Climate change is reshaping the economics of Europe’s forests. Using 16 × 16 kilometre grids, species-level growth modelling and extensive Monte Carlo runs of fires, storms and bark beetle outbreaks, researchers estimate that climate-driven disturbances have already reduced timber value by nearly a third compared with an undisturbed world. Under past climate, that translated to about €115 billion in lost value and roughly €1.7 billion in annual costs.

The future is costlier. As warming intensifies, unplanned harvests surge and push disturbance losses to about €146 billion under mild warming, €186 billion under a mid-range path, and up to €247 billion under severe warming by late century. Annualized, that’s roughly €2.2–€3.7 billion a year, and per-hectare losses rise steeply as well. Sensitivity tests show totals grow when lower discount rates are used, underscoring how long-lived forests magnify future shocks.

The pain is not uniform. Central Europe—parts of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic—shows the highest average and extreme losses, with worst-case local outcomes topping €19,000 per hectare. Northern Europe fares better on average, with disturbance costs 60–65 percent lower, though local extremes can still spike into five figures. Southern Europe sits in between but trends negative as heat and drought drag down growth while hazards intensify.

Here’s the twist: climate change also boosts tree growth in many regions, via longer seasons and CO2 fertilization. That raises standing stock and sustainable harvests, inflating baseline forest value. At the continental scale, these productivity gains often counterbalance rising disturbance losses, keeping total timber value broadly stable across scenarios. But this offset is uneven: it is strongest in the north, weaker in the centre, and largely absent in the south where productivity stalls or declines.

Management choices matter. Shortening rotation periods by around a decade modestly trims disturbance costs in harsher climates. Diversifying away from even-aged, disturbance-prone stands and planting less vulnerable species can lower risk, though these changes require up-front investment and may trade off with carbon storage or habitat goals. The model also assumes substantial salvage logging; if post-disaster timber cannot reach markets, losses would be larger.

Uncertainties remain. Focusing on timber understates wider societal costs to water, recreation, biodiversity and carbon. Emerging pests and pathogens could add to the burden, while some recent observations even hint at growth slowdowns in parts of the north, which would weaken the productivity cushion. Still, the broad message is clear: adaptation to reduce disturbance exposure and mitigation to limit warming both carry strong economic rationale, with the most favourable continent-wide outcomes arising under milder climate scenarios.