The US South remains one of the world's most important timber-producing regions, but the picture on the ground has become increasingly uneven. Mill closures, weaker wood demand, longer haul distances and the loss of pulpwood and residual markets are putting pressure on loggers and landowners even as new sawmill investment continues across the region.<\/p>\n
GWMI spoke with Michael Campbell, President & CEO of the South Carolina Timber Producers Association, about the state of Southern timber markets, the gap between installed mill capacity and actual wood consumption, the impact of closures on logging contractors and where the next sources of demand could come from.<\/p>\n
Campbell has 35 years of experience in the forest industry, working across wood procurement, logging equipment, sales and product support for contractors and forest-products manufacturers. He has led the South Carolina Timber Producers Association since 2025.<\/p>\n
GWMI: The US South has seen both sawmill closures and substantial new investment over the past two years. From your perspective, what is the real state of the Southern lumber and timber market today?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> I think it depends on where you are standing.<\/p>\n If you look at the US South from 30,000 feet, there is a lot to be optimistic about. We have one of the best timber resources in the world, a tremendous amount of privately owned forestland, good infrastructure, an experienced workforce and some very modern manufacturing facilities. We are also seeing significant new investment.<\/p>\n But when I talk to loggers and landowners, that is not always the market they are experiencing.<\/p>\n South Carolina is a good example. Since 2023, mill closures and curtailments in South Carolina and neighboring states have removed about 10.7 million tons of annual demand from South Carolina wood markets\u2014more than a 30% decline since 2022. At the same time, we continue to grow considerably more timber than we harvest.<\/p>\n So I think we have to be careful when we talk about \u201ccapacity.\u201d There is announced capacity, installed capacity and then there is actual wood consumption. Those are three different things.<\/p>\n From where I sit, the last one matters most.<\/p>\n After working with loggers throughout my career, one thing I have learned is that timber is a very local commodity. A major investment 150 miles away may sound great in a press release, but it doesn't necessarily provide a market for the landowner or logger standing on a tract of timber today.<\/p>\n So I wouldn't call the Southern market simply good or bad. I would call it increasingly uneven.<\/p>\n GWMI: How weak or strong is lumber demand at the moment, and how directly is that feeding back into sawmill operating rates and log purchasing across the South?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> It feeds back almost immediately.<\/p>\n One thing I think people outside the supply side sometimes miss is how quickly a change at a mill reaches a logging contractor.<\/p>\n A mill doesn't have to close to affect the market. It can reduce shifts, take downtime or cut its log intake. The mill may still have exactly the same nameplate capacity, but the logger experiences that as fewer loads he is allowed to deliver.<\/p>\n That's why I tend to look at actual wood consumption more than installed capacity.<\/p>\n A logger can't sell wood to a mill's theoretical capacity. He can only sell the loads the mill is willing to take today.<\/p>\n And when several mills in the same region are reducing production at the same time, that pressure moves upstream very quickly\u2014to the logger and eventually to the landowner.<\/p>\n GWMI: Are current sawlog prices giving an accurate picture of market conditions, or is there still too much timber chasing too little mill demand in parts of the South?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> They tell us something, but they don't tell the whole story.<\/p>\n TimberMart-South reported Southern pine sawtimber at about $23.34 per ton in the second quarter of 2026, compared with $26.12 a year earlier.<\/p>\n But if you've spent much time working with people buying, selling or harvesting timber, you know an average price across the South isn't necessarily the price that matters to the landowner standing beside you.<\/p>\n What matters is competition.<\/p>\n How many mills can economically reach that tract? What are they buying? How much do they need? Are they competing for wood, or are suppliers competing for quota<\/p>\n That's what establishes the real market.<\/p>\n We have tremendous timber inventories in parts of the South. But I've said this many times: having a lot of trees is not the same thing as having a strong timber market.<\/p>\n Trees need buyers.<\/p>\n And in some areas today, I believe we clearly have too much timber chasing too little consuming demand.<\/p>\n GWMI: When a sawmill closes, how quickly does that affect local sawlog prices, procurement radii and the bargaining position of logging contractors and landowners?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> Very quickly.<\/p>\n This is something that is personal to me because I've worked with loggers throughout my career. When I hear that a mill is closing, I don't just think about the employees inside that mill\u2014and I certainly don't minimize what it means to those families.<\/p>\n But I also immediately think about everybody outside the gate.<\/p>\n Where are those logging crews going to take their wood Monday morning? What happens to the landowners who just lost a bidder? What happens to the truckers? What happens to the equipment dealer, mechanic and fuel supplier?<\/p>\n The wood that mill was consuming doesn't disappear when the mill closes.<\/p>\n Those logging contractors have to find another market, and the remaining mills already have suppliers.<\/p>\n Sometimes that means longer hauls. Sometimes it means less quota. Sometimes it means both.<\/p>\n If a truck that was making four loads a day can only make three because the haul is longer, you've lost 25% of that truck's daily productive capacity, while most of its costs are still there.<\/p>\n That's why I think we underestimate the ripple effect of a mill closure.<\/p>\n The mill can close in a day. The economic consequences can last for years.<\/p>\n And the trees keep growing after the mill closes. The market for those trees does not.