No. But we are constantly working to complete this collection.

The Forestry–Construction-Pump is a systems-based concept that links sustainable forest management with the long-term storage of carbon in buildings. It describes a continuous cycle in which forests capture atmospheric CO₂ through photosynthetic growth, a portion of the harvested wood is used in long-lived construction products, and the harvested stands are sustainably managed and regenerated to continue removing carbon from the atmosphere. At the same time, the use of wood can reduce demand for more emission-intensive construction materials and substitute these. The concept therefore combines biological carbon uptake, long-term carbon storage and industrial decarbonisation into one integrated climate mitigation strategy.

The goal is not to maximise timber harvest or maximise standing forest carbon in isolation. Rather, it is to optimise the contribution of the entire forest–wood–construction system to climate mitigation, climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation and a circular bioeconomy. By combining sustainable forest management with long-lived wood products and the substitution of emission-intensive materials, the Forestry–Construction–Pump provides a systems-based framework for achieving multiple climate and sustainability objectives simultaneously.

Globally, the availability of wood depends not on the total forest area alone, but on how forests are managed and where wood is sourced. In many regions, sustainably managed forests produce annual growth that exceeds annual harvests, allowing timber to be supplied without reducing long-term forest productivity. The potential for increased timber construction therefore depends on maintaining sustainable harvest levels, improving resource efficiency, increasing foremostly the reuse of timber construction elements, with recycling and cascading use of wood at the end of the buildings’ lifetime, and ensuring that demand is met from responsibly managed forests rather than from deforestation or forest degradation.

The objective is not to harvest all available biomass, but to optimise the use of renewable wood resources within ecological limits and grow the stored carbon stock in timber construction through multiple reuse.

No. Carbon storage is only one of several climate benefits. Timber construction can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing more carbon-intensive materials, support circular material use through reuse and recycling, reduce dependence on finite mineral resources, stimulate rural bioeconomies and create markets for sustainably managed forests. The combined contribution of these benefits is often greater than the carbon storage effect alone. Moreover, at a global level, timber construction can be key to providing billions of people with adequate housing.

Yes. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable wood production are not mutually exclusive. Many forest landscapes are managed with multiple objectives, including timber production, habitat protection, water regulation, recreation and carbon sequestration. Climate-smart forest management increasingly promotes mixed-species forests, structural diversity and the retention of habitat features, while also supplying renewable materials. At the landscape scale, integrating protected areas with sustainably managed production forests can contribute to both biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation.

No. Deforestation refers to the permanent conversion of forests to other land uses, such as agriculture or urban development. Timber harvested from sustainably managed forests is fundamentally different. Under sustainable forest management, harvested areas are regenerated and remain forests. The climate and environmental impacts therefore depend on the management system rather than on harvesting itself. Well-designed policies for timber construction should always be accompanied by robust safeguards for sustainable forest management and forest conservation.

Not necessarily. While protecting primary and high-conservation-value forests is essential, many managed forests face increasing risks from drought, wildfire, storms and insect outbreaks under climate change. In these forests, active management can facilitate regeneration, species diversification and adaptation to future climatic conditions (creating climate-fit forests). The optimal balance between conservation and management depends on local ecological conditions, management objectives and disturbance risks. There is no single management strategy that is universally optimal for all forests.

Harvesting generally reduces the forest carbon sink in the short term because some carbon is transferred from the forest into harvested wood products. However, evaluating climate impacts requires considering the entire forest sector over longer time scales. Regrowing forests continue to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, harvested wood products store carbon, and timber can substitute for more emission-intensive materials. The overall climate benefit depends on sustainable management, product lifetimes, substitution effects, reuse of timber construction elements, and the resilience of forests to future disturbances.

No. This is a false dichotomy. Sustainably managed forests continuously remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. When a proportion of this renewable biomass is transformed into long-lived wood products, carbon is stored in buildings while new forest growth continues to sequester additional CO₂. The objective is therefore not to choose between forests and buildings, but to maximise the combined carbon storage and climate benefits across both systems while maintaining resilient, biodiverse forests.

Not when forests are managed sustainably. The Forestry–Construction–Pump is not based on harvesting more trees indiscriminately, but on maintaining productive, resilient forests over successive generations. Harvesting creates opportunities for regeneration, species diversification and adaptation to changing climatic conditions. The relevant question is therefore not whether individual trees are harvested, but whether forest landscapes continue to grow, regenerate and store carbon while supplying renewable materials that substitute for more emission-intensive alternatives.

Climate change is fundamentally altering forest ecosystems. Rising temperatures, droughts, wildfires, storms and pest outbreaks are increasing the risk that carbon stored in forests will be released back into the atmosphere. Active forest management—including regeneration, thinning, species diversification and the conversion of vulnerable stands—can reduce these risks and improve forest resilience. Integrating sustainable wood use with climate adaptation helps ensure that forests continue to provide carbon sequestration, biodiversity and other ecosystem services over the long term.

Not necessarily. Maximising standing forest carbon without considering future disturbance risks, forest adaptation or the carbon stored in harvested wood products provides only a partial picture. Climate-smart mitigation strategies increasingly evaluate the entire forest sector, including forest growth, disturbance risks, harvested wood products, material substitution and long-term forest resilience. The objective is to maximise the long-term contribution of forests and wood products to climate mitigation, rather than focusing exclusively on a single carbon pool.

No. Increasingly, scientific evidence suggests that forests and timber construction should be viewed as complementary components of the same climate solution. Healthy, climate-resilient forests provide the renewable biomass required for long-lived wood products, while timber buildings extend carbon storage beyond the forest and reduce demand for emission-intensive construction materials. The greatest climate benefits are achieved when sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation and wood use are integrated within a single systems perspective rather than treated as competing objectives.

Climate change is increasing the likelihood that forests will experience severe disturbances such as wildfires, droughts, storms and pest outbreaks. Carbon that is stored in vulnerable forests may therefore be released much sooner than previously assumed. Building resilient forests that can continue to grow and recover after disturbances is increasingly recognised as a central objective of climate policy. Forest resilience and carbon storage should therefore be considered together rather than as competing objectives.

No. Achieving climate neutrality requires both reducing emissions (de-fossilisation of all sectors) and increasing carbon removals. The built environment and the forest sector should therefore be considered together. Timber construction connects these two sectors by storing atmospheric carbon in long-lived buildings while encouraging the sustainable management of renewable forest resources. This integrated perspective is reflected in concepts such as the Forestry–Construction–Pump.

Timber construction is one component of a broader portfolio of climate solutions. No single building material can meet all technical, economic or environmental requirements. However, where technically feasible and sustainably sourced, wood can make an important contribution by reducing embodied emissions, storing carbon and supporting renewable material cycles. Future construction is therefore likely to rely on hybrid systems in which timber, concrete, steel and other materials are used where they provide the greatest overall sustainability benefits.

Forests develop over decades and centuries, while buildings often remain in use for many generations. Climate policies should therefore evaluate carbon dynamics over comparable time horizons. Focusing only on short-term changes in forest carbon stocks may overlook long-term benefits arising from forest adaptation, continued forest growth, carbon storage in buildings and reduced emissions from material substitution. A systems perspective is essential for understanding the full climate contribution of sustainable forestry and timber construction.

Support for timber construction should be viewed as a climate and resilience policy rather than as support for a particular industry. Timber construction can contribute simultaneously to several public policy objectives: reducing embodied emissions in the built environment, increasing long-term carbon storage in buildings, creating economic incentives for sustainable forest management and strengthening rural bioeconomies. Such policies aim to recognise public environmental benefits that are not fully reflected in market prices, rather than simply promoting one construction material over another.