Effects on U.S. Timber 

Outlook of Recent 

Economic Recession, 

Collapse in Housing 

Construction, and 

Wood Energy Trends 

Peter J. Ince

Prakash Nepal

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General 

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–219
December 2012

Ince, Peter J.; Nepal, Prakash. 2012. Effects on U.S. timber outlook of 

recent economic recession, collapse in housing construction, and wood 

energy trends. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-219. Madison, WI: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 18 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

This paper reviews recent trends and structural changes in 

U.S. forest product markets and projects their effects on 

the long-range U.S. timber market outlook. The analysis 

derives from the same U.S. and global economic model that 

produced 50-year projections for the 2010 RPA nationwide 

forest assessment, but analysis is revised to more accurately 

include the economic recession of 2007–2009, the collapse 

in U.S. housing construction since 2005, and expected 

growth in wood energy consumption. The analysis uses the 

2012 USDA Baseline global macroeconomic and currency 

exchange rate outlook, along with a revised U.S. housing 

projection. Results provide a coherent 2012 baseline outlook 

to 2060 that takes into account recent market trends and 

includes a rebound in U.S. timber harvest and higher net exports but only modest expansion in timber harvest over the 

long run, resulting in only modest increases in real timber 

stumpage prices and expanding U.S. timber growing stock 

inventories.

Keywords: economic outlook, timber trends, forest product 

demands, recession, housing construction, wood energy

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the work of former FPL and 

University of Wisconsin research associate, Andrew D. 

Kramp, who programmed the USFPM/GFPM model with 

the 2012 USDA Baseline projections of growth in real GDP, 

population, and exchange rate shifts for all countries; the 

work of Professor Joseph Buongiorno and his colleagues at 

University of Wisconsin, who developed the Global Forest 

Products Model; and funding support for this study from 

the Forest Service RPA Assessment.

Contents

Introduction..........................................................................1

Recent Trends and Structural Changes................................1

Objective and Rationale for Updated Economic 

Outlook ................................................................................4

Methods................................................................................4

Results..................................................................................6

 Paper, Paperboard, and Wood Pulp..................................6

 Wood Products.................................................................9

 Wood Fuel Feedstock.....................................................11

 U.S. Timber Harvest, Prices, Inventory, and 

 Roundwood Trade..........................................................12

Summary and Implications for Forest Management 

and Policy...........................................................................14

Literature Cited ..................................................................16

Appendix—Regional Timber Growth and Inventory 

Models................................................................................18
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent 

Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing 

Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

Peter J. Ince, Research Forester

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Prakash Nepal, Post-Doctoral Research Associate

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Introduction

In this paper we describe effects on the long-range U.S. timber outlook of the economic recession and global financial 

crisis of 2007–2009, the related collapse of U.S. housing 

construction since 2005, and other structural changes in U.S. 

timber demands and trade. We derive market projections 

from the same economic model used to produce projections 

for the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment (Forest Service 

2012, Ince and others 2011a). However, analysis is updated 

using the more recent 2012 USDA Baseline global economic outlook (ERS 2012) and a revised U.S. housing projection 

that includes the recent collapse in housing construction 

since 2005 and expected gradual rebound to the long-term 

historical trendline by 2020.

We begin by discussing recent trends in wood product production, consumption, and trade, describing effects of the 

global economic recession and collapse in U.S. housing construction, and highlighting structural changes in the economy that affect wood use. Next, we explain the objective and 

rationale for our analysis and explain methods for projecting 

future trends, including the use of the 2010 RPA forest sector market model along with economic assumptions from 

the 2012 USDA Baseline global economic outlook and a 

revised U.S. housing projection. Finally, we discuss forest 

management and policy implications of the 2012 baseline 

outlook in terms of projected timber harvest, timber growing 

stock inventory, timber prices and roundwood trade.

Recent Trends and Structural 

Changes

Figure 1 shows recent trends since 1980 in real (inflationadjusted) U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (broadest 

measure of overall U.S. economic activity from U.S. Bureau 

of Economic Analysis) and several indexes of industrial 

production from the U.S. Federal Reserve, including total 

U.S. industrial production and production of wood products 

(NAICS 321) and paper manufacturing (NAICS 322), which 

are the leading forest-based industries of the United States. 

Until the mid-1990s, trends in real GDP, overall industrial 

production, and production of forest-based industries were 

somewhat parallel, but since then the trends have diverged 

substantially, a sign of structural changes in the economy. 

Growth in overall U.S. industrial production fell behind real 

GDP growth since the 1990s largely because of economic 

globalization, as consumer goods manufacturing was increasingly outsourced for a variety of reasons to countries 

with lower labor costs (Ince and others 2007). Forest-based 

industry output fell further behind as a result of economic 

globalization (Ince and others 2007) and also deeper structural changes, including declining U.S. consumption of paper and paperboard since the late 1990s and a collapse 

in housing construction activity since 2005.

Following the severe 2007–2009 economic recession, U.S. 

GDP growth resumed but at a slower pace, while industrial 

production was rebounding but lagging behind, and forest product output remained depressed. For wood products 

(NAICS 321), the decline in output is attributable to an 

unprecedented collapse in U.S. housing construction 

activity since 2005, which accounts for most of the recent 

divergence between growth in U.S. wood product output 

and overall GDP growth (Fig. 1). Additional structural 

changes that have influenced wood product output include 

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

0

50

100

150

200

250

19801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

U.S. real G

D

P (trillions of chained 2005 d

ollars)

Industrial pro

duction indexes

Total U.S. industrial production

Wood products (NAICS 321)

Paper manufacturing (NAICS 322)

Real U.S. GDP (quarterly, right axis)

Figure 1. Trends since 1980 in U.S. real GDP and monthly 

industrial production indexes (Jan. 1980 = 100). (Data from 

Bureau of Economic Analysis and Federal Reserve on-line 

databases, 2012.)
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

2

displacement of construction lumber by engineered wood 

products such as structural I-joists, displacement of softwood plywood by oriented strandboard (OSB), and outsourcing of wood furniture manufacture to foreign countries 

with expanded furniture imports (Ince and others 2007). 

U.S. output of paper products (NAICS 322) also diverged 

from real GDP growth since the 1990s (Fig. 1) because of 

other long-term structural changes, including displacement 

of growth in (a) print paper demands and print advertising 

by electronic media and new information and communication technologies and (b) demands for paper and paperboard 

in packaging by more efficient packaging systems and rising 

imports of consumer goods packaged and shipped to the 

United States from foreign countries (Ince and others 2007).

Traditionally, the long-range U.S. housing construction 

outlook was supported by the theory of an “underlying” 

long-term housing demand driven by demographics of housing needs, with housing starts related to data on household 

formation and headship rates (Ince and others 2011a). According to this demographic theory, average annual U.S. 

single-family housing starts should be upwards of 1.4 to 

1.5 million or more based on demographic data and trendline population growth. However, actual U.S. single-family 

housing starts have averaged less than 1.1 million over the 

past 50 years and exceeded 1.5 million in just two of those 

years (2004 and 2005), at levels that are now regarded in 

hindsight as abnormally high.

As measured by single-family housing starts (reported by 

U.S. Census Bureau), new home construction dropped to 

just 0.45 million in 2009, 74% below the record 1.72 million starts of 2005. Moreover, single-family housing starts 

did not recover after the recession ended, remaining at 

0.47 million in 2010, 0.43 million in 2011, and 0.54 million 

by August 2012, even though real U.S. GDP had fully recovered to pre-recession levels by 2011 (Fig. 1). For almost 

five years now, U.S. housing starts have languished at levels 

lower than every previous year since 1959 when the modern 

Census Bureau housing data series begins. Thus, the magnitude and duration of the recent housing collapse set the 

current downturn apart from the more transitory or cyclical 

housing downturns of the post–World War II era, marking a 

structural change in housing demand with deeper and likely 

more lasting consequence.

Important indicators of structural change in the housing 

market include a dramatic correction in median wealth of 

U.S. households as home values declined and also declining 

home ownership rates. The latest Federal Reserve Survey of 

Consumer Finances showed that from 2007 to 2010, median 

inflation-adjusted net worth (or wealth) of U.S. families—

the difference between their gross assets and liabilities—fell 

by 38.8%, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010 (in 

2010 dollars), largely because of declining home values 

(Bricker and others 2012). During the peak of the housing 

boom in 2004–2005, hundreds of billions of dollars were 

entering the U.S. economy annually from foreign investors via purchases of U.S. agency bonds and collateralized 

debt obligations (Ince and others 2007), funding a mortgage 

industry that adopted liberal lending practices, pushing up 

the U.S. home ownership rate to its all-time historical peak 

above 69%, and pushing up home prices and wood product 

demands as well. Those phenomena ultimately proved to 

be both abnormal and economically unsustainable, as U.S. 

home values began to decline and as the global financial crisis of 2008 led to a collapse of foreign investment, tightening of mortgage lending practices, widespread foreclosures, 

and persistently high unemployment.

