of-custody tracking, while PEFC functions as a mutual recognition framework endorsing national certification schemes. FSC certification requires compliance with ten principles covering legal compliance, workers' rights, indigenous peoples' rights, community relations, environmental values, and management planning. PEFC endorses over 50 national systems, creating broader coverage but raising concerns about standard variability.

Mass Timber and CLT

Cross-laminated timber (CLT), glue-laminated timber (glulam), and other engineered wood products enable timber construction at scales previously reserved for steel and concrete. CLT panels consist of dimensional lumber layers glued perpendicular to adjacent layers, creating structural panels with strength-to-weight ratios exceeding concrete. Mass timber buildings store approximately 1 metric ton of CO2 per cubic meter of wood used, while avoiding the 8% of global emissions attributable to cement production.

Forest Carbon Accounting

Forest carbon accounting quantifies the greenhouse gas fluxes associated with forest ecosystems and wood products. Key metrics include standing carbon stocks (typically 100-300 tonnes CO2 per hectare in temperate forests), annual sequestration rates (2-8 tonnes CO2 per hectare), and harvested wood product carbon storage (dependent on product lifespan). The accounting becomes contentious when determining baseline scenarios, additionality requirements, and permanence guarantees.

Sustainable Harvesting and Regenerative Forestry

Sustainable harvesting maintains forest productivity, biodiversity, and ecosystem services while extracting commercial timber. Regenerative forestry goes further, actively restoring degraded forest ecosystems and enhancing carbon sequestration beyond baseline levels. Practices include extended rotation lengths, variable retention harvesting, natural regeneration prioritization, and riparian buffer maintenance.

Biocomposites and Bio-based Materials

Biocomposites combine natural fibers (wood flour, hemp, flax) with polymer matrices (often bio-based) to create materials substituting for petroleum-derived plastics and synthetic composites. Applications include automotive interior panels, decking materials, and packaging. Lignin valorization—extracting the binding polymer from wood pulping processes—enables production of carbon fibers, adhesives, and aromatic chemicals traditionally derived from petroleum.

Sustainable Forestry KPI Benchmarks by Sector

KPI	Forestry/Timber	Construction	Consumer Products	Target Range
Certified forest area (% of managed land)	45-65%	N/A	30-50% supply	>80%
Chain-of-custody certification rate	70-85%	40-60%	50-70%	>90%
Carbon sequestration (tCO2/ha/year)	2.5-6.0	N/A	N/A	>4.0
Harvested wood product lifespan (years)	25-50	50-100	1-10	>30 avg
Illegal timber in supply chain (%)	3-8%	5-15%	8-20%	<1%
Biodiversity retention (species/ha)	40-80	N/A	N/A	>60
Regeneration success rate (%)	75-90%	N/A	N/A	>95%
Mass timber embodied carbon (kgCO2/m³)	N/A	-800 to -1200	N/A	<-1000

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

The CLT Construction Boom Demonstrates Market Viability

Mass timber construction has achieved commercial scale without subsidy dependence. Projects like Ascent in Milwaukee (25 stories, completed 2022), T3 in Minneapolis, and dozens of mid-rise developments across Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver demonstrate that CLT competes on cost for buildings between 6-18 stories. Construction timelines run 25-30% faster than concrete equivalents due to prefabrication, with labor costs reduced through simplified on-site assembly. Insurance and fire safety concerns—historically major barriers—have been addressed through extensive testing demonstrating that mass timber's char layer provides predictable fire resistance ratings.

Certified Supply Chain Growth Shows Buyer Commitment

Major retailers including IKEA, Home Depot, and Lowes have implemented certified wood procurement policies covering 90%+ of their timber products. This buyer-driven demand has pulled certification through supply chains, with FSC-certified product availability increasing 150% since 2018. The construction sector follows with green building standards (LEED, BREEAM) awarding points for certified timber, creating specification-driven demand.

Biorefinery Integration Maximizes Value Extraction

Integrated biorefineries—facilities extracting multiple product streams from wood feedstock—have achieved commercial operation. Stora Enso's Sunila Mill produces lignin-based carbon fibers alongside traditional pulp. Borregaard's facilities generate vanillin, cellulose fibers, and bioenergy from spruce feedstock. This value-stacking approach improves forestry economics while creating substitutes for petroleum-derived products.

