Fell or Leave Standing?

Take a mature tree ready for harvesting.

It can remain standing. In that case, its carbon initially stays stored in the forest. The tree can continue to grow, provide habitat and become part of a more complex forest stand. But it can also suffer from drought, become infested by pests or burn.

The tree can also be felled. Part of its wood may remain in a building for decades. Timber can replace materials associated with higher emissions. New trees can grow on the site. Another part of the wood may become paper, packaging or energy, releasing its carbon much more quickly.

Which option is better for the climate?

Climate accounting helps determine forest policy

Those calling for greater timber use often point to three effects: young forests grow back, wood products store carbon, and timber can replace steel, concrete or fossil energy sources.

Those calling for less harvesting begin from a different point: the carbon contained in a standing tree is already stored. Once the tree is felled, the carbon stock in the forest falls immediately. Regrowth takes time. Whether the harvested timber actually replaces more climate damaging materials is uncertain.

Both perspectives capture part of the system.

For this reason, the German Scientific Advisory Board on Forest Policy argues that carbon storage in forests, carbon storage in wood products and potential substitution effects must be considered together. Time, markets, disturbances and the question of what would have happened without a particular measure also matter.

Substitution cannot be measured directly. It is based on a counterfactual question: what product would actually have been used if the wood had not been available?

Wood does not come with a fixed climate bonus

A wooden beam can replace a steel beam.

In that case, emissions may be avoided.

If it replaces another wooden beam, this benefit does not arise. When wood is used for energy, the calculation depends on which energy source it displaces. The climate balance of wood looks different when compared with coal than when compared with wind or solar power.

For a review published in 2026, Nordic climate researcher Markku Rummukainen evaluated 173 scientific studies and book contributions as well as 66 additional documents. His conclusion is clear: the climate impact of the forest carbon sink, meaning the forest’s ability to absorb more CO₂ than it releases, can be measured relatively well. The climate benefits of wood products depend much more heavily on markets, consumption, technologies and the assumed alternatives.

Many recent studies find advantages for the coming decades when forest carbon sinks are strengthened and harvesting levels are moderated.

This does not mean that timber becomes irrelevant to climate policy. Its use matters.

Wood that remains in buildings for a long time has a different climate balance from wood that is quickly burned. A climate policy for timber should therefore pay much closer attention to what happens to a cubic metre of wood after harvesting.

Germany shows how quickly forest carbon accounting can change

Between 2017 and 2022, the carbon stock in German forests fell by around 41.5 million tonnes of carbon. Major forest damage caused by storms, drought, fire or pests, combined with reduced growth, turned forests into a carbon source during this period.

In 2025, the balance shifted again.

According to preliminary data from the German Environment Agency, German forests absorbed a net 19.3 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents. The harvested wood product pool also acted as a carbon sink. However, the overall land use, land use change and forestry sector remained a source of net emissions, at 26.9 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents.

A forest therefore does not carry a permanent label as a carbon sink.

Drought, growth, age, use and disturbances all change its carbon balance.

How much human intervention does a forest need to remain resilient in a changing climate?

A forest that regenerates naturally does not automatically become a forest capable of coping with the climate of 2050 or 2070. On increasingly dry sites, tree species may reproduce even though their own future there is uncertain. Heavy browsing by wildlife can prevent the natural regeneration of certain species. Large, uniform stands can carry substantial risks.

Active forestry can respond to these challenges. It can introduce additional tree species, diversify forest structures, support regeneration, remove unstable trees and distribute risks across the landscape.

Forest fires also change the discussion. More carbon stored in a forest benefits the climate over the long term only if the forest is able to retain a significant share of that carbon.

This does not fit well with a political debate that recognises only two options: use or protect.

Where natural regeneration works, however, it can offer substantial advantages.

Large numbers of young trees can emerge without planting. Genetic diversity and natural selection can be greater. The soil is disturbed less. Costs for seedlings and planting decline. Old trees and deadwood create habitats that cannot be recreated in the short term. Forests without timber harvesting can develop structures that are less common in regularly managed forests.

Restraint therefore also has a rational basis. A forester does not need to intervene everywhere simply because intervention is possible. The difficult task is distinguishing between different sites.

This is exactly what Germany is debating in 2026

In its coalition agreement, the federal government formed by the CDU, CSU and SPD commits itself to sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests. It wants to promote climate resilient and species rich mixed forests, support forest owners in providing ecosystem services, and continue forestry programmes under the Joint Task for the Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protection and the Natural Climate Protection Action Programme.

In the same section, the coalition announces that it wants to simplify aspects of the European Nature Restoration Regulation and emphasises practical implementation for land managers and property owners.

The political direction is clear: forest protection should remain compatible with management, the interests of owners and the use of wood as a raw material.

In March 2026, this developed into an open conflict.