By 2012, the U.S. home ownership rate (as reported by U.S. 

Census Bureau) was retreating toward levels that were the 

norm from the late 1960s to mid-1990s, around 64% to 65% 

(Fig. 2), which supports a view that housing demands are 

reverting toward historical norms and unlikely to return to 

recent historical peaks, as average home values have declined. Housing construction is just beginning to rebound 

(Fig. 2), and U.S. single-family housing starts are forecast 

by industry experts to average from 0.8 to 1.2 million annually over the next 15 years, but with no foreseeable return to 

2004–2005 peak levels. Such forecasts bracket the historical 

average of single-family housing starts from 1959 to 2011 

(1.08 million) and are close to the logarithmic historical 

trendline at around 1.1 million. Thus, in our 2012 baseline 

outlook we project a gradual rebound in single-family housing starts, reaching the logarithmic trendline by 2020 at 

around 1.1 million, which is close to the long-run historical 

norm and within the range of current housing expectations 

but much lower than recent RPA scenarios with similar or 

higher population growth. (Three alternative housing scenarios in the 2010 RPA Assessment (Ince and others 2011) 

showed single-family housing starts ranging from 0.9 million by 2060 in the B2 (population growth much lower than 

USDA Baseline), to 1.4 million in the A1B (population 

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

H

ousing starts (thousands,

season-adjusted annual rate)

H

ouseholds o

wning ho

mes (%)

U.S. home ownership rate

Single-family housing starts

Figure 2. U.S. single-family housing starts and home ownership rates (quarterly). (Data from U.S. Census Bureau online databases.)
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

3

growth similar to USDA baseline), and 2.3 million in the A2 

(much higher population growth).)

Meanwhile, prospects for growth in wood energy demand 

were affected by a different sort of structural change, one 

that is transforming the energy sector, namely expansion of 

unconventional oil and gas production via hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. These revolutionary technologies 

have already produced abundant and cheaper natural gas 

supply, and also diminished the likelihood that oil production will peak in the near future (Maugeri 2012). This 

structural change diminishes the near-term likelihood of 

large-scale expansion in biomass energy production in response to peaking of oil output. Thus, in our updated forest 

sector outlook, we assume that U.S. and global wood energy 

demands will expand modestly, as determined by historical 

relationships of wood energy demand to GDP growth. (We 

project roughly a doubling in future U.S. wood fuel feedstock production, similar to the doubling of U.S. biomass 

energy production projected in the 2012 U.S. Annual Energy 

Outlook, U.S. Department of Energy.)

Other ongoing structural changes that were already taken 

into account in the 2010 RPA market model include (a) continued displacement of growth in U.S. print advertising expenditures and print paper demands by growth in electronic 

media and (b) modest growth in paperboard packaging 

demands with high levels of consumer goods imports (Ince 

and others 2011a). Thus, we expect U.S. demands for newsprint and printing and writing paper to continue receding 

in line with recent historical trends, while relatively stable 

demand levels are expected for other paper and paperboard 

products.

On a more positive note, a weaker U.S. dollar coupled with 

foreign economic growth has led in recent years to historic 

shifts in U.S. trade balances for commodity forest products. 

After many decades as a net importer of pulp and paper 

products (mainly from Canada but also other countries), 

the United States emerged in just the past few years as a 

global net exporter of pulp, paper, and paperboard products, 

with U.S. net exports of those products exceeding $3 billion in 2011 (ITA 2012). The trade balance also improved 

dramatically for lumber and wood panel products, although 

the United States is still a net importer of those products. 

As shown in Figure 3, these historic shifts in U.S. forest 

product trade balances began before the recent recession, 

linked to a decline in the exchange value of the U.S. dollar 

that favors higher net exports. Shifts in currency exchange 

rates reflect macroeconomic changes in the global pattern of 

economic growth, with notably higher economic growth in 

some global regions, such as Asia, than in the United States. 

However, trade impacts of historical and projected shifts in 

currency exchange rates were not included in the 2010 RPA 

assessment or other recent forest assessment studies. Thus, 

we incorporated in our 2012 baseline outlook the USDA 

Baseline projection of global currency exchange rate trends, 

because shifts in currency exchange rates appear to be influencing the U.S. forest product trade situation.

In addition to improvement in the trade balance, another potentially positive factor could be technology developments 

that offer prospects of expanding future utility of wood 

resources. Two leading examples are cellulosic nanotechnology and forest biorefining, both aimed at obtaining new and 

higher value materials from wood, such as nanocrystalline 

cellulose, advanced biofuels, or biochemicals (Peng and 

others 2011, Zhu 2011). Widespread commercial application of such technologies is yet to appear but might emerge 

sometime in the decades ahead (Näyhä and Pesonen 2012). 

–8

–7

–6

–5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2000

200120022003

2004

2005

200620072008

2009

2010

2011

Trade balance (billions of d

ollars)

(a)

–6

–5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

4

5

2000

20012002

200320042005

20062007

2008

200920102011

Trade balance (billions of d

ollars)

(b)

Figure 3. U.S. annual trade balances (value of exports 

minus imports) for (a) sawmill and wood products, NAICS 

3211, and (b) pulp, paper, and paperboard mill products , 

NAICS 3221 (ITA 2012).
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

4

Nevertheless, the scale of such technologies and their applications remain highly uncertain, so we do not include projected timber demands for such technologies in this analysis. 

This is not to discount the importance or potential of such 

technologies, however, because they could become vital to 

sustaining future economic development of the forest sector 

in the long run.

Objective and Rationale for 

Updated Economic Outlook

Our objective is to provide an updated 2012 baseline forest sector outlook to 2060 that includes market effects of 

the recent recession, collapse in housing construction, and 

shifts in currency exchange rates. The rationale is that these 

changes have had major impacts on the U.S. timber market 

outlook, impacts that are now more starkly evident than several years ago when the 2010 RPA analysis was developed. 

For example, U.S. timber harvest has declined in all regions, 

along with key timber market indicators, such as average 

price of Southern Pine sawtimber stumpage, which declined 

by around 40% in nominal terms from 2005 to 2011 (Timber 

Mart–South 1980–2011). Timber prices in the U.S. West did 

not decline as much, largely because of growing log exports 

to Asia.

Recent forest assessment studies, such as the nationwide 

2010 RPA Assessment (Forest Service 2012) and Southern 

Forest Futures Project (Wear and Greis 2011) were focused 

on scenarios developed years earlier for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios provided a coherent view of global change but did 

not specifically evaluate timber market implications of the 

recent recession, the collapse in housing construction, or 

major shifts in currency exchange rates. The RPA Assessment did indicate that climate change would be an important 

factor for some renewable resources in certain regions, such 

as for water resources in the arid U.S. West, but climate 

change would have fairly minor effects on projected timber 

supply and demand, at least within the next 50 years (Forest 

Service 2012). By comparison, the economic recession and 

structural changes in demand have had far greater effects 

on timber market conditions.

For example, one crucial implication of the collapse in 

housing construction is its implication for lumber and wood 

panel demands. In the U.S. economy, such products have 

been used mainly in new housing construction (primarily 

in wood-framed single-family home construction) or in end 

uses related to housing demands, such as new household 

furniture, cabinetry, and flooring. Thus, nationwide demand 

functions for wood products (such as lumber and wood 

panels in the RPA market model) included housing starts as 

an independent variable, along with real GDP as the indicator of demands for forest products in the broader economy, 

such as wood use in manufacturing (Ince and others 2011a). 

With updated historical data and revised projections of GDP 

and housing starts, the RPA model can simulate accurately 

the recession, the collapse in housing, and anticipated future trends. The RPA market model is also a global model, 

covering more than 180 countries worldwide, so updated 

projections are required for GDP, population, and exchange 

rates among all countries represented in the model.