What Isn't Working

Certification Costs Exclude Smallholders

FSC certification costs $2-5 per hectare annually for large operations but can exceed $20 per hectare for small landowners due to audit overhead. This excludes an estimated 1.3 billion hectares of community and smallholder forests from certified supply chains. Group certification schemes reduce costs but impose coordination burdens that rural communities rarely sustain.

Carbon Credit Integrity Remains Contested

Multiple investigations have documented systemic overcrediting in forest carbon projects. A 2023 analysis in Science found that improved forest management projects in California's compliance offset program overcounted reductions by 30-80%, with actual permanence guarantees averaging 40 years rather than the 100-year standard. Voluntary market projects in tropical regions show even wider variance, with satellite analysis revealing continued deforestation in supposedly protected project areas.

Leakage Undermines Localized Gains

Protecting one forest tract often displaces harvesting to adjacent unprotected areas—a phenomenon termed "leakage." Studies in the Brazilian Amazon documented 40-70% leakage rates for some protected areas, meaning actual emission reductions were less than half of credited values. International trade further complicates accounting: reduced harvesting in the US Pacific Northwest during the 1990s coincided with increased imports from Southeast Asian tropical forests.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): The gold-standard certification system with over 160 million certified hectares. Operates global trademark licensing generating $35 million annually for standard development and assurance.

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC): The world's largest certification system by area, endorsing national schemes across 50+ countries with 280 million hectares under management.

Weyerhaeuser: North America's largest private timberland owner managing 11 million acres. Operates extensive wood products manufacturing with full FSC/SFI certification across holdings.

Stora Enso: Finnish-Swedish multinational and global leader in renewable materials. Pioneered mass timber manufacturing and lignin-based biomaterials with €10 billion annual revenue.

Mercer International: Pulp and biomass producer with 1.6 million hectares of managed forest. Advanced biomass-to-energy operations generating 250 MW of renewable power.

Emerging Innovators

Kebony: Norwegian technology company producing bio-based wood modification using furfuryl alcohol polymerization, creating durable exterior products from fast-growth species.

Woodio: Finnish startup manufacturing bathroom fixtures from wood composite materials with 98% lower carbon footprint than ceramics.

Living Carbon: Biotechnology company developing genetically enhanced trees with 50% faster growth rates and enhanced carbon sequestration through modified photosynthesis pathways.

Key Investors and Funders

BTG Pactual Timberland: Brazilian investment manager with $5+ billion in forestry assets across the Americas.

Manulife Investment Management: One of the world's largest timberland investors managing 6 million acres globally.

USDA Forest Service: Federal funding exceeding $300 million annually for forest research, wildfire management, and sustainable forestry technical assistance.

The Skeptic's Perspective and Rebuttals

Skeptic Argument 1: Certification Is Pay-to-Play Greenwashing

Skeptics argue that certification standards represent negotiated compromises favoring industry interests, with auditors financially dependent on continued client relationships. The 2018 Danzer case—where FSC-certified timber from the Democratic Republic of Congo was linked to human rights abuses—demonstrates audit failures.

Rebuttal: Certification systems have strengthened assurance mechanisms since high-profile failures. FSC introduced Transaction Verification in 2021 requiring percentage-based supply audits. The Accountability Framework initiative now enables cross-scheme complaint mechanisms. While imperfect, certification creates documented improvement pathways that unmanaged forestry lacks.

Skeptic Argument 2: Forest Carbon Credits Are Accounting Fiction

The skeptic's strongest case targets carbon credits. Baseline manipulation (claiming credit for protecting forests never genuinely threatened), impermanence (fires, pests, and management changes releasing stored carbon), and leakage undermine the fundamental premise that purchasing credits equals verified emission reductions.

Rebuttal: Emerging standards from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (IC-VCM) and Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) explicitly address these concerns. Requirements for dynamic baselines, insurance buffer pools, and jurisdictional approaches limiting leakage are becoming market requirements. While legacy credits warrant skepticism, post-2024 vintage credits meeting Core Carbon Principles represent genuine improvement.

Skeptic Argument 3: Mass Timber Simply Shifts Emissions

Critics contend that promoting mass timber construction increases harvesting pressure, that substitution accounting ignores foregone sequestration in standing forests, and that end-of-life emissions eventually release stored carbon.

Rebuttal: Lifecycle assessments consistently show mass timber buildings achieving 20-50% lower embodied carbon than steel/concrete equivalents even with conservative harvest assumptions. Managed forests in active timber production maintain higher sequestration rates than old-growth stands reaching carbon equilibrium. Cascading use strategies—reusing structural timber in subsequent buildings—extend carbon storage indefinitely.

