As someone deeply committed to advancing forest conservation, I was excited yesterday to be part of the launch of the SFI Conservation and Community Partnerships Grant Program for 2013. Established in 2010, the program fosters partnerships between non-profit organizations, SFI program participants and other stakeholders interested in advancing responsible forestry and procurement in the United States and Canada.

This year we are proud to pledge $400,000 in funding to support projects in the areas of Working Forests, Water Resources, Carbon and Bioenergy, Capacity Building, and Wildlife and Biodiversity.  In 2013, SFI continues funding of multi-year projects underway – such as our work with Ducks Unlimited Canada and the World Resources Institute – and will award up to $250,000 in new projects through our RFP process.

In addition, SFI awards community grants of $5,000 or less to help fund projects that support youth education in forestry, green building and advancing management and awareness of culturally important lands.

It’s gratifying to be part of a program that brings together the conservation and environmental community, resource managers, researchers and government agencies together to tackle today’s critical forestry issues such as water quality, climate change and habitat management. To date, SFI has invested more than $1.3 million to support 33 grant projects to promote forest conservation, sustainable management, and community engagement. When leveraged with matching funds, the total investment in the program exceeds $4.8 million.

The end result is improved management of our forests and responsible product sourcing. SFI is the only forest certification standard in North America that requires participants to support and engage in research activities to improve forest health, productivity and sustainable management. The SFI Conservation and Community Partnerships Grant Program is a natural extension of this commitment and ultimately helps improve forest management in the U.S. and Canada and contributes to the ongoing improvement of the SFI standard.

SFI is proud to engage with so many conservation organizations and community partners who share our goal of supporting healthy, sustainable forests for generations to come.

The deadline for this year’s grant applications is Monday, March 18, 2013. For more information about the SFI Conservation and Community Partnerships Grant Program and to download the complete 2013 RFP, please visit our 2013 Grant Program site.

We depend on forests for our existence, for the clean air we breathe, for the clean water we drink, for wildlife habitat, and for carbon sequestration. We depend on forests to sustain sacred places and communities. Forests also provide us with an endless stream of products that contribute to our shelter, our literacy, our energy sources, our culture, and our health, well-being and livelihoods. We know these things, yet too often we take them for granted.

We need to be more conscious in our relationship with forests, how we value them, how we manage them, and how we live with them. The theme of our progress report is The Future is Decided Now — we want to convey through this theme that the decisions we make, and the actions we take today, can have a real influence on the future of our forests and, in turn, on our collective future. In this report, we reflect on the past year and we look further ahead to understand the dynamics and outcomes associated with our programmatic decisions and the decisions of those around us.

While forests are characterized by natural disturbances and are dramatically influenced by fire, insects, disease, and climate, we make decisions that determine how and whether we manage for fire, how and whether we control insects and disease, how and whether we can maximize carbon storage and mitigate climate change. The how and the whether are influenced by our knowledge, by our research, by our conservation objectives and ultimately by our decisions on our forestlands and others.

Decisions we make today will influence whether markets for illegal logging thrive or die, they will influence the value placed on ecosystem services, or the emphasis we give to renewable energy, or the care we take to address species at risk. We can influence whether forests grow in area and in biodiversity, or whether they are threatened or converted to other uses. This report shows how decisions made by SFI leaders in the past led to innovative approaches for promoting responsible forest practices that are unmatched by any other certification program in the world. They have positively contributed to the forests we have today through unique requirements for logger training, use of best management practices for water quality, fiber sourcing, and a solid commitment to research. The stories herein provide insight into why we have strengthened our standard in the areas we have, why we chose to support selected conservation, indigenous and community projects, and how we decided that we could extend the scope of our long-standing grassroots network of implementation committees, unique to the SFI program, to engage in community and youth projects. Through these actions, we believe we can contribute to a future of healthy forests and communities.

Our SFI program participants know that buyers of forest products can make or break a forest community by recognizing the products that come from a well-managed forest or by neglecting to include 196 million acres (79 million hectares) of SFI-certified forestland in North America, and 364 million acres (147 million hectares) of SFI-recognized forestland through affiliated certifying organizations. At SFI we want to thank green building programs that recognize forest products and forest certification, and we want people to understand that saying no to forest products doesn’t translate into more forests, it translates into less forestland. Without markets for forest products, there is a risk forests will be converted to other uses. We want people to understand that saying yes to SFI certification sends a signal for more logger training, more landowner outreach, more wildlife habitat, more conservation easements, more community outreach and more conservation partnerships, and of course more well-paying jobs in the forest sector. We are committed to responsible forestry, and we are committed to partnerships that educate tomorrow’s leaders in responsible forestry, so that tomorrow’s forests can be as good as or better than today’s.