Methods

To provide a coherent long-range U.S. forest sector economic outlook, we applied the same economic model (USFPM/

GFPM) that was applied in the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

Assessment (Forest Service 2012, Ince and others 2011a, 

Ince and others 2012), except we updated basic assumptions 

about economic growth, housing starts, and wood demands 

to reflect current economic trends, and we produced revised 

projections of timber inventory based on the updated timber 

harvest outlook. The 2012 USDA Baseline provides our updated global economic and population growth assumptions 

(ERS 2012). The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) 

produces the USDA Baseline each year, and the 2012 USDA 

Baseline includes data from 1969 through 2011 and projections to 2030 for real GDP, population, and real exchange 

rates for 190 countries (ERS 2012), including all countries 

that are important for U.S. forest product trade. According 

to the ERS, the USDA Baseline is designed specifically to 

be used as a benchmark for analyzing impacts of U.S. and 

global macroeconomic trends.

Our 2012 baseline forest sector outlook uses USDA Baseline projections that were available in January 2012, including global projections of GDP, population, and currency 

exchange rates for all countries to 2030 (ERS 2012). We 

extended the USDA projections of GDP and population 

growth to 2060 by continuation of projected average growth 

rates. We applied USDA projections of currency exchange 

rates to 2030, and then we held exchange rates constant 

from 2030 to 2060. The USDA Baseline outlook generally indicates that the exchange value of the U.S. dollar 

will remain fairly subdued in future decades, while foreign 

economic growth will be fairly robust, supporting favorable 

prospects for U.S. net exports of commodity forest products 

(although not necessarily more labor-intensive secondary wood products). (As an example, China’s currency is 

projected by the 2012 USDA Baseline to more than double 

in exchange value relative to the U.S. dollar from 2006 to 

2030.) The USDA Baseline exchange rate outlook was not 

used previously in any of the 2010 RPA assessment scenarios or other recent forest assessment studies such as the 

Southern Forest Futures Project.

The USFPM/GFPM model includes the detailed U.S. Forest Products Module, USFPM (Ince and others 2011a), 

within the Global Forest Products Model, GFPM (Buongiorno and others 2003). USFPM/GFPM provides a partial 

market equilibrium analysis of the U.S. and global forest 

product sector, using maximization of consumer and pro-
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

5

ducer surplus to solve annual market equilibria, including 

consumption, production, prices, and net trade for all primary forest products, industrial roundwood, and fuelwood 

in all countries worldwide (Ince and others 2011a,b; 2012). 

The model was designed with a capability to take into account projected shifts in currency exchange rates among all 

countries, a feature that was not utilized in the 2010 RPA 

Assessment but that we employ in this study along with the 

USDA Baseline outlook for currency exchange rates. The 

USFPM analysis extends to U.S. timber stumpage market 

equilibria, including timber harvest quantities and prices by 

major U.S. region (North, South, and West). The 2012 version of USFPM/GFPM includes also an endogenous timber 

growing stock growth and inventory model to keep track of 

regional hardwood and softwood timber growing stock inventories in response to U.S. timber harvests as projected by 

USFPM (see Appendix for details). Changes in regional timber growth are modeled as nonlinear functions of regional 

growing-stock density (Nepal and others 2012). Projected 

shifts in timber inventory from the growth and inventory 

model are used also to shift regional timber supply curves in 

USFPM, with an inventory elasticity of 1.0 in all regions.

In the USFPM/GFPM model, U.S. demands for forest 

products are shifted over time in relation to projected trends 

in U.S. real GDP and other independent variables, such as 

recent historical growth rates for advertising expenditures 

in print media and electronic media that shift demands 

for newsprint and printing and writing paper (Ince and 

others 2011a). Demands for structural lumber and wood 

panels are driven by projected trends in U.S. real GDP and 

single-family housing starts (Ince and others 2011a). In addition to using the 2012 USDA Baseline macroeconomic 

outlook, we introduced an updated projection of average 

U.S. single-family housing starts along with actual historical housing starts data since 2006. Figure 4 shows that our 

baseline projections of real U.S. GDP and housing starts are 

permanently lower than projections of the 2010 RPA A1B 

and HFW scenarios (which shared the same higher GDP 

and housing assumptions). Our baseline housing outlook 

projects a rebound in housing, with average single-family 

housing starts climbing back to the long-run historical 

trendline at around 1.1 million per year by 2020, and then 

following the slowly increasing trendline to 2060. The logarithmic trendline is based on historical U.S. single-family 

housing starts data from 1959 to 2011. (The logarithmic 

trendline equation for housing starts is y = 30.576 ln(x) + 

963.29, where y is single-family housing starts and x is the 

year, starting with 1959 = 1; based on Census Bureau annual 

housing starts data, 1959–2011.) By 2020, projected average housing starts are more than double the level of the past 

several years but remain well below the 2005 peak (Fig. 4). 

Although the 2010 RPA scenarios did not take into account 

the recent recession or collapse in housing construction, 

our 2012 baseline GDP growth outlook is fairly close to 

the RPA A1B & HFW in the long run, but our 2012 baseline housing projection is considerably lower than the RPA 

A1B & HFW housing projection. (Among alternative 2010 

RPA scenarios, the RPA A1B and HFW were closest to our 

2012 baseline outlook in terms of projected U.S. GDP and 

population growth, but RPA housing projections were based 

primarily on demographic analysis (Ince and others 2011a) 

and did not take into account the recent collapse in housing 

or structural changes in housing demands. By adopting the 

logarithmic trendline for future housing starts, we recognize 

structural change in the housing market with an implicit 

reversion of housing starts to the long-run historical norm 

rather than historical peaks.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

19601970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

RPA A1B & HFW

 2012 baseline

U.S. GDP (trillions of 2006 dollars)

(a)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1960

19701980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

20502060

Historical

RPA A1B & HFW

 2012 baseline

Single-family housing starts (millions)

(b)

Figure 4. (a) Annual U.S. real GDP, and (b) annual U.S. 

single-family housing starts, along with 2012 baseline and 

2010 RPA A1B and HFW scenario projections.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

6

Finally, recognizing that the likelihood of large-scale expansion in wood energy has been dampened by the revolution 

in gas and oil supply (Maugeri 2012), our baseline analysis 

adopts the “Historical Fuelwood” (HFW) technique for 

modeling wood energy demand that was developed for the 

2010 RPA assessment. In that approach, future U.S. wood 

fuel feedstock demand and global demands for fuelwood in 

all other countries are projected to follow GDP growth in 

each country, using price elasticities of demand and GDP 

elasticities derived from analysis of historical demand relationships (Ince and others 2011a, 2012; Buongiorno and 

others 2012). Using the USDA Baseline projections of U.S. 

and global GDP growth, this approach leads to fairly modest 

projected growth in U.S. and global wood energy consumption from 2010 to 2060 as compared to other RPA scenarios 

that featured much larger-scale expansion of global biomass 

energy production (based on IPCC projections). Nevertheless, annual U.S. production of wood fuel feedstock is still 

projected to approximately double from 2010 to 2060, 

increasing by around 100 million cubic meters from 2010 

to 2060. (For perspective, that projected increase is at least 

10 times greater than current annual consumption of wood 

feedstock for wood fuel pellet production in the United 

States.)

The USFPM/GFPM model has a base year of 2006, and 

in this analysis the model is run to the year 2060. With accurate historical data on GDP, exchange rates, and housing 

starts, and with U.S. demands calibrated to actual demand 

growth, the model produced accurate market equilibrium 

solutions for U.S. consumption, production, and net trade 

in major categories of forest products over the historical period from 2006 to 2010. The model projects future U.S. and 

global forest sector market equilibria at five-year intervals, 

for 2015, 2020, 2025 and so forth, to 2060, driven by the 

USDA Baseline outlook (ERS projections of global GDP, 

population and exchange rates for all countries) and the 

U.S. housing starts trendline.

Results

We illustrate results in charts that show historical trends 

and our overlapping projections from 2006 to 2060 for 

consumption, production, and net trade in major categories 

of forest products, and other charts showing corresponding 

projections of U.S. timber harvest, timber prices, and timber 

inventory. For these charts, we obtained historical data on 

apparent consumption, production, and net exports of forest products from the on-line United Nations FAOSTAT 

forestry database (FAO 2012). All the historical data trends 

reported by FAOSTAT are generally consistent with trade 

data reported by U.S. Commerce Department and with production data reported by leading U.S. forest product trade 

associations. All the projections derive from the USFPM/

GFPM economic model (Ince and others 2011a), 

programmed with the 2012 USDA Baseline global macroeconomic outlook, the logarithmic trendline projection 

for average U.S. single-family housing starts (reaching 

nearly 1.1 million annually by 2020), and the “Historical 

Fuelwood” (or “low fuelwood”) relationships for U.S. and 

global wood energy demands (Ince and others 2011a, 2012; 

Buongiorno and others 2012).

Paper, Paperboard, and Wood Pulp

The USFPM/GFPM model projects demands for paper 

and paperboard in three major categories: newsprint, printing and writing paper, and all other paper and paperboard. 

