What It Means to Build Responsibly with Timber:

A chat with Robyn van den Heuvel,  CSFEP Program Director and author of  Chapter Five of the Principles for Responsible Timber Construction: Pathways to Action report.

Robyn van den Heuvel, CSFEP Program Director

As timber construction gathers pace worldwide, one question matters more than ever: can the sector grow in the “right” way - supporting forests, and avoiding any potential harm? 

Launched at COP29, the Principles for Responsible Timber Construction set out a shared framework for thinking about how timber construction could  grow in a responsible manner. They were developed to help people understand how to build well with timber. 

We spoke with Robyn van den Heuvel, Program Director at the Climate Smart Forest Economy Program (CSFEP), who authored Chapter Five of the Pathways to Action report. This  report builds on the Principles by examining what responsible timber construction looks like in practice, with insights from different regions and examples from the field. 

The invitation to author the chapter on the final principle — promoting a timber building bioeconomy, provided CSFEP an opportunity to help shape what responsible timber construction actually means and looks like in practice.

In our conversation, Robyn shared why this report matters now and what it will take for timber construction to support forests, communities, and resilient forest economies.

Let’s start with the big picture. Why does CSFEP believe that timber construction needs to go beyond carbon savings to something more systemic and regenerative?

When we try to reduce something as complex as climate change to something as simple as carbon, we are intentionally choosing to leave a lot behind.  

If we just think about decarbonizing the built environment with timber, we envision timber as a neat product that arises on a building  site. We don’t think about where it’s from, how it was grown, who grew it, or how it might be part of a value chain that transforms economies for nature and people.  

But when we frame the picture as a much broader system, we see more solutions.

As we worked on Chapter Five of the Pathways to Action report, and as we spoke with partners, especially in East Africa, it became clear quite quickly that we needed to think beyond just considering  timber as a material. We needed to think  about the wider system around it. Responsible timber construction is not only about decarbonising the built environment. It is also an opportunity to create a regenerative economy that works for people and nature.

CSFEP believes that timber construction doesn’t have to be just about carbon emissions. It can be about so much more: community, nature, and climate. 

You describe timber as more than just a material — as a connector between forests, communities, and economies. Can you share an example that really brings this idea to life?

The Localworks case study on the Busibo Teachers Village is a great example of how one can build with the community, nature and regenerative economies in mind. 

52 residential units in Busibo and Namabaale Teachers’ Village by Localworks

Localworks did not approach it by saying, we need to decarbonise the built environment. They began with a different problem: the massive shortage of schools and high-quality teacher housing in Uganda. By looking at the problem systemically, they developed a solution that incorporated locally-available biobased materials and industrial waste (lime cast) to create high-quality, long-lasting homes that benefit the community. 

For them, the fact that it also decarbonises the built environment is almost just a by-product. It’s a real benefit, but because it wasn’t their sole focus, they were able  to create something that actually works across a value chain, for both people and nature.

The chapter challenges the myth that timber construction is a new Global North innovation. How do you see African and other Global South traditions and innovations shaping the future of timber building?

Writing this chapter, I found the divide between the Global North and Global South difficult to navigate. As the only author from the Global South, I felt a responsibility to ensure that perspective was present in the report. At the same time, I did not want to dismiss the Global North. Much of the progress in engineered mass timber has come from there, especially from the Nordics, and those innovations have had a significant impact on the built environment and forests. 

But the future of timber building will not be shaped by the Global North alone. Most new construction is happening in the Global South, and that means African and other Global South traditions and innovations must help define what comes next. In Africa, timber building is not new. There is a long history of building with natural and biobased materials in ways that respond to local climates, local ecosystems, and community needs. Additionally, Global South innovations will design buildings that work for Global South realities. Although you can bring in Global North solutions to the Global South, they will never be as efficient as something that’s truly rooted in a local  context. Because of that, Global South  knowledge should not be treated as secondary to Northern innovation. It should be seen as part of the foundation for the future.

For CSFEP, the real opportunity lies in combining what the Global North has learned with the wisdom, practices, and realities of the Global South, especially in places like East Africa where building demand is rising fast. The Global South must have the space not just to join this conversation, but to lead it and define what responsible timber construction will look like in its own context.

You talk about shifting from extractive models to regenerative ones. What does that look like in practice, especially in regions like East Africa?

In practice, this means a shift in power. Right now – in forest product value chains – the built environment holds most of the power. 

In my ideal world, that shift would begin with shifting power back to forest owners and managers. They would determine the materials that the forests could provide, and the manufacturing sector would identify the products that could be made with those forest materials, and then we would find ways to create demand for those products. 

For me, the word regenerative is so important and I would be disappointed in any program that just aimed to be sustainable. With sustainability, you are not doing any harm – but you are also doing any good. You are doing just enough to balance the harm. The world can’t afford sustainable solutions; we need regenerative solutions that aim to leave forests better than we found them. 

What we are trying to do is paint a picture of what could be possible, what a regenerative timber economy could look like – while also recognising that people will apply these ideas within the contexts they are working in. In some cases, these recommendations may feel too ambitious. In others, many of these foundations may already be in place, allowing people to go even further.

In many regions of the world, public perception remains a challenge, with timber still seen as ‘temporary’ or ‘second-best.’ How do we change that narrative?

People do not think about a building as construction. They think about it as their home. That is why we have to move towards a more personal story. That is where true narrative change happens.

When we talk about changing the narrative, we often approach it as though people simply have the wrong idea and need to be corrected. But first we have to recognise that the perceptions and narratives people hold today exist for a reason. There is a history of timber being used for temporary or second-best construction, of it being used informally, and of a belief that if you can afford cement and steel, you should do so, to secure a better home.

True narrative change is switching from the abstract question: “How do we make people want timber?” to the question: “How do we make sure we are building things that serve people’s needs?” If we do that, homeowners will tell others about building with timber – and that is how we are going to achieve true scale. 

Finally, this chapter feels like a call to action. What do you want governments, funders, or industry partners to do differently after reading it?

I would hope this chapter in particular (and the entire report more generally) helps readers reframe what is possible: to think about timber  not as a product, but as a system that is creating economies that are truly regenerative. I feel like the rest of the report tees up this question perfectly. The rest of the chapters — Defining Value: Extending the Life of Buildings through Timber and Low-Carbon Reuse by Dr Naomi Keena, Whole-Life Carbon in Timber Construction by Stephanie Carlisle, Scaling Responsible Forest Management for a Low-Carbon Bioeconomy by Jamie Lawrence, and Leveraging Wood Construction for Long-Term Carbon Storage: Insights from the EU by Prof. Dr Matti Kuittinen — are a lot more specific and tangible (looking at carbon impact, sustainable forestry, or building for reuse, for example), but the final chapter allows us to push even further and imagine what could be possible. 

I am not expecting anyone to read this report  and suddenly create perfect regenerative forest economies all over the world. But can we get to forest economies that are a little more regenerative? Small changes across multiple partners add up and are incredibly important. 

Sometimes we don't make these small changes because we see that we are working in a big, complex system and we think “how much impact can I have?” But what we see again and again in coalition work is that there is nothing more powerful than a group of actors all making small decisions toward a common goal. That is when systems change and industries transform.