We hope you make a choice today to support our program and all the organizations that support responsible forestry. Please do your part. The future is decided now.

It’s been close to a month since Draft 3 of the new LEED 2012 language was released, and my initial reaction has not changed. I’m pleased to see there are credits specific for whole building Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Product Declarations, and I look forward to seeing how these credits get accessed moving forward.  However, I remain disappointed with requirements related to local sourcing and forest certification.

In the latest draft, local sourcing is overly restrictive and confusing – in some instances the local sourcing radius has been reduced from 500 miles to 50 miles – which is obviously not helpful for rural-based economies such as the forest products sector. And the “FSC or Better” language in the latest LEED Draft does a disservice to those organizations attempting to constructively engage and support responsible forestry and wood products from well-managed forests. Laura Thompson of Sappi said it well in her Environmental Quotient blog when she said she is “shocked that such a leading organization would write what amounts to me as a sloppy reference in a standard. ‘FSC or better’? ”

That’s so true. What are the criteria to determine “better”? How will they be assessed, and by whom? With so many different Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards around the world, which one will the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) pick as its baseline? Will USGBC rise to the occasion and give credits for responsible forestry beyond FSC? Or will USGBC take us all down this long path of trying to decipher the baselines and the winners?

For years SFI has been promoting choice and inclusion of forest certification standards, and we don’t believe it is constructive to be forced to explain why we are better than FSC. This type of conversation is occurring because of USGBC’s new language.

Ninety percent of the world’s forests are not certified at all, and USGBC can drive demand for more certified lands by recognizing all credible certification standards – including SFI, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), FSC and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). These programs are pillars of responsible forestry, and they all serve a variety of land ownerships and markets. Together we are building the future of our forests upon which forest products, multiple values and communities can be sustained.

Our advice to the USGBC is to drop “FSC or better” and instead use the criteria for forest certification set out by the National Association of State Foresters forest certification policy or better yet – recognize the 10 percent of the world’s forests that are certified, be it to FSC or standards recognized by PEFC, including SFI, ATFS and CSA.

LEED is a precedent setting standard – many retailers rely on it to define responsible forest management. The decisions USGBC makes today will determine the future health of our forests and our communities.

Here’s my message to USGBC: The future is decided now, and I hope you will play a pivotal role in keeping well-managed forests and communities alive and thriving.

What Experts are Saying

No doubt USGBC will receive lots of feedback about its draft language. We opened up our Good for Forests blog, and many others voiced their opinions on the topic of FSC or Better:

• • Dick Brinker, Dean Emeritus, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, says SFI training requirements are making a huge difference, and some states point to it as one reason for consistent improvement in their best management practices to protect water quality.
  • University of Toronto former Dean and Professor Tat Smith says that SFI certification exceeds FSC in the area of research, and that by including SFI, the USGBC would be telling researchers “it values the work and knowledge we have achieved through the SFI program.”
  • SFI Board Chair Bob Luoto, who owns a logging business in rural Oregon, says as long as USGBC limits its LEED-certified wood credit to FSC, “it is turning its back on my community as well as other communities in North America.”
  • Larry Selzer, President of The Conservation Fund and Vice-Chair of the SFI Board of Directors, says if USGBC “wants to help us keep working forests as forests, it will acknowledge SFI’s leadership in the area of responsible forestry.”
  • The National Association of State Foresters’ Randy Dye says it is “disturbing that the USGBC would continue to pick one certification program at the expense of others that were developed with U.S. forests and communities in mind.”
  • Union leader Bill Street of the International Association of Machinists says the “ideological driven ‘exclusivity’ of FSC means that systems such as LEED contribute to rural poverty and unemployment while simultaneously adding economic pressure to convert forest land to non-forest land uses . . .”
  • Auditor Mike Ferrucci says: “If the USGBC’s goal is to reward excellence, products from forests certified to SFI should be equally entitled to LEED certified wood credits.”
  • Michael Goergen, Executive Vice-President and CEO of the Society of American Foresters says “ ‘FSC or better’ is neither logical nor scientific. Especially when it continues to reinforce misconceptions about third-party forest certification and responsible forest practices.”
  • Sappi’s Laura Thompson says exclusion of SFI-certified products is based on a lack of understanding of complex supply chains because a paper product labeled as FSC certified may actually have more SFI fiber than FSC fiber “and yet USGBC is saying they will only recognize it when it is FSC certified.”
  • Pat Sirois, Coordinator of the Maine SFI Implementation Committee, says the USGBC position suggests it “does not value the many contributions made by volunteer members of the Maine SFI Implementation Committee who work hard to broaden the practice of sustainable forestry on certified and uncertified lands in our state.”
  • Ryan Clark of Capacity Forest Management, which manages forestry operations for First Nations clients in British Columbia, says: “If the U.S. Green Building Program wants to support North America’s forests and its indigenous peoples, it will expand the LEED certified wood to recognize all of North America’s certification standards.”