Among these categories, newsprint demand has experienced 

in recent years by far the most significant structural change. 

U.S. newsprint consumption has declined by more than 

two-thirds since peaking in the late 1980s (Fig. 5). Most of 

that decline occurred in just the past decade, as growth in 

advertising expenditures shifted from print media such as 

newspapers to electronic media, and as newspaper circulation declined. (Trends in U.S. newspaper circulation and 

print advertising expenditures are reported by the Newspaper Association of American (NAA), www.naa.org.) The 

severe recession of 2007–2009 also accelerated the decline 

in newsprint demand. Our baseline projections, which take 

into account recovery from the recession but also ongoing 

and continued structural change in advertising expenditures, 

indicate that roughly half of remaining U.S. newsprint consumption will be lost by 2030, and only a small residual volume of newsprint consumption is projected by 2060.

Meanwhile, U.S. printing and writing paper consumption 

has also begun to decline, as electronic media and technologies have contributed to structural changes in information 

and communication technology, offsetting growth for paper 

grades ranging from magazine and catalog paper to office 

paper and book paper. The recession of 2007–2009 also 

deeply affected U.S. consumption of printing and writing 

paper, with only a slight rebound in demand following the 

recession. Although not as precipitous as the decline for 

Figure 5. U.S. newsprint historical apparent consumption 

from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline projection of 

annual consumption to 2060.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

7

newsprint, U.S. consumption of printing and writing paper 

is projected to continue gradually declining and to be at levels that are only about half of recent historical peak levels 

by the end of the projection period in 2060 (Fig. 6).

Other paper and paperboard products, which include mostly 

packaging paper and paperboard, tissue and sanitary paper 

products, and specialty paper and paperboard products, have 

experienced proportionately less decline in consumption 

(Fig. 7) than newsprint (Fig. 5) or printing and writing paper 

(Fig 6.). However, some structural changes have affected 

U.S. demands for paper and paperboard packaging. Growth 

in U.S. demand for packaging materials has slowed as a 

result of slower growth in U.S. industrial production and 

increased U.S. imports of consumer goods that are prepackaged in other countries. Plastics too have made inroads to 

traditional paper packaging markets, such as plastic bags in 

traditional paper bag and sack markets. Overall consumption of paper and paperboard for packaging also experienced 

a decline during the 2007–2009 economic recession, but 

paper and paperboard are still by far the leading materials used for packaging and shipping containers in the U.S. 

economy. In addition, demands for tissue and sanitary paper 

products have continued to grow steadily in line with population growth. Therefore, overall U.S. consumption of other 

paper and paperboard is projected to remain relatively stable 

over the projection period (Fig. 7). In aggregate, total U.S. 

consumption of paper and paperboard is projected to decline 

in the decades ahead (Fig. 8), with newsprint and printing 

and writing paper accounting for most of the decline.

While U.S. consumption of paper and paperboard is declining (Fig. 8), slight gains in U.S. production of paper and 

paperboard are projected to be sustained because of projected continued growth in U.S. net exports. Although U.S. 

consumption of paper and paperboard has peaked, global 

demands for paper and paperboard are increasing, according 

to the GFPM. In addition, the USDA Baseline outlook for 

currency exchange rates remain favorable toward expanded 

U.S. net exports. Thus, U.S. production of paper and paperboard is projected to increase slightly (Fig. 9), but projected 

growth in production is nevertheless much slower than the 

rapid historical growth in production of the late 20th century, when U.S. production of paper and paperboard tripled 

from the early 1960s to late 1990s. Such rapid historical 

growth in U.S. paper and paperboard production and correlated growth in U.S. wood pulp production and pulpwood 

consumption are not expected to be seen again in the decades ahead.

The baseline projection of total U.S. paper and paperboard 

net trade volume (exports minus imports, excluding recovered paper) continues the historic reversal of the trade 

balance observed over the past several years (Fig. 10). The 

historical reversal from negative to positive net exports 

is attributable to gains in competitiveness for U.S. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Figure 6. U.S. printing and writing paper historical apparent 

consumption from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline 

projection of annual consumption to 2060.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Figure 7. U.S. other paper and paperboard historical 

apparent consumption from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) 

and baseline projections of annual consumption to 2060.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

19601970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Figure 8. Total U.S. paper and paperboard historical 

apparent consumption from 1960 to 2011 (FAO 2012) 

and baseline projections of annual consumption to 2060.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

8

producers, with closures of less efficient mills, and also to 

global economic growth and a lower U.S. dollar exchange 

value, which favor higher U.S. net exports. Global economic 

growth and the favorable exchange rate condition continue 

into the future according to the USDA Baseline global outlook. Of course, a less optimistic outlook for global growth 

or exchange rates would dampen the outlook for U.S. net 

exports. Projected expansion of U.S. production and net 

exports consists mostly of other paper and paperboard products (packaging paper and paperboard products, tissue and 

sanitary paper products, and specialty paper products). (To 

explore the effect of exchange rate assumptions, we ran the 

analysis without the USDA Baseline global exchange rate 

projections, by assuming constant 2006 global exchange 

rates in the USFPM/GFPM model, and the result was lower 

projected U.S. net exports and production of forest products; 

for example, with constant exchange rates, U.S. production 

of wood pulp and sawnwood were both around 10% lower 

by 2030.)

U.S. consumption of wood pulp is projected to continue 

gradually receding as it has since U.S. wood pulp consumption peaked in the mid-1990s (Fig. 11). The decline for 

wood pulp consumption is a result of weak growth in paper 

and paperboard output, expansion in use of recycled fiber, 

and shifts in production of paper and paperboard products. 

For example, printing and writing paper uses high proportions of virgin wood pulp fiber and low proportions of recycled fiber, but U.S. output of printing and writing paper is 

declining. Among other paper and paperboard products that 

are projected to increase in output, there is potential to use 

higher proportions of recycled fiber, and foreign producers 

typically use higher proportions of recycled fiber in producing packaging paper and paperboard products and tissue 

paper products.

U.S. production of wood pulp is also projected to wane in 

the latter decades of the projection period (Fig. 12), but 

–10

–5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Volume (million metric tons/y)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19601970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Figure 9. Total U.S. paper and paperboard historical 

production from 1960 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline 

projection of annual production to 2060.

Figure 10. Total U.S. paper and paperboard historical net 

trade from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline projection 

of annual net trade volumes to 2060.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Figure 11. U.S. historical apparent consumption of wood 

pulp from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline projection 

of annual consumption to 2060.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Figure 12. U.S. wood pulp production from 1970 to 2011 

(FAO 2012) and baseline projection of annual consumption 

to 2060.
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

9

over the next couple of decades wood pulp production is 

buoyed by projected gains in U.S. net exports. Thus, U.S. 

wood pulp production and pulpwood consumption at wood 

pulp mills are projected to remain relatively buoyant over 

the projection period, although barely exceeding historical 

peak production levels and not increasing nearly as much as 

in the 1970s or 1980s. In the context of overall wood pulp 

production, chemical pulp production is projected to remain 

fairly stable while mechanical pulp production is projected 

to recede as primary uses of mechanical pulp (in newsprint 

and magazine paper production) are projected to recede.

USFPM/GFPM incorporates a kind of technology change 

assumption developed originally for the GFPM model; specifically that production technology in the global economy 

will become more similar across different countries because 

of global technology diffusion, although projected rates of 

technology change vary from country to country. The projected technological changes generally imply that U.S. and 

global technologies become more similar over the projection 

period, converging toward high efficiency levels in terms 

of paper recycling and wood use per unit of product output 

(Buongiorno and others 2012). (In this analysis, we used 

the same rates of technology change programmed originally 

into the GFPM model for wood products (Buongiorno and 

others 2012), but we reduced by half the rate of change in 

use of recycled fiber in U.S. paper and paperboard production because of very little projected industry growth and 

very limited increases in recycling at U.S. mills in the past 

decade. Nevertheless, there is still a substantial increase in 

U.S. paper recycling in our baseline outlook; the U.S. recovered paper utilization rate increases from around 39% in 

2010 to around 54% by 2060.)

Wood Products

Primary wood products include sawnwood (hardwood and 

softwood lumber and sawn timbers) and wood panels and 

veneer products, including oriented strandboard (OSB), 

hardwood and softwood plywood and veneer, particleboard, 

and fiberboard, all of which are modeled in USFPM. Some 

of these primary wood products are also remanufactured 

into secondary engineered wood products, such as laminated 

veneer lumber (LVL) made from veneer, glue-laminated 

(glulam) beams made from lumber, structural I-joists made 

typically from laminated veneer lumber and OSB, and 

wood trusses for housing construction made from softwood 

lumber.

