34 | Region Focus: North America
a 50% increase the previous year. In Q1 this year the total was 15,300m3
, 33% down on
Q1 2025. This is likely due to high levels of unsold stock on the ground.
After a 20% dip in 2024, exports of red oak to the UK rebounded 57% to 7,183m3
in
2025, a strong indication of more importers carrying stock in response to growing demand. However, similar to white oak, exports to the UK so far this year have been slower, at 1,870m3 2025.
in Q1, 18% less than Q1 Exports of tulipwood to the UK rebounded
7% to 26,811m3
similar amount the previous year. Exports in Q1 this year were 7,400m3
in 2025 after declining by a , a
6% gain compared to last year. With demand for tulipwood in Italy having fallen, the UK is by far the largest European market for it. It is increasingly popular as a versatile, price competitive hardwood for internal joinery, particularly for kitchens, often painted or stained.
Ash was stable in the UK at 8,100m3 . in
2025, but exports in Q1 this year were up 23% to nearly 2,500m3
This forms part of a wider trend of increasing exports of ash to Europe, driven by limited availability of European ash due to dieback and war in Ukraine, and by strong demand for thermally modified ash as an external use tropical alternative. Exports of walnut to the UK were down 19% to 6,100m3 reached 2,240m3
in 2025, but Q1 this year , a gain of 93% on Q1 last
year. This may be down to buoyant demand from the bespoke high-end joinery and retail fit-out sector, even as general joinery has slowed.
AMERICAN HARDWOOD ASSURED LEADS WAY ON EUDR CONFORMANCE
The American Hardwood Assured platform, launched August 2025, allows US hardwood exporters to readily compile, for each consignment, the geolocation and associated data to demonstrate negligible deforestation and illegality risk as required by the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). The delay in implementation of the latter, gives AHA time to develop other components of the platform, including global Proof of Provenance (PoP) procedures, and to push for legal clarity around recognition for EUDR compliance purposes. AHEC is undertaking an active communication campaign to raise awareness of the platform. It is particularly targeting EU regulators as they look at additional EUDR simplifications to help ensure equal treatment for smallholders and SMEs and to avoid unnecessary technical barriers to US products. The platform is already being used by 130 US
hardwood exporting companies and many are issuing AHA statements with each consignment. AHEC is encouraging importers of American hardwood products in all export markets to start requesting AHA Statements. This serves to accustom the trade to AHA procedures and data in advance of EUDR enforcement, while demonstrating that this is by far the most effective way for US hardwoods to deliver against EUDR deforestation-free objectives. The US hardwood forest continues to expand in both volume and area and AHA’s analysis of satellite and forest inventory data shows that for every 10,000m3 hardwood logs harvested each year, only 1m3
of US is from land
potentially converted to agriculture. ‘Negligible risk’ of deforestation by any normal definition of that term. AHA is also a platform for wider global market development of American hardwoods and is attracting interest elsewhere to help compliance with other policy measures. These include the US Lacey Act and potential tariff reductions for finished products re-exported to the US and illegal logging prohibition laws including in the UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Vietnam. By providing accurate information on provenance, the AHA platform may be readily extended for delivery of
life cycle assessment data at minimal additional cost to individual users. This will facilitate their ability to deliver Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) in line with internationally recognised standards, including the ISO 14025 framework for Type III declarations and EN15804, the European standard for EPDs in construction, providing greater recognition for US hardwoods in green building systems. Work on this aspect is planned to begin in 2027. As far as the EUDR is concerned, early signals from
AHEC’s engagement with EU regulators are positive. While the EC said in its May ‘simplification review’ report that it does not intend to amend the EUDR legal text again this need not create obstacles to EU recognition of AHA. With other EU and other US industry organisations,
AHEC has continued to call for the removal from the EUDR of the reference to “within a single real estate property” from the definition of the “plot of land” for which geolocation is required. AHEC’s advice is that the only part of the plot of land definition with legal force is that it must refer to a plot which ‘enjoys sufficiently homogeneous conditions to allow evaluation of the aggregate level of risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with relevant commodities’. The AHA’s focus on risk associated with individual US counties fulfils this part of the definition. With that one exception, AHEC fully supports the EUDR legal text and believes all remaining issues can be dealt with through amendments to the guidelines, as the EC suggests. It also welcomes EU scrutiny of AHA’s legality claims,
based on in-depth risk assessments of 37 hardwood producing states, as they go further than those of any other regulated commodity or supply region. There is a mounting technical and legal case in support of AHA’s approach to demonstrating legal and deforestation-free status. AHEC believes new frameworks like AHA, that draw on latest technology, including satellite imaging, to monitor forest trends at a local jurisdictional level, robustly trace products to those jurisdictions, and align with local forest regulations, will ultimately be most effective in countering deforestation worldwide.
TTJ | Summer 2026 |
www.ttjonline.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69