North Rhine Westphalia, Bavaria, Baden Württemberg and Saxony Anhalt sought to redirect the forest related measures of the Natural Climate Protection Action Programme at the Conference of Agriculture Ministers. Public funding was to be directed more strongly towards forest conversion, sustainable timber use and long term wood utilisation. Funding for setting forest areas aside from use was to be discontinued.

Environmental organisations such as GRÜNE LIGA opposed the proposal. They defended the KlimaWildnis programme and argued in favour of forests being permanently left free from commercial use.

The agriculture ministers did not reach a joint decision.

The EU is turning the dispute into concrete policy

By 1 September 2026, Germany must submit its draft National Restoration Plan to the European Commission. The first German draft was published on 25 April. Around 7,000 comments were submitted during the consultation process.

The plan is intended to describe how Germany will strengthen degraded ecosystems and achieve the objectives of the European Nature Restoration Regulation.

For forests, this is politically sensitive because questions concerning biodiversity, old trees, forest structures, use and restoration suddenly have to be translated into measurable targets.

The federal government emphasises that participation should be voluntary. According to its response in the Bundestag, the measures contained in the restoration plan do not create direct obligations for individual private landowners.

That does not make the conflict disappear.

It shifts the debate towards funding, targets and political priorities.

What should the state pay for?

Timber production and forest transformation?

Carbon storage?

Deadwood and old trees?

Leaving forests unused?

Water retention?

Risk management?

These decisions help determine what kind of forest management remains economically viable.

Science gives neither side a blank cheque

The current state of research provides relatively strong support for four conclusions.

First: carbon stored in forests matters. Anyone reducing this stock through increased harvesting must account for the loss in climate calculations.

Second: timber can provide climate benefits, particularly when used in long lived products. A blanket substitution bonus is scientifically too simplistic.

Third: lower harvesting levels can improve the climate balance over several decades. This also applies in models that take international market shifts into account.

Fourth: climate risks such as fire, drought and pest pressure can make targeted intervention useful. This does not imply a general obligation to manage forests more intensively.

A more demanding form of forest policy therefore begins to emerge.

It would need to preserve carbon sinks, avoid wood uses with weak climate benefits, keep high quality timber in use for as long as possible, and intervene where concrete risks or insufficient regeneration justify doing so. Other areas may gain ecological quality precisely through reduced intervention.

This approach corresponds more closely to the current evidence than either a blanket increase or a blanket reduction in timber harvesting.

One forest may require management. Another may benefit from restraint. Even within a single forest stand, both principles can coexist.

Germany must determine which forest functions should take priority on which areas, which interventions are genuinely necessary and how their climate effects should be accounted for.

The future of Germany’s forests will not be decided by whether foresters or conservationists win the political debate.

It will be decided by whether Germany stops demanding the same answer for very different forests.

Sources

Weber Blaschke, Gabriele; Dieter, Matthias; Knoke, Thomas; Bauhus, Jürgen; Lindner, Marcus et al. / Scientific Advisory Board on Forest Policy, 2025: Assessing the Climate Protection Contribution of Forests and Wood Use: Guidance in a Controversial Debate.
Link: https://buel.bmel.de/index.php/buel/article/view/562

Weber Blaschke, Gabriele; Dieter, Matthias; Knoke, Thomas; Lindner, Marcus; Bauhus, Jürgen, 2026: How to assess the contribution of forests and wood use to climate change mitigation: Navigating through a controversial debate.Forest Policy and Economics, 188, 103819.
Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103819

Rummukainen, Markku, 2026: Climate benefits of Nordic forestry revisited, a review. Forestry, 99(2), cpag017.
Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpag017

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Regional Identity / Thünen Institute, 2024: Forests in Germany. Selected Results of the Fourth National Forest Inventory.
Link: https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/wald/wald-in-deutschland/bundeswaldinventur.html

German Environment Agency, 2026: Greenhouse Gas Data Show: Climate Action Needs New Momentum.
Link: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/treibhausgasdaten-zeigen-klimaschutz-braucht-neuen

CDU, CSU and SPD, 2025: Responsibility for Germany. Coalition Agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD. 21st Legislative Period.
Link: https://www.cducsu.de/sites/default/files/2025-04/koalitionsvertrag_2025.pdf

Conference of Agriculture Ministers, 2026: Final Record of the Conference of Agriculture Ministers on 20 March 2026 in Bad Reichenhall.
Link: https://www.agrarministerkonferenz.de/documents/endgueltiges-ergebnisprotokoll-amk-bad-reichenhall-2026.pdf

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2026: National Restoration Plan for Nature in Germany.
Link: https://www.bundesumweltministerium.de/themen/naturschutz/wiederherstellung-von-oekosystemen/die-eu-verordnung-zur-wiederherstellung-der-natur/nationaler-wiederherstellungsplan-fuer-die-natur-in-deutschland

GRÜNE LIGA e. V., 2026: Prevent the Abolition of the KlimaWildnis Funding Programme under the Natural Climate Protection Action Programme. Statement on the 2026 Conference of Agriculture Ministers.
Link: https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/regelungsvorhabensuche/RV0022934

AI Transparency