Figure 13 shows historical U.S. consumption of sawnwood 

(lumber and sawn timber products) since 1970 and our 

baseline projection of sawnwood consumption to 2060. Our 

baseline outlook indicates that U.S. lumber consumption 

will rebound gradually with the projected rebound in U.S. 

housing construction, but not fully recover to 2005 peak 

levels until the end of the projection period.

Figure 14 shows historical U.S. consumption of wood panels and veneer since 1970, and our baseline projection to 

2060. Projected growth in wood panel and veneer consumption is a little more robust than for sawnwood because of expected continued substitution of engineered wood products 

for conventional lumber. In particular, U.S. consumption 

and production of OSB is projected to increase significantly 

following the projected rebound in U.S. housing construction, although recent historical peak levels of U.S. wood 

panel consumption (in 2005) are not projected to be reached 

again until around 2030 in the baseline outlook.

Of course, projections of U.S. wood product consumption 

hinge on the anticipated housing rebound over the next 

decade, without which wood product consumption would 

experience a much smaller rebound. Single-family housing 

starts are projected to more than double by 2020 to nearly 

1.1 million per year, and then average starts are projected 

to follow the gradually increasing historical trendline to 

just over 1.1 million by 2060 (Fig. 4b). Projected growth in 

wood product demand is driven also by GDP growth and 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Consumption

Historical

(million metric tons/y)

Projected

Figure 13. U.S. historical apparent consumption of 

sawnwood from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline 

projection to 2060.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Consumption

(million metric tons/y)

Historical

Projected

Figure 14. U.S. historical apparent consumption of wood 

panels and veneer products from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) 

and baseline projection to 2060.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

10

use of wood products in applications other than new home 

construction, such as wood use in repair and remodeling, 

other construction, manufacturing, and transportation.

As is the case for paper and paperboard, trends in U.S. production of wood products are influenced by net trade (export 

minus import) as well as domestic consumption. Figure 15 

shows historical net trade volumes for sawnwood along 

with baseline projections. U.S. net trade in sawnwood was 

decreasing historically, with high levels of softwood lumber 

imports primarily from Canada leading to a large U.S. sawnwood trade deficit up until the onset of the collapse in U.S. 

housing construction around 2005. The housing collapse, 

declining U.S. lumber consumption and a shift in currency 

exchange rates sharply reduced sawnwood imports after 

2005, with the Canadian dollar and other currencies becoming generally more expensive relative to the U.S. dollar.

An earlier boom in Canadian lumber exports to the United 

States from the early 1990s to 2005 was facilitated by a 

strong U.S. dollar and also by higher allowable sawtimber 

harvests in Canada as large-scale bark-beetle infestations 

in Western Canada prompted increased removals of beetlethreatened sawtimber; but as that phenomenon runs its 

course, the allowable harvest of softwood sawtimber in Canada is expected to recede. Furthermore, the U.S. net trade 

outlook for sawnwood is influenced by the USDA Baseline 

currency exchange rate outlook, with a relatively weak U.S. 

dollar and strong foreign currencies, which favor a sustained 

improvement in the U.S. sawnwood trade balance. (The 

2012 USDA Baseline macroeconomic outlook (ERS 2012) 

indicates, for example, that the Canadian dollar will remain 

above parity with the U.S. dollar over the entire projection 

period, whereas historically for decades prior to 2010 the 

exchange value of the Canadian dollar was much less than 

parity with the U.S. dollar, favoring U.S. imports of lumber 

from Canada in earlier decades.) The baseline projections 

indicate that the net trade balance for sawnwood will remain 

favorable to U.S. producers for several decades, until only 

later in the projection period when surging supplies of sawnwood from foreign producers are again projected to dampen 

U.S. net exports. Projected technological gains, with technology of developing countries becoming more similar to 

technology of advanced countries, tend to improve the 

relative efficiency of some foreign producers over time 

(Buongiorno and others 2012).

The recent trend in U.S. net trade for wood panels and veneer products was generally similar to that for sawnwood, 

and the trade outlook is also similar (Fig. 16). From the 

early 1990s to 2005, there was a mushrooming trade deficit 

as measured by the net trade volume for all wood panels 

and veneer products (much of it due to OSB imports from 

Canada), but after 2005 the trade deficit declined, largely 

because of the collapse in U.S. housing construction and 

related wood product demands but also because of sustained 

shifts in currency exchange rates with a weaker U.S. dollar. 

The baseline projections indicate continued improvement in 

the U.S. trade balance for wood panels and veneer products, 

owing in part to the weak dollar exchange rate outlook of 

the USDA Baseline.

Figure 17 shows historical trends and projections of U.S. 

sawnwood production, and Figure 18 shows historical 

trends and projections of U.S. wood panel and veneer production. Wood product output was severely depressed as a 

result of the collapse in housing construction and decline in 

wood product demand after 2005. U.S. sawnwood output 

declined by about 40%, and output of wood panels and veneer declined by about one-third. The declines in production 

contributed to significant declines in employment at wood 

product mills and in the logging sector, but production has 

begun to recover in the past couple years. U.S. output is projected to continue increasing for sawnwood (Fig. 17) and for 

–45

–40

–35

–30

–25

–20

–15

–10

–5

0

5

10

15

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Net trade

(million cubic meters/y)

Figure 15. U.S. historical net trade of sawnwood from 1970 

to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline projection of net trade to 

2060.

–20

–15

–10

–5

0

5

10

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Net trade

(million cubic meters/y)

Figure 16. U.S. historical net trade of wood panels and 

veneer products from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and 

baseline projection of net trade to 2060.
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

11

wood panels and veneer products (Fig. 18) as a result of the 

projected rebound in housing and positive GDP growth 

(Fig. 4) and the improved trade balance for wood products 

(Figs. 15 and 16).

Wood Fuel Feedstock

In the USFPM analysis, U.S. wood fuel feedstock production includes all fuelwood and other wood feedstocks and 

wood residues used for energy, with the exception of pulp 

black liquor, a wood residue of the kraft pulping process 

that is burned for energy but counted as part of pulpwood 

consumption (Ince and others 2011a). Wood fuel feedstock 

includes residential fuelwood, wood and wood residues 

used in production of biofuels such as wood fuel pellets, 

and wood fuels used for industrial processes, such as wood 

or bark that are burned for energy at forest product mills 

or wood that is co-fired with coal at power plants. On the 

whole, U.S. production of wood fuel feedstock declined 

since the 1980s, after having increased significantly 

following the energy crisis of the early 1970s, but in the past 

decade U.S. production of wood fuel feedstock leveled out, 

and some uses such as commercial wood fuel pellets have 

increased with higher energy prices and increased export 

demands. It is noteworthy that U.S. output of wood fuel 

feedstock did not decline significantly during the recent recession.

U.S. wood fuel feedstock production is projected to nearly 

double by 2060, with output projected to increase in all 

U.S. regions (Fig. 19a). Our projected increase for U.S. 

wood energy output is similar but somewhat lower than the 

projected doubling in U.S. biomass energy production by 

2030 in the reference case of the 2012 U.S. Annual Energy 

Outlook (U.S. Department of Energy). According to our 

economic model, the projected expansion in U.S. wood 

fuel feedstock output consists of increases in conventional 

fuelwood harvest, increased supplies of fuel residues from 

mills, increased use of pulpwood for energy (pulpwood is 

already being used as feedstock for producing wood pellets, 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Production

(million cubic meters/y)

Figure 17. U.S. historical production of sawnwood 

from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline projection 

to 2060.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Production

(million cubic meters/y)

Figure 18. U.S. historical production of wood panels 

and veneer products from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) 

and baseline projection to 2060.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

North

South

West

Historical

Production 

(million cubic meters/y)

(a)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Recovered logging residues

Pulpwood and fiber residues

Mill fuel residues

Fuelwood harvest

Production 

(million cubic meters/y)

Figure 19. Historical and projected U.S. production of 

wood fuel feedstock (a) by region and (b) by source of 

feedstock.

(b)
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

12

including pellets for export), and an expansion in recovery 

of logging residues for energy in the latter decades of the 

projection as demand increases (Fig. 19b).

