Comments on: SFI and LEED http://www.goodforforests.com/archives/89 Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:52:13 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kathy http://www.goodforforests.com/archives/89/comment-page-1#comment-27 Kathy Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:08:36 +0000 http://www.goodforforests.com/?p=89#comment-27 I too am hopeful and heartened by the USGBC’s attempt to assess the forest certification programs and extend its point system to more than just one certification program. We can’t get caught up in who is the “best of the best” when only 10% of the world’s forests are certified. True, there is very little FSC certified wood from North American forests, in fact only 18%. SFI is in a unique position in that 82 percent of certified wood fiber in North America can carry the SFI certified forest content label. And we are not the only ones to recognize the value of North American fiber – lots of green building rating systems such as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recognizes SFI certified wood in its green building rating system, as does the Green Building Initiative, Green Globes and other rating systems as far away as the UK. I don’t think however that a lack of access to FSC certified fiber will undermine the USGBC standard or make it irrelevant. I am concerned that as market campaigners continue to promote a monopoly for FSC or use tactics that dissuade organizations or companies to support and embrace all credible forest certification, it will result in people choosing to bypass certification altogether rather than choose certified products and risk the wrath of campaigners. This is the real threat and why I am so committed to an inclusive approach to forest certification. By supporting responsible fiber sourcing, SFI is encouraging the 90% of the world’s forests to join us in promoting sustainable forest management, ensuring forests for the future while providing the market with responsibly procured forest products. Hang in there and keep working with us and everyone who is committed to responsible forest management. I too am hopeful and heartened by the USGBC’s attempt to assess the forest certification programs and extend its point system to more than just one certification program. We can’t get caught up in who is the “best of the best” when only 10% of the world’s forests are certified. True, there is very little FSC certified wood from North American forests, in fact only 18%. SFI is in a unique position in that 82 percent of certified wood fiber in North America can carry the SFI certified forest content label. And we are not the only ones to recognize the value of North American fiber – lots of green building rating systems such as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recognizes SFI certified wood in its green building rating system, as does the Green Building Initiative, Green Globes and other rating systems as far away as the UK.

I don’t think however that a lack of access to FSC certified fiber will undermine the USGBC standard or make it irrelevant. I am concerned that as market campaigners continue to promote a monopoly for FSC or use tactics that dissuade organizations or companies to support and embrace all credible forest certification, it will result in people choosing to bypass certification altogether rather than choose certified products and risk the wrath of campaigners. This is the real threat and why I am so committed to an inclusive approach to forest certification. By supporting responsible fiber sourcing, SFI is encouraging the 90% of the world’s forests to join us in promoting sustainable forest management, ensuring forests for the future while providing the market with responsibly procured forest products.

Hang in there and keep working with us and everyone who is committed to responsible forest management.

]]> By: T.C.-lumber sales http://www.goodforforests.com/archives/89/comment-page-1#comment-22 T.C.-lumber sales Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:33:22 +0000 http://www.goodforforests.com/?p=89#comment-22 I am hopeful of the USGBC's acceptance of other standards for sustainable harvest of forest products, and their distribution to the marketplace. I find the FSC, as a single accepted certification body limiting, in terms of my business, to the supply of sustainable product. Several points come to mind, but a couple are of the most concern to me, as a dealer and green building proponent; 1: FSC does not have wide acceptance in the dimensional lumber market. Timber companies in the US and Canada, although stating their commitment to sustainable harvest, have not embraced FSC's unique vision for sustainability. What I mean is, I can't manufacture roof trusses and make an FSC claim if I wanted to. The material is just not available. 2: I think the US timber manufacturers, by and large, will not embrace FSC. The reasons are many, and both sides have valid points, BUT.. 3: By limiting the end user to FSC certified lumber for residential and commercial light frame construction under LEED, the standard has an unintended chilling effect on promotion of sustainable forest products. Why? because if it cannot be sourced, the points under the standard will not be sought. This is definitely not the intent of the USGBC, I am sure. So, as a supplier, if I do not have a source for FSC certified wood, and I do not see source development in the near term, and the USGBC holds fast to FSC's singular control of the certification for sustainable timber, I am effectively excluded from the LEED standard as it relates to sustainable timber. On a larger scale, the requirement itself becomes marginalized, or as some have told me, irrelevant. I am hopeful of the USGBC’s acceptance of other standards for sustainable harvest of forest products, and their distribution to the marketplace. I find the FSC, as a single accepted certification body limiting, in terms of my business, to the supply of sustainable product.
Several points come to mind, but a couple are of the most concern to me, as a dealer and green building proponent;
1: FSC does not have wide acceptance in the dimensional lumber market. Timber companies in the US and Canada, although stating their commitment to sustainable harvest, have not embraced FSC’s unique vision for sustainability. What I mean is, I can’t manufacture roof trusses and make an FSC claim if I wanted to. The material is just not available.
2: I think the US timber manufacturers, by and large, will not embrace FSC. The reasons are many, and both sides have valid points, BUT..
3: By limiting the end user to FSC certified lumber for residential and commercial light frame construction under LEED, the standard has an unintended chilling effect on promotion of sustainable forest products. Why? because if it cannot be sourced, the points under the standard will not be sought. This is definitely not the intent of the USGBC, I am sure.

So, as a supplier, if I do not have a source for FSC certified wood, and I do not see source development in the near term, and the USGBC holds fast to FSC’s singular control of the certification for sustainable timber, I am effectively excluded from the LEED standard as it relates to sustainable timber. On a larger scale, the requirement itself becomes marginalized, or as some have told me, irrelevant.

]]>