SFI has always been committed to green building, and we are pleased that numerous green building rating tools around the world and across North America treat all forest certification standards the same. We are looking forward to the day when we can support USGBC for making a decision that supports responsible forestry, jobs and communities across North America.

Respected organizations are calling on the U.S. Green Building Council to recognize all credible certification programs used in North America for its LEED rating system – including the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, American Tree Farm System, Canadian Standards Association, Forest Stewardship Council and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. After the LEED Rating System Third Public Comment Period closes March 27, USGBC members will vote on the final draft.

Larry Selzer
President and CEO
The Conservation Fund

The U.S. Green Building Council is inviting comments on the draft language for its LEED rating system. SFI Inc. has invited views on the treatment of third-party forest certification, which must be “FSC or better” according to the latest USGBC credit language. In this post, Larry Selzer, President and CEO of The Conservation Fund, and a member of the conservation chamber and Vice Chair of the SFI Board of Directors, looks at how SFI certification helps conserve working forests and explains why SFI should be recognised by USGBC’s LEED rating tools.

At The Conservation Fund, we know that one of our greatest conservation challenges in North America today is the loss of working forests. We also know forests that are managed to provide economic return and for social attributes are more likely to continue to remain as forests and therefore likely to support environmental values as well.

That’s why we work with our many partners to help landowners and communities develop sustainable solutions that integrate economic return with environmental quality. And that’s why we support third-party certification programs like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative^® (SFI^®). The Conservation Fund owns almost 100,000 acres of working forests in the United States – all are actively managed and the SFI Standard plays a prominent role.

Last fall, in my remarks at the SFI Annual Conference, I spoke about how it is time to think of forests as infrastructure – a self-sustaining economy in green that provides us with clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, carbon sinks to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and a source of renewable energy – not to mention the millions of jobs that depend on them.

We know how important it is to maintain our critical infrastructure. But before we can ask citizens to invest more in forests, we need to convince them those forests are, and will be, well managed – and that’s where forest certification comes in. Certification provides the public a window into the forest, and it provides them with independent assurance that certified forests are responsibly managed.

If the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) wants to help us keep working forests as forests, it will acknowledge SFI’s leadership in the area of responsible forestry. It will recognize that forests certified to SFI are part of the solution to keep forests as forests. If working forests don’t have access to green building markets, those forests may likely be converted to non-productive uses such as houses and commercial development. The purposeful exclusion of SFI can actually accelerate the loss of our forests lands nation-wide. 90 percent of the world’s forests are not certified, including a significant amount of land in North America. That’s why it’s so important for USGBC to recognize that the SFI Standard is making a real and positive difference towards keeping our forests as healthy, working forests, supporting a variety of economic, environmental and social values for communities today and in the future.

SFI certification was created to balance forest interests, and it does this extremely well. I am honored to serve in the conservation chamber, one of three equal chambers making up the SFI Board of Directors. I have dedicated my life to conservation and the protection of our working forests, and, working with the SFI Board to continue to set the highest standards for responsible forestry for the industry.

Consider this quote from John Burroughs: “To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, to imagine your facts is another.” America is losing millions of acres of working forest every year to development pressure, and yet the USGBC continues to give credentials when none are warranted to the inaccurate claims of a small faction who have proven they are bereft of any ideas about how to expand conservation in the future. Instead of supporting those who imagine their facts and repeating claims that have no grounding in the truth, USGBC needs to show true leadership and join us in protecting these treasured lands by recognizing the remarkable contribution SFI is making on millions of acres of forests across North America.