U.S. Timber Harvest, Prices, Inventory, 

and Roundwood Trade

U.S. timber harvest consists of all roundwood products such 

as saw logs, veneer logs, pulpwood used for wood pulp and 

composite wood products such as OSB, fuelwood, and other 

industrial roundwood including posts, poles, pilings, and 

miscellaneous products. U.S. roundwood product output 

including exports amounted to 457 million cubic meters 

in 2006 according to FAOSTAT (FAO 2012). This volume 

does not include logging residue volumes left in the forest, 

nor does it include other removals such as precommercial 

thinnings or land clearing. Total removals, including roundwood products, logging residues, and other removals, were 

over 600 million cubic meters in 2006 (Smith and others 

2009).

Figure 20 shows historical data on annual U.S. timber harvest volumes (based on roundwood product output as reported by FAOSTAT (FAO 2012)) and our baseline projections 

to 2060 of U.S. timber harvest plus projected recovery of 

logging residue volumes used for energy. Logging residues 

consist of felled woody debris that has not been recovered 

or utilized conventionally and was historically left to decay 

in the forest, but an increasing share of logging residues 

are projected to be recovered and used economically for 

energy as a result of projected growth in wood energy demand according to the USFPM analysis. (We recognize that 

the extent of future recovery of logging residue for energy 

is likely to be limited for reasons that are both economical 

(higher costs with increased recovery) and prudent in terms 

of forest management (the need to leave some residues in 

the forest for soil nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat protection, and other reasons). The precise future extent of residue 

recovery is unknown at present, so USFPM logging residue 

recovery is conservatively limited to not more than 60% of 

projected volumes of residues generated by logging activities (Ince and others 2011a).) Projected U.S. timber harvest 

reflects the baseline projections of forest product and wood 

energy output shown previously, and as such the timber harvest outlook is influenced by the recent economic recession, 

structural changes in product demands, and the net trade 

outlook. The recession and collapse in housing cause a large 

but transitory dip in U.S. timber harvest volume, especially 

notable between the years 2005 and 2015. Conventional 

U.S. timber harvest (excluding recovered logging residues) 

is projected to rebound from current depressed levels and by 

2030 climbs back above historical peak levels reached previously during the late 1980s. Moreover, projected U.S. timber harvest volumes by 2030 are higher than the most recent 

peak harvest volumes just before the collapse in housing 

construction in 2004 and 2005 (462 million and 467 million cubic meters, respectively), reaching 555 million cubic 

meters in 2030. However, U.S. timber harvest is projected to 

increase only modestly beyond 2030, partly because of declining projected output of wood pulp, with projected timber 

harvest in 2060 at 607 million cubic meters, or about 30% 

above the 2005 timber harvest volume (an average expansion rate of only about 0.5% per year from 2005 to 2060).

We project timber prices to rebound in the near term with 

the projected rebound in timber harvest, but modest growth 

in demand for sawnwood and expanding timber inventories 

result in a subdued long-run outlook for U.S. sawtimber 

stumpage prices. For example, real Southern Pine sawtimber 

stumpage prices were depressed in recent years (Fig. 21) 

as a result of the recession and the collapse in housing construction since 2005. The average real (inflation-adjusted) 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Sawlogs and veneer logs

Other industrial roundwood

Pulpwood and composites

Fuelwood roundwood

Recovered logging residues

< - -Historical trends - - > Projections

Harvest volume

(million cubic meters/y)

< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >

Figure 20. U.S. historical annual timber harvest volumes, 

1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline projections of 

timber harvests plus recovered logging residues to 

2060.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Stumpage prices

(2006 dollars per cubic meter)

Figure 21. Average real historical stumpage prices for 

Southern pine (softwood) sawtimber (Timber Mart–South 

1980–2011) adjusted by PPI and baseline projections to 

2060.
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

13

price of Southern Pine sawtimber collapsed by 50% from 

2005 to 2011, according to South-wide average stumpage 

prices reported by Timber Mart–South (1980–2011), which 

we adjusted for inflation using the all-commodity Producer 

Price Index (PPI, Bureau of Labor Statistics). We project 

Southern Pine sawtimber stumpage prices to rebound somewhat but by no means fully recover to historical peak levels 

(Fig. 21). After 2030, timber stumpage prices level out over 

the projection period with increasing timber growing stock 

inventories. Similar real timber price trends are projected for 

other U.S. regions.

In our 2012 baseline outlook, U.S. timber growing stock 

inventories are projected to expand on U.S. timberland, 

mainly because of the large dip in U.S. timber harvest between 2005 and 2015 and the modest projected expansion 

in future timber harvest coupled with continued timber 

growth. Figure 22 shows historical trends in timber growing 

stock inventories on timberlands by U.S. region and species 

group, based on Forest Service nationwide timber inventory 

data for the years 1953, 1963, 1977, 1987, 1997, and 2007 

(Smith and others 2009), and our baseline projections of 

U.S. timber inventories to 2060. Our timber inventory 

outlook is calibrated to historical relationships between 

regional average net annual growth rates and mean timber 

stocking density on timberland (Nepal and others 2012), and 

for this analysis we did not assume any expansion of Southern Pine timber plantation area in the U.S. South, because 

of the relatively low projections of Southern Pine stumpage prices (see Appendix for specifications of the inventory 

model).

Assumed future U.S. forest land area changes in our 2012 

baseline scenario are the same as those developed for the 

A1B scenario in the 2010 RPA Assessment, where a nationwide decline of 12.4 million hectares of non-federal 

forestland area was projected from 2010 to 2060 in the conterminous United States (Wear 2011). This projected loss of 

forest land area is equivalent to 4.8% of the total forest land 

area and 6.1% of the timberland area of the conterminous 

United States in 2007 (Smith and others 2009). Loss of 

private forest land to urbanization accounts for most of this 

projected future forest land area loss according to the RPA 

land area analysis, primarily in the Eastern United States 

(Wear 2011). Losses of forest land area are highest in the 

South, accounting for just over half of projected nationwide 

losses, while federal forest land area was assumed to remain unchanged (Wear 2011). We used the RPA A1B forest 

land area projections in our 2012 baseline outlook because 

the RPA projections of urbanization were driven primarily 

by population and personal income growth and the USDA 

Baseline projections of U.S. economic growth are closest 

to those of the A1B scenario among RPA scenarios. In addition, we project little change in timber stumpage prices 

over the projection period, and the RPA land area analysis 

similarly assumed that relative returns to agricultural and 

forest land would remain constant through the forecast period (Wear 2011).

As shown in Figure 22, the projected expansion of U.S. 

timber inventories in our baseline outlook generally follows 

historical patterns of expansion in U.S. timber inventories 

over the past 60 years or so despite a projected decline in 

total U.S. forest land area and despite our assumption that 

pine plantation area in the South will not increase. Projected 

expansion of hardwood timber inventory is concentrated 

in the North and South, where hardwood inventories more 

than doubled over the historical period from 1953 to 2007 

(Smith and others 2009). Projected expansion in softwood 

timber inventory is concentrated in the U.S. West, where 

softwood inventory has been expanding historically since 

timber harvests were scaled back on federal lands during the 

late 1980s (Smith and others 2009). U.S. nationwide timber 

growing stock inventories are projected to increase from 

2007 to 2060 by 48% for softwoods, 81% for hardwoods, 

and 62% for total softwoods and hardwoods, while carbon 

in tree biomass on U.S. timberland is projected to increase 

by about 66%.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

195019601970198019902000201020202030204020502060

West

North

South

<-- Historical trends -->

Hardwoods

<--- Projections - -->

Growing stock inventory

(million cubic meters)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

195019601970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Softwoods

<-- Historical trends --> <--- Projections - -->

West

North

South

Growing stock inventory

(million cubic meters)

(a)

(b)

Figure 22. U.S. historical timber growing stock inventories 

on timberland by region for (a) hardwoods and (b) softwoods (Smith and others 2009), with baseline projections 

to 2060. 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

14

Although our baseline projections of U.S. timber inventories 

line up with historical trends (Fig. 22), they differ from the 

generally lower timber inventory projections of the 2010 

RPA Assessment (Forest Service 2012) and Southern Forest 

Futures Project (Wear and Greis 2011). Among 2010 RPA 

scenarios, the Historical Fuelwood scenario had highest 

projected U.S. timber inventory by 2060, but only slightly 

higher than 2007 timber inventory. One reason for the much 

higher timber inventory projection of our 2012 baseline outlook is that projected housing starts and U.S. demands for 

sawnwood and wood panels are generally lower than most 

RPA scenarios, particularly the RPA A1B and Historical 

Fuelwood scenarios, which shared a much higher housing 

demand projection based on demographic trends (Fig. 4b). 