What Would Change Skeptics' Minds

Skeptics identify specific developments that would shift their assessment:

Mandatory third-party satellite monitoring of all certified forests with public data access
Transition from project-level to jurisdictional crediting eliminating baseline gaming
Demonstrated 20-year track record of carbon project permanence across climate scenarios
Economic models showing smallholder profitability without subsidy at certification costs below $5/hectare
Fire-adapted forest management showing resilience through multiple western US fire seasons

Action Checklist

Conduct supply chain audit identifying certified timber percentage and certification scheme validity for all wood-based procurement
Evaluate mass timber feasibility for upcoming construction projects in 4-18 story range, requesting lifecycle carbon comparisons from design teams
Review forest carbon credit portfolios for vintage, project type, and alignment with Core Carbon Principles standards
Engage forestry suppliers on smallholder inclusion and community forestry certification support programs
Establish monitoring protocols for biomaterial supply chains including satellite-verified deforestation-free sourcing

FAQ

Q: How reliable are FSC and PEFC certifications for ensuring genuinely sustainable timber sourcing? A: Both systems provide meaningful assurance improvements over uncertified supply chains, but with important caveats. FSC maintains more rigorous social standards and chain-of-custody requirements, while PEFC offers broader geographic coverage through national scheme endorsement. Due diligence should include verifying specific audit dates, reviewing any conditions or corrective action requests, and monitoring news for certified operation controversies. The most robust approach combines certification with direct supplier engagement and satellite monitoring tools.

Q: Are forest carbon credits worth purchasing given credibility concerns? A: Selectivity is essential. Avoid pre-2020 vintage credits from avoided deforestation (REDD+) projects lacking dynamic baselines. Prioritize credits meeting IC-VCM Core Carbon Principles, particularly improved forest management projects with third-party verified timber removal data. Jurisdictional programs with governmental enforcement (California's compliance offsets, certain state-level programs) offer stronger assurance than purely voluntary projects. Consider credits as part of a portfolio alongside direct emission reductions rather than substitutes for operational decarbonization.

Q: What is the actual climate benefit of switching from steel/concrete to mass timber construction? A: Lifecycle analyses consistently show 20-50% embodied carbon reductions for mass timber buildings compared to conventional construction. A typical 8-story CLT building stores approximately 3,000 tonnes of CO2 while avoiding 2,000 tonnes from cement and steel production. Benefits are maximized when timber sources from sustainably managed forests with documented regeneration, when buildings are designed for deconstruction enabling material reuse, and when construction waste is diverted to long-lived products rather than incineration.

Q: How do I evaluate biomaterial suppliers' sustainability claims? A: Request certification documentation (FSC, PEFC, or equivalent) covering primary fiber sources. Verify that chain-of-custody certification covers the specific products purchased rather than just other product lines. Examine sourcing transparency—legitimate suppliers can identify fiber origins to regional level at minimum. Assess end-of-life considerations: is the biomaterial recyclable, compostable in industrial facilities, or designed for longevity? Compare claimed benefits against third-party environmental product declarations (EPDs) when available.

Q: What are the main barriers to scaling sustainable forestry and how are they being addressed? A: Cost barriers dominate. Certification expenses exclude smallholders, carbon credit development requires upfront investment exceeding $50,000 for project design documentation, and mass timber commands 5-15% cost premiums in most markets. Scaling mechanisms include group certification reducing per-hectare audit costs, programmatic carbon crediting spreading documentation costs across multiple landowners, and CLT manufacturing capacity expansion driving price convergence with conventional materials. Policy interventions—tax incentives for certified timber, building codes enabling mass timber, and jurisdictional carbon pricing—accelerate adoption beyond voluntary market dynamics.

Sources

Forest Stewardship Council. "FSC Facts and Figures." December 2024. Accessed January 2025.
Ecosystem Marketplace. "State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2024." Forest Trends, 2024.
West, T. et al. "Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation." Science 381, 2023.
WoodWorks. "Mass Timber Building Trends Report." Think Wood, 2024.
PEFC International. "PEFC Global Statistics: Forest Certification Data." 2024.
Stora Enso. "Annual Report 2024: Renewable Materials Strategy." Helsinki, 2025.
Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. "Core Carbon Principles and Assessment Framework." July 2023.