Larry Selzer has been a supporter of SFI certification since it began, and is currently Vice Chair of the SFI board. The Conservation Fund is a top-ranked non-profit, in 2010 it was #1 on Charity Navigator’s list of 10 of the Best Charities Everyone’s Heard Of for its efficient and fiscally responsible performance.

C. Tattersall Smith
Professor and Dean Emeritus
Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto

The U.S. Green Building Council is inviting comments on the draft language for its LEED rating system. SFI Inc. has invited views on the treatment of third-party forest certification, which must be “FSC or better” according to the latest USGBC credit language.  In this post, Charles Tattersall (Tat) Smith Jr., Professor and Dean Emeritus in the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Toronto and a member of the SFI Board of Directors, looks at the role of research in the SFI program.

Achieving the goals of sustainable forest management requires society to commit to the long-term pursuit of knowledge about the ways in which our forests contribute to sustaining economic, social and environmental values. Research conducted within the overall framework of adaptive forest management is a fundamental cornerstone of the pursuit of the knowledge required.

Our academic institutions play an essential role in partnership with all actors in the forest sector as we educate the next generation of professionals and develop new knowledge and seek to reduce uncertainty about the ways in which forest management decisions sustain forests to meet the needs of society today and for future generations. As an educator, I encourage students to be inquisitive and to challenge existing theoretical bases which guide government policy and management decisions, and to be passionate in the pursuit of new levels of understanding.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative^® (SFI^®) recognizes the important role of research in improving the way our forests are managed. Research is a core principle of the SFI 2010-2014 Standard, and central to SFI’s many collaborations. SFI is the only third-party forest certification program in North America with specific research requirements – Objective 15 of its standard says program participants must provide financial or in-kind support of research to address questions of relevance in the region of operations. The research shall include some of the following issues:

a. forest health, productivity, and ecosystem functions;

b. chemical efficiency, use rate and integrated pest management;

c. water quality and/or effectiveness of best management practices including effectiveness of water quality and best management practices for protecting the quality, diversity and distributions of fish and wildlife habitats;

d. wildlife management at stand and landscape levels;

e. conservation of biological diversity;

f. ecological impacts of bioenergy feedstock removals on productivity, wildlife habitat, water quality and other ecosystem functions;

g. climate change research for both adaptation and mitigation;

h. social issues;

i. forest operations efficiencies and economics;

j. energy efficiency;

k. life cycle assessment;

l. avoidance of illegal logging; and

m. avoidance of controversial sources.

As a result of this unique requirement, SFI-certified companies have invested more than $1.2 billion in research activities since 1995. Further, SFI Inc. has invested more than a million dollars in conservation and community partnership grants, in the last two years.

While the numbers are impressive, what matters most to me are the results.

Here’s an example: I currently provide leadership to an international collaboration under the auspices of the International Energy Agency Bioenergy implementing agreement, and will be making recommendations on how certification can contribute to meeting society’s sustainability goals for emerging international bioenergy markets. I know I can count on SFI as a resource in this endeavor, because back in 2008 I led an SFI-hosted workshop that brought together experts on sustainable biomass production. It’s worth noting that our recommendations at that time led to changes in the SFI 2010-2014 Standard. For example, in addition to SFI adding research on bioenergy feedstocks to Objective 15 as listed above in letter f, the SFI Standard now includes a definition for bioenergy feedstocks; and requirements for landowners to have a program or monitoring system to ensure efficient utilization, which may include provisions to ensure…management of harvest residue (e.g. slash, limbs, tops) considers economic, social and environmental factors (e.g. organic and nutrient value to future forests) and other utilization needs; and also requirements for procurement companies to supply regionally appropriate information or services (e.g. information packets, websites, newsletters, workshops, tours, etc.) to forest landowners, describing the importance and providing implementation guidance on…management of harvest residue.

This is the kind of proactive effort I welcome. I am proud to be a member of the SFI board, and look forward to seeing further advances in sustainable bioenergy feedstock production so SFI can use them to inform its next standard review cycle, which begins in 2013.

SFI, like science, never stops learning. It is more than words on paper. SFI and its partners deliver actual results on the ground and in communities across North America. They build knowledge and advance understanding.

The same cannot be said for the approach to forest certification in the LEED draft. Using a phrase like, “FSC or better” has no validity or basis in science. The U.S. Green Building Council is well advised to recognize SFI certification which happens to exceed FSC in the area of research as FSC has no such requirement.  By including SFI, the USGBC would also tell researchers like me that it values the work and knowledge we have achieved through the SFI program.