Furthermore, none of the RPA scenarios or Southern Forest Futures Project took into account reduced timber drain 

resulting from the recession and collapse in housing, which 

resulted in a significant decline in U.S. timber harvest since 

2005. Also, our 2012 baseline outlook projects much less 

drain of timber for wood energy than most RPA scenarios 

(except for the Historical Fuelwood scenario). Thus, the 

departure of our baseline U.S. timber inventory projections 

from other recent forest assessments can be understood 

largely to be a result of a more subdued U.S. timber demand 

outlook, recognizing impacts of the recession, housing 

downturn, and structural change in wood demands, with 

modest growth in wood energy consumption. (In addition, 

the forest plot transition model used to project inventory 

in the 2010 RPA and Southern Forest Futures Project was 

a stochastic model that cannot precisely match USFPM/

GFPM harvest projections. Our baseline inventory outlook 

is calibrated to a more precisely matched growth and inventory model (Nepal and others 2012).)

U.S. net exports of roundwood are favored by receding real 

timber prices over the long run and by the favorable USDA 

Baseline currency exchange rate outlook, so the baseline 

global timber trade analysis resulted in projected expansion 

of U.S. net exports of industrial roundwood (Fig. 23). Softwood and hardwood sawlog exports in particular from the 

U.S. West and North regions account for the largest shares 

of projected U.S. industrial roundwood exports by 2060 

(42% and 37%, respectively), with Asian countries (primarily China and India) greatly expanding imports of industrial 

roundwood according to the baseline analysis, which is also 

similar to previous GFPM projections (Buongiorno 2012).

Summary and Implications for 

Forest Management and Policy

Our 2012 baseline outlook accounts for the recent economic recession and collapse in U.S. housing construction, 

structural changes in U.S. wood product demands, net trade 

responses to shifts in currency exchange rates, and shifts 

in U.S. timber stumpage markets. Our baseline outlook 

includes a rebound in housing construction by 2020, with 

long-run average single-family housing starts after 2020 

following the long-term historical trendline at around 

1.1 million per year over the projection period to 2060. 

U.S. timber harvest is likewise projected to rebound from 

recently depressed levels, but timber harvest levels out after 

2030, largely because of declining wood pulp production, 

with projected U.S. timber harvest in 2060 only about 30% 

higher than it was in 2005, not counting increased recovery 

of logging residues (Fig. 20). Projections include a doubling 

over the next 50 years in U.S. production of wood fuel 

feedstock, with some expansion in use of unconventional 

sources of wood for energy such as harvested pulpwood and 

recovered logging residues. The analysis incorporates the 

favorable global exchange rate outlook of the USDA Baseline, which contributes to projected improvements in U.S. 

net exports of wood products, paper and paperboard, and 

sawlogs.

Projections of modest increases in U.S. timber harvests 

(Fig. 20), a modest rebound in real timber stumpage prices 

(Fig. 21), and continued expansion in U.S. timber growing 

stock inventories (Fig. 22) have some implications for forest 

management and policy. One implication is an expectation 

of a rebound in timber revenues, which have traditionally 

helped support public and private forestry activities, but 

the rebound in timber revenues will likely be fairly modest, 

with only modest increases in real stumpage prices because 

of expanding timber inventories and modest growth in 

timber demand. U.S. timber harvest is projected to exceed 

2005 levels again in the decade after 2020, but then increase 

only gradually to 2060. Our baseline timber stumpage price 

outlook is closest to that of the RPA B2 or HFW scenarios, 

with little increase in timber prices beyond 2030. Thus, as 

pointed out previously in the 2010 RPA Assessment in reference to scenarios with low timber price projections (Forest 

Service 2012), the nation faces a challenge of sustainability 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1970198019902000201020202030204020502060

Historical

Projected

Exports

(million cubic meters/y)

Figure 23. U.S. historical net exports of industrial 

roundwood from 1970 to 2011 (FAO 2012) and baseline 

projection of annual net exports to 2060.
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

15

in enhancing the market value of wood resources. That 

challenge is shared both by forest landowners and forest 

managers who seek to improve forest conditions and must 

cope with limited growth in timber revenues and by forest 

product researchers and industry developers who strive to 

design future technologies that will make forest enterprises 

economically sustainable.

A corollary social sustainability challenge is the need to 

sustain employment and community stability in a sector that 

has suffered significant job losses (Woodall and other 2012). 

Recent declines in forest sector employment reflect the 

economic recession and collapse in U.S. housing construction but also stem from such structural changes as industry 

consolidation and labor-saving productivity gains. Figure 24 

shows U.S. employment trends in the primary wood products and paper manufacturing industries (NAICS 321 and 

322) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), along with projected 

employment derived from our baseline projections of production volumes and historical trends in labor productivity. 

(We used USFPM/GFPM projections of U.S. production 

of sawnwood, wood panels and veneer as the basis for employment projections in wood products (NAICS 321), and 

USFPM/GFPM projections of U.S. paper and paperboard 

production as the basis for employment projections in paper 

manufacturing (NAICS 322). We adjusted employment projections in both cases for expected future productivity gains 

based on labor productivity trends from 1990 to 2011, which 

show labor productivity increasing more rapidly for NAICS 

322 than for NAICS 321.) Wood product industry employment (NAICS 321) is projected to rebound in the near term, 

given the projected rebound in housing along with gains in 

lumber and wood panel output and modest labor productivity gains, while paper industry employment (NAICS 322) is 

projected to decline because of larger productivity gains and 

only modest increases in industry output. However, by 2030, 

total employment in these primary industries is projected 

to peak and then level out at around 0.9 million, which is 

almost 25% higher than depressed 2011 employment levels 

but still about 25% lower than peak employment levels of 

the late 1990s.

Our analysis does not project employment in secondary 

wood product manufacturing, but declining historical employment trends have resulted from outsourcing of secondary manufacturing such as wood furniture production to 

countries with lower labor costs (Ince and others 2007, 

Woodall and others 2012). The projected trend in U.S. net 

exports of industrial roundwood (Fig. 23) also reflects the 

growth in global demands for wood raw materials and cost 

competitiveness of foreign producers of wood products as 

represented in the USFPM/GFPM model. Projected expansion of roundwood exports portends a forfeiture of future 

U.S. employment opportunities that might otherwise exist 

if exports of industrial roundwood were instead converted 

by U.S. manufacturers to higher value products and then 

exported. Thus, according to our baseline outlook, the challenge of social and economic sustainability extends also to 

the challenge of enhancing U.S. competitiveness in valueadded manufacturing and secondary wood product manufacturing to improve the long-term future outlook for forestbased employment opportunities.

Another important implication of our baseline timber outlook is that timber growing stock in the United States will 

continue to be a net carbon sink for decades to come, absorbing atmospheric carbon as net annual growth continues 

to exceed annual harvest volume by a wide margin, as was 

the case in recent past decades. This implication that U.S. 

forests will continue accumulating carbon with expanding 

timber inventory over the next 50 years is distinctly different from scenarios of the 2010 RPA Assessment (Forest Service 2012), which had projected relatively flat to declining 

trends in forest carbon stocks, largely attributable to much 

higher projected wood use for energy and higher timber 

harvests for wood products because the RPA scenarios 

did not include the recent recession or collapse in housing 

construction.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

19902000201020202030204020502060

Historical NAICS 321

Projected NAICS 321

Employment

(thousands of employees)

(a)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

19902000201020202030204020502060

Historical NAICS 322

Projected NAICS 322

Employment

(thousands of employees)

(b)

Figure 24. U.S. historical employment in (a) wood products, 

NAICS 321, and (b) paper products, NAICS 322, 1990 to 

2011, with baseline projections to 2060.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

16

Finally, our baseline analysis shows that sustaining future 

timber markets and timber revenues depends on sustaining the global competitiveness of the forest sector. Without 

projected gains in net exports or with a reversion to historically high levels of imports, there would be no projected 

increase in U.S. output of pulp, paper, and paperboard and 

much smaller gains in output of lumber and wood panel 

products. In this analysis, the 2012 USDA Baseline projections of U.S. and global currency exchange rates have a 

positive influence on projected U.S. industry competitiveness (and alternatively a reversion to historically high U.S. 

dollar exchange values would dampen the outlook for U.S. 

net exports).

Our 2012 baseline timber outlook provides a coherent reference case from which to evaluate more precisely the forest 

sector implications of current market conditions and trends, 

and future implications of forest policy alternatives. For 

example, our baseline outlook implies that climate change 

mitigation policies focused on additional carbon accumulation in forests should recognize a higher baseline outlook 

for U.S. forest carbon stocks because of structural changes 

in timber demands, with higher thresholds for consideration 

of forest carbon credits, additionality, and leakage effects. 

Similarly, the new baseline outlook points to a clear linkage 

between sustaining the global competitiveness of the forest 

product sector and sustaining future forest sector employment, timber revenues, and forestry activities.