<\/p>\n GWMI: At the same time, several new or expanded sawmills are adding capacity. Do you think these investments are genuinely tightening sawlog markets in some areas, or is the effect still limited?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> Where they're operating and consuming meaningful volumes, absolutely.<\/p>\n And I want to emphasize something here: we need successful mills.<\/p>\n Sometimes these conversations get framed as landowners and loggers on one side and mills on the other. I don't see it that way at all.<\/p>\n If the mill isn't profitable, eventually the logger doesn't have a customer. If the logger isn't viable, eventually the mill doesn't have a dependable supplier. And if the landowner can't earn a reasonable return from growing timber, eventually we have a problem much bigger than either one.<\/p>\n We're dependent on each other.<\/p>\n So I'm excited when I see new investment in Southern manufacturing.<\/p>\n What I want to know, though, is how much net new wood demand it creates.<\/p>\n If we build a mill that consumes two million tons but lose another facility consuming a million and a half tons, I don't think we should simply celebrate the two-million-ton announcement without looking at the other side of the equation.<\/p>\n And geography matters. A new mill can dramatically improve one wood basket while doing very little for another.<\/p>\n GWMI: How significant is the gap today between installed sawmill capacity and actual production? Are mills holding back because of lumber prices and demand, even where log supply is readily available?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> I think it's one of the most important things to understand about the market today.<\/p>\n We can have abundant timber, significant installed sawmill capacity and inadequate demand for logs at the same time. That sounds contradictory until you understand how the system actually works.<\/p>\n Historically, sawmills have operated as part of a much broader forest-products system. Pulp and paper mills provided an important complementary market\u2014not only for small-diameter pulpwood and thinnings coming directly from the forest, but also for chips and other residuals generated by sawmills.<\/p>\n A sawmill doesn't just make lumber. It also produces chips, bark, sawdust and other residual material, and all of that needs a market.<\/p>\n The U.S. has lost more than 40 pulp and paper mills since 2015, representing roughly 60 million green tons of annual wood demand. As that pulp and paper capacity has disappeared, we haven't simply lost a market for pulpwood. We've also lost markets that helped make the economics of the entire forest-products system work.<\/p>\n When a pulp or paper mill closes, a nearby sawmill can lose an important outlet for its residual chips. Those chips may then move into another fiber market and compete with roundwood that previously would have come directly from the forest.<\/p>\n That becomes even more important as we add new sawmill capacity. More lumber production also means more chips, bark, sawdust and other residuals that need economically viable outlets. If we continue increasing sawmill production without developing replacement markets for those materials, we haven't solved the entire market problem.<\/p>\n That's why I don't think we can evaluate the health of Southern forestry simply by counting sawmills.<\/p>\n We need markets for the entire tree.<\/p>\n Sawlogs matter. Pulpwood matters. Thinnings matter. Chips, bark and sawdust matter.<\/p>\n They're all connected, and I believe developing new markets for small-diameter timber and residuals is one of the biggest long-term challenges\u2014and opportunities\u2014for the Southern forest industry.<\/p>\n GWMI: Are there clear differences within the US South\u2014for example between the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Arkansas\u2014in terms of log availability, mill competition and market strength?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> Very much so\u2014and sometimes the differences within one state can be just as significant.<\/p>\n I tend to think of the South as a collection of overlapping wood baskets, not one timber market.<\/p>\n Mill density differs. Species and product mix differ. Pulpwood and residual markets differ. Transportation economics differ. And the effects of recent mill closures and new investment differ.<\/p>\n You can drive 100 miles and go from an area with several competitive outlets to an area where a logger has very few realistic options.<\/p>\n That's why I'm cautious about averages.<\/p>\n Statewide and South-wide stumpage averages are useful. I use them myself. But they can't necessarily tell you what it's like to sell timber in one part of South Carolina versus another, much less South Carolina versus Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi.<\/p>\n For the person actually selling or hauling the wood, the market is the mills that can economically reach that tract.<\/p>\n Five competitive buyers create one kind of market.<\/p>\n One buyer creates another.<\/p>\n The trees might be exactly the same.<\/p>\n The economics aren't.<\/p>\n GWMI: How have mill closures changed haul distances and procurement patterns for logging contractors? Are some crews now having to travel materially farther to find a market for their logs?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> Yes, and I've seen this become increasingly important.<\/p>\n People sometimes think of logging primarily as cutting trees. In reality, a logging business is both a harvesting business and a transportation business.<\/p>\n You can do everything right in the woods, but every ton still has to get to a customer.<\/p>\n When a nearby market disappears, that changes the entire equation.<\/p>\n And I don't think miles alone adequately explain it. I look at cycle time.<\/p>\n If longer hauls take a truck from four turns per day to three, that is a 25% loss in that truck's daily productive capacity. Meanwhile, you're spending more on diesel, tires, maintenance and labor.<\/p>\n We've also watched the cost of logging equipment increase tremendously over the years. A modern conventional logging operation can easily have well over $1.5 million invested in the major harvesting equipment before you even start counting trucks.<\/p>\n These are very capital-intensive small businesses.