The United Kingdom has rarely questioned its dependence on imported timber. For decades, overseas suppliers have provided the volumes needed by one of Europe's largest construction markets, allowing domestic sawmills to operate alongside a well-established network of Scandinavian and Baltic exporters.<\/p>\n
Today, however, the conversation is beginning to change. The shift is not being driven by trade disputes or concerns over the competitiveness of imported timber. Instead, it reflects a broader reassessment of how Britain uses the timber it already produces. As the government promotes greater use of wood in construction while pursuing an ambitious housebuilding programme, the forestry sector is asking whether domestic resources are being fully utilised before additional material is sourced from abroad.<\/p>\n
That question has become increasingly relevant because Britain's dependence on imported timber remains among the highest in the developed world. Around 80% of the wood products used in the country originate overseas, leaving the construction sector heavily exposed to international supply chains and global market volatility. Although Scandinavian producers have long been reliable suppliers, recent disruptions\u2014from the pandemic to freight bottlenecks and geopolitical tensions\u2014have renewed interest in strengthening domestic supply wherever practical.<\/p>\n
Few people inside the industry believe Britain can become self-sufficient. Instead, the debate centres on a much narrower objective: whether more home-grown structural timber can be used in applications where imported products have gradually become the default specification.<\/p>\n
Changing specifications rather than changing suppliers<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The discussion has largely been shaped by the Trust UK C16<\/strong> initiative, supported by Confor, Timber Development UK and the country's leading sawmilling companies. Rather than calling for restrictions on imports, the campaign focuses on specification practices that, according to its supporters, increasingly favour imported C24 structural timber even where lower strength grades would meet engineering requirements.<\/p>\n Note: C16 and C24 are structural softwood strength classes under EN 338. Final material selection depends on the structural design, span, loading conditions, dimensions, exposure and applicable building requirements.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n David Hopkins, Chief Executive of Timber Development UK, says the objective is to encourage designers to reconsider long-established assumptions rather than replace imported timber.<\/p>\n \"The aim now is to show builders and architects that you can still use home-grown timber as much as imported C24 for the majority of jobs.\"<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n For many years, C24 has become the specification of choice across much of Britain's construction sector. Imported Nordic spruce consistently achieves the higher strength classification, making it the preferred option for merchants and builders seeking a single product suitable for almost every application.<\/p>\n Supporters of the campaign argue that convenience has gradually replaced optimisation. Many residential projects, they say, do not require the additional strength offered by C24. Where C16 already satisfies structural requirements, specifying the higher grade may unnecessarily limit the use of British-grown timber.<\/p>\n \"While C24 is stronger, you don't need it to be that strong. For most domestic housing in the UK, which is the main form of building in this country, you can do that entirely with C16.\"<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The argument is attracting attention because it challenges purchasing behaviour rather than engineering standards. The campaign does not suggest that C24 is inappropriate. Instead, it questions whether the higher grade has gradually become the default choice in situations where it delivers little practical advantage.<\/p>\n A market built on imports<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Despite growing support for greater use of domestic timber, virtually nobody involved in the debate believes imports can be replaced.<\/p>\n Britain consumes around 15 million cubic metres<\/strong> of timber each year, while domestic softwood production supplies only around 3.5 million cubic metres<\/strong>. The difference reflects decades of forestry development rather than short-term market conditions.<\/p>\n Stephen King, UK Project Manager at Swedish Wood, believes those figures define the discussion.<\/p>\n \"There is no option but to import wood into the UK. We consume about 15 million cubic metres a year. British softwood can produce around 3.5 million cubic metres. There simply isn't enough harvestable production domestically.\"<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That assessment is not disputed by supporters of the C16 campaign.<\/p>\n Hopkins readily acknowledges that imports will remain indispensable.<\/p>\n \"It will never ever totally replace imports, but it's about trying to change the perception that C16 is still good quality.\"<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The debate therefore does not divide the industry into supporters and opponents of imported timber. Instead, it asks whether Britain's limited domestic resource is being used as efficiently as possible.<\/p>\n At present, much of the country's structural timber enters markets where C16 is accepted, while projects specifying C24 continue relying primarily on imported material. Campaign supporters believe that reviewing specification practices could allow domestic producers to participate in a larger share of residential construction without materially altering Britain's reliance on Scandinavian suppliers.<\/p>\n The conversation is no longer about reducing imports. It is about ensuring that imported timber is used where its technical characteristics are genuinely required, while domestic timber competes more effectively in applications where it already meets structural performance standards.<\/p>\n Confor campaign video: Trust UK C16<\/strong>\n\n
\n C16 and C24 at a glance<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n \n \nCharacteristic<\/th>\n C16<\/th>\n C24<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Main supply source in the UK<\/td>\n Predominantly UK-grown softwood<\/td>\n Mainly imported Nordic and other European softwood<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Strength class<\/td>\n 16 N\/mm\u00b2 characteristic bending strength<\/td>\n 24 N\/mm\u00b2 characteristic bending strength<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relative structural performance<\/td>\n Suitable for many standard residential and general structural applications<\/td>\n Higher strength for more demanding loads, spans and structural designs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Typical appearance<\/td>\n May contain more knots and visual imperfections<\/td>\n Generally fewer knots and greater visual uniformity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Typical applications<\/td>\n Stud walls, partitions, floor joists, framing and many low-rise housing applications<\/td>\n Roof trusses, beams, longer spans, heavier framing and structures requiring greater strength<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relative price<\/td>\n Generally lower<\/td>\n Generally sold at a premium to C16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Current UK market position<\/td>\n Domestic grade seeking wider acceptance in construction<\/td>\n Widely used as the default structural timber specification<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Role in the current debate<\/td>\n Promoted for applications where its strength is sufficient<\/td>\n Remains essential where higher performance or large, consistent supply volumes are required<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n