Literature Cited

Bricker, J.; Kennickell, A.B.; Moore, K.B.; Sabelhaus, J. 

2012. Changes in U.S. family finances from 2007 to 2010: 

evidence from the survey of consumer finances. Federal 

Reserve Bulletin. 98(2): 1–80.

Buongiorno, J.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, D.; Turner, J.; Tomberlin, D. 2003. The global forest products model. Maryland 

Heights, MO: Academic Press (Elsevier). 301p.

Buongiorno, J.; Zhu, S.; Raunikar, R.; Prestemon, J. 2012. 

Outlook to 2060 for world forests and forest industries: a 

technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–GTR–151. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 119 p.

ERS. 2012. International macroeconomic data set. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/ (accessed January 2012).

FAO. 2012. FAOSTAT forestry database. Rome, Italy: 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

http://faostat.fao.org/site/626/default.aspx#ancor (accessed 

June 2012).

Forest Service. 2012. Future of America’s forest and 

rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO–GTR–87. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 198 p.

Ince, P.; Schuler, A.; Spelter, H.; Luppold, W. 2007. Globalization and structural change in the U.S. forest sector: an 

evolving context for sustainable forest management. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–170. Madison, WI: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 

62 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27661

Ince, P.J.; Kramp, A.D.; Skog, K.E.; Spelter, H.N.; Wear, 

D.N. 2011a. U.S. Forest products module: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. 

Res. Pap. FPL–RP–662. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 

61 p. http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39750

Ince, P.J.; Kramp, A.D.; Skog, K.E.; Yoo, D.; Sample, V.A. 

2011b. Modeling future U.S. forest sector market and trade 

impacts of expansion in wood energy consumption. Journal 

of Forest Economics. 17(2011): 142–156.

Ince, P.J.; Kramp, A.; Skog, K.E. 2012. Evaluating economic impacts of expanded global wood energy consumption 

with the USFPM/GFPM model. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 60(2012): 211–237.

ITA. 2012. Trade stats express. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. 

http://tse.export.gov/TSE/TSEhome.aspx (accessed June 

2012).

Maugeri, L. 2012. Oil: the next revolution. Discussion Paper 

2012–10. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and 

International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June 2012. 

75 p. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22144/

oil.html

Näyhä, A.; Pesonen, H-L. 2012. Diffusion of forest biorefineries in Scandinavia and North America. Technological 

Forecasting & Social Change. 79 (2012): 1111–1120.

Nepal, P.; Ince, P.J.; Skog, K.E.; Chang, S.J. 2012. Developing inventory projection models using empirical net forest 

growth and growing-stock density relationships across U.S. 

regions and species groups. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–668. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Forest Products Laboratory. 20 p.

Peng, L.; Dhar, N.; Liu, H.L.; Tam, K.C. 2011. Chemistry 

and applications of nanocrystalline cellulose and its derivatives: a nanotechnology perspective. The Canadian Journal 

of Chemical Engineering. 89(5): 1191–1206.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

WO–GTR–78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 336 p.

Timber Mart–South. 1980–2011. Athens, GA: Daniel B. 

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Volumes 5–36.
Effects on U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, and Wood Energy Trends

17

Turner, J.A.; Buongiorno, J.; Zhu, S. 2006. An economic 

model of international wood supply, forest stock and forest area change. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 

2006(21): 73–86.

Wear, D.N. 2011. Forecasts of county-level land uses under 

three future scenarios: a technical document supporting 

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS–GTR–141. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 41 p. 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs141.pdf

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2011. Southern forest futures project. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.

gov/futures/reports/draft/Frame.htm

Woodall, C.W.; Ince, P.J.; Skog, K.E.; Aguilar, F.X.; 

Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, C.B.; Hodges, D.G.; Smith, W.B. 

2012. An overview of the forest products sector downturn in 

the United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 595–603.

Zhu, J.Y. 2011. Forest biorefinery: the next century of 

innovation. Tappi Journal. 10( 5): 5.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–219

18

Appendix—Regional Timber 

Growth and Inventory Models

To endogenously model regional U.S. timber growth and 

timber growing stock inventory in the 2012 version of the 

USFPM/GFPM model, we employed the same technique 

that was developed previously for the GFPM to project 

growth in forest stock for all countries worldwide (Turner 

and others 2006). That technique projects changes in forest stock in relation to projected harvest levels, projected 

net growth rates (before harvest), and projected changes in 

forest land area (which is projected endogenously for other 

countries in the GFPM but which we specify exogenously 

for the U.S. regions based on the land area projections 

developed for the RPA A1B scenario (Wear 2011)). In the 

GFPM framework, initial stocking levels and growth rates 

for forest stock are specified for each country (based on 

global forest inventory and growth data), and stocking levels 

are adjusted over time based on projected growth and harvest. Furthermore, change in the growth rates are modeled 

as a function of projected changes in stocking density, using 

a negative elasticity of growth with respect to stocking density (Turner and others 2006). We found previously that we 

could produce accurate projections (in comparison to historical data) of U.S. regional timber inventory for hardwood 

and softwood timber growing stock using this modeling 

framework, so long as we used growth model parameters 

estimated appropriately for the U.S. subregions and species 

groups (Nepal and others 2012).

The complete specification of our endogenous timber 

growth and inventory model for hardwood and softwood 

timber growing stock in each U.S. subregion (North, South, 

and West) includes initial timber growing stock inventory 

volume, net annual growth rate as a percentage of timber 

inventory, forest land area, assumed annual change (loss) 

of forest land area to other land uses (which causes 

proportionate loss in available timber inventory), elasticity of timber growth with respect to stocking density, and 

ratio of growing stock removals to timber harvest. The 

model recognizes that annual growing stock removals differ 

from timber harvest because removals include the growing 

stock portion of logging residues and also other removals, 

whereas timber harvest volume includes both growing stock 

and non-growing stock timber (Smith and others 2009). 

Stocking density is computed by the model as the regional 

volume of timber growing stock per hectare of timberland. 

Table A1 summarizes the specifications of the endogenous 

timber growth and inventory model as employed in the 2012 

baseline version of the USFPM/GFPM model. The elasticities of growth with respect to stocking density were set at 

values that produced accurate projections of timber inventory in comparison to our more detailed models of regional 

timber growth and inventory (Nepal and others 2012). It can 

be noted also that in our more detailed inventory model we 

can specify assumed changes in the area of pine plantations 

in the U.S. South (the effect is to change softwood timber 

growth rates in that region), and such adjustments of growth 

can also be entered for our endogenous timber inventory 

model, but in this analysis we did not assume any change in 

pine plantation area in the South. Also, we did not assume 

any changes in timber growth rates in response to climate 

change in the baseline analysis.Thus, the only projected 

changes of timber growth rates in U.S. regions are those that 

arise from projected changes in stocking density (according to the growth elasticity parameter), and thus the timber 

growth rates as a percentage of timber inventories are declining gradually in all cases because stocking densities are 

increasing for all regions and species groups. However, despite the assumed declines in timberland area and projected 

declines in net annual growth rates, U.S. regional timber 

inventories are still projected to increase (Fig. 22).

Table A1—Specifications for endogenous timber growth and inventory model for timber growing stock 

inventory in U.S. regionsa

Regions and timber species groups 

North South West 

Model parameters Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood 

Timber inventory (106 m3) 1,582 5,441 3,355 4,815 10,049 1,152 

Net annual growth rate 0.0266 0.0265 0.0644 0.0332 0.0172 0.0191 

Timberland area (103

 ha) 66,376 82,568 59,151 

Annual timberland area change (%) –0.15 –0.24 –0.12 

Growth/stock density elasticity –0.500 –0.505 –0.550 –0.450 –0.700 –0.130 

Removals/harvest ratio 0.943 0.921 1.043 1.326 0.912 0.646 a

 Timber inventory and timberland area are based on timber growing stock volume and timberland area as reported for beginning of 2007 

(or the end of our model base year, 2006); net annual growth rate relative to inventory and removals/harvest ratio are based on timber data 

as reported for 2006 (Smith and others 2009). Timberland area change is annual average rate of change based on projected changes in 

forest land area by region for the RPA A1B scenario (Wear 2011), which we applied to timberland area in this analysis. Timber growth to 

stocking density elasticity parameters were set at values that produced timber growth and inventory projections matching our more detailed 

regional growth and inventory models (Nepal and others 2012). For comparison, a stocking density elasticity of –0.48 was employed in the 

GFPM for all other countries, although different parameter estimates have been reported in the literature (Turner and others 2006).