<\/p>\n They can't continually absorb additional costs and lost productivity.<\/p>\n Eventually, longer haul distances don't just hurt the logger. They determine whether some timber can economically be harvested at all.<\/p>\n GWMI: The Southern sawmill sector is becoming more concentrated around larger and more automated mills. What does that mean for competition in the log market and for independent suppliers?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> I support modernization. We need our Southern mills to be among the most efficient and competitive facilities in the world.<\/p>\n What concerns me is not automation itself. It's the loss of competition if modernization is accompanied by fewer independent purchasing points.<\/p>\n From the supplier side, those are different issues.<\/p>\n If five realistic markets become two, you can have similar total capacity on a spreadsheet and still have a very different timber market.<\/p>\n There's also a resilience issue.<\/p>\n If an entire wood basket becomes heavily dependent on one or two very large facilities, what happens when one takes significant downtime? What happens if one closes?<\/p>\n The impact becomes much larger.<\/p>\n I think we need efficient mills, but I also think a healthy forest economy needs competition, geographic diversity and redundancy.<\/p>\n Those things aren't mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n GWMI: Looking ahead to 2027 and beyond, what are the main market indicators you are watching\u2014housing starts, lumber prices, mill operating rates, sawlog prices, new capacity or something else\u2014to judge whether conditions in the US South are actually improving?<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Campbell:<\/strong> Obviously, I'm watching housing starts, lumber prices, mill operating rates and stumpage prices.<\/p>\n But I'm probably watching some things differently than a traditional lumber analyst would.<\/p>\n I'm watching actual tons of wood consumed.<\/p>\n I'm watching whether new capacity is genuinely adding demand or replacing capacity we've lost.<\/p>\n I'm watching pulpwood markets and residual markets because we can't build a healthy forest economy around the sawlog portion of the tree alone.<\/p>\n I'm watching haul distances and logging rates because I want to know whether the businesses actually delivering that wood can afford to replace equipment, hire people and stay in business.<\/p>\n I'm watching growth versus removals because continually growing substantially more timber than we're consuming tells us something about the balance between supply and demand.<\/p>\n Looking long term, I believe one of the most important things we can do for proper, sustainable forest management in the South is develop new, economically viable markets for small-diameter pulpwood, thinnings and manufacturing residuals.<\/p>\n That material is not a waste product. It is part of the economics of managing a working forest.<\/p>\n Landowners need markets for thinning material so they can properly manage stands and grow higher-value timber. Loggers need outlets for the different products they harvest from a tract. Sawmills need markets for the chips, bark, sawdust and other residuals they produce.<\/p>\n As traditional pulp and paper demand has declined, we have not developed enough replacement demand for those products. At the same time, continued forest growth and additional sawmill production can add even more fiber and residual material to an already oversupplied market.<\/p>\n So when I look toward 2027 and beyond, I am not only asking whether we will build another sawmill. I am asking where the next large-scale markets for low-value fiber and residuals will come from.<\/p>\n That could include energy, biofuels, renewable carbon products, engineered materials, exports and technologies we may only now be beginning to commercialize. The particular solution may vary by region, but the need is the same.<\/p>\n After working with loggers and the forest products industry throughout my career, I've come to believe very strongly that you can't separate these pieces.<\/p>\n We sometimes talk about the health of forestry by pointing to how many acres of forest we have or how many trees we're growing. Those are important measures, but they're not enough.<\/p>\n A working forest requires a working market.<\/p>\n The landowner needs an economic reason to grow timber. The logger has to earn enough to replace equipment and stay in business. The trucker has to be able to afford to move the wood. And the mill has to be profitable enough to continue investing and competing globally.<\/p>\n I don't view those as competing interests.<\/p>\n I view them as one supply chain.<\/p>\n Landowners grow it. Loggers harvest it. Truckers move it. Mills manufacture it. And rural communities depend on all of them.<\/p>\n If we're serious about the long-term sustainability of Southern forestry, then we have to be concerned about the economic sustainability of every one of those pieces.<\/p>\n If we want to improve the economics of forest management over the long term, we have to restore markets for the entire tree.<\/p>\n About the South Carolina Timber Producers Association<\/strong><\/p>\n The South Carolina Timber Producers Association (SCTPA) is an independent nonprofit trade association representing the state's timber-harvesting sector. Its membership includes professional timber harvesters, timber dealers and timber truckers, alongside timberland owners, foresters, forest-products manufacturers, equipment suppliers and other businesses serving the industry.<\/p>\n The association works on legislative, regulatory, transportation and economic issues affecting timber producers and provides training in safety, trucking, Best Management Practices, environmental compliance, business practices and Sustainable Forestry Initiative requirements.<\/p>\n SCTPA is also a charter member of the American Loggers Council and works with forestry organisations at state, regional and national level.<\/p>\n Interview by Global Wood Markets Info (GWMI).<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The US South remains one of the world’s most important timber-producing regions, but the picture on the ground has become increasingly uneven. Mill closures, weaker wood demand, longer haul distances and the loss of pulpwood and residual markets are putting … Continue reading
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n