
Kevin Mason
The US administration’s goal is clear: reduce imports and boost domestic manufacturing of wood products. Eliminating lumber imports would require an additional ~14Bbf of US domestic lumber production, representing a 40% increase on current production. …The big challenge in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) is that key infrastructure is missing: logging infrastructure, sawmill infrastructure and human resources. Logging infrastructure would require increasing logging employment, and that has been on a downward slope for decades as young people find other, similarly paid work more attractive. Third-party contractors could provide logging (and permitting) support, but they would face the same problems of scaling up. Harvest restrictions since 1994 have resulted in large-diameter timber now so the logs are no longer an appropriate size for local mills. Also, roads need to be built.
Unlike in the PNW, federal lands in the South have remained active suppliers of timber, along with other willing timber suppliers (including REITs and private landowners). …If the U.S. were to replace all (or the majority) of lumber imports, we would expect to see new supply coming from the South. …Replacing imports would take a decade, at least, and cost more than $10B for sawmills alone (potentially much higher with escalating costs for steel, machinery, etc.). We also highlight challenges, albeit different ones from the PNW. Investment is a big one. In an uncertain global macroeconomic environment, we do not expect to see major capital investment announcements. …Another big challenge is end-market demand from housing activity. If construction materials and labour costs rise meaningfully on tariff and immigration policies, affordability will decline and the near- term rationale for capital investment will be eroded—even if tariffs have forced housing prices higher (i.e., the stagflation scenario).