C. Randall (Randy) Dye
President
National Association of State Foresters

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, Randy Dye, West Virginia State Forester and President of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), talks about NASF’s position on third-party forest certification and green building.

State Foresters have long been advocates of policies encouraging the use of domestic wood products for green building – from both economic and environmental perspectives. State foresters have a unique public trust responsibility for America’s forests, and we have been active leaders in the growth and evolution of third-party forest certification as an important tool that is making a positive contribution in our public and private forests.

We welcomed a report last year from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that wood is superior to other construction materials in terms of environmental benefits, and applauded USDA’s statement that “Sustainability of forest products can be verified using any credible third-party rating system, such as Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest Stewardship Council or American Tree Farm System.” We still see a need for change in the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) treatment of both wood and forest certification in the draft language for LEED.

In 2008, the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) passed a green building resolution, pointing to the importance of giving wood products, especially from the United States, a substantial role in the U.S. green building movement. The resolution urged organizations that maintain green building standards to “recognize the value of U.S. wood that is certified by a credible forestland certification standard as having been grown in a sustainable manner, keeping in mind that there are multiple certification standards and systems that are credible and nationally recognized, and that the diversity of U.S. forestlands requires the use of multiple forestland certification standards and systems…”

NASF members also approved a forest certification policy statement in 2008 setting out the fundamental elements of forest certification: independent governance, multi-stakeholder standard, independent certification, complaints/appeals process, open participation and transparency. This policy statement found that all of the major certification programs used in the United States – the Sustainable Forestry Initiative^® (SFI^®), the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) – include these elements and make positive contributions to forest sustainability.

Further, it stated: “No certification program can credibly claim to be ‘best’, and no certification program that promotes itself as the only certification option can maintain credibility. Forest ecosystems are complex and a simplistic ‘one size fits all’ approach to certification cannot address all sustainability needs.”

The policy statement specifically recognized the value of forest certification programs that originated in the U.S., such as SFI and ATFS, noting that “each developed workable requirements for addressing sustainable forestry across all ownerships. Training requirements for on-the-ground personnel (loggers, landowners, and foresters), wood procurement standards, and group landowner certification have broadened participation and made forest certification more meaningful in the U.S.”

So 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. And it is further troubling that now they are requiring SFI and ATFS to prove that they are “better” than FSC in order to be recognized within LEED.

In 2010, we sent a letter to the USGBC urging it to incorporate changes in the LEED language to promote wood and expand the practice of forest certification. Our concerns were ignored, and yet the need for this is even greater today. We have identified the loss of markets for U.S. wood products as a major concern for our forest industry and economy, and we would like to see an increase in our country’s share of global wood value production through the utilization of sustainable forest practices.

USGBC should encourage the use of wood and advance certification by recognizing that SFI, FSC and ATFS all require rigorous documentation to prove that forestry practices are sustainable – and by awarding credits for products certified to all of these standards. This will lead to benefits not only for the environment and our forests, but for communities and workers across the U.S.

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

I always thought this was the best line in the Dr. Seuss’ 1971 fable, The Lorax, and it is taking on new relevance with the recent release of the movie, Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax. The good news is that we know a lot more today about sustainable forest management and we have new tools to help us.

In the last 15 years, certification programs like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative^® (SFI^®) have strengthened forest practices and raised understanding about what forests mean to us and to our communities and to the wildlife that rely on forests for their survival.  Despite the growth in forest certification in North America, there is a lot more work to be done – with 90 percent of the world’s forests still not certified.

I sure hope the movie advances our efforts by inspiring more people, young and old, to think about our forests and how crucial they are to our lives: from the air we breathe, to the recreational, wildlife and traditional values they support, to the wood to build our homes and for the paper and packaging we use every day.

SFI and its many partners are already showing we “care a whole awful lot” through our forest standard and through our many activities – including forest research like critical habitat for grizzlies, conservation partnerships, logger training and landowner outreach. We’re supporting community activities of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and the National 4-H Forestry Invitational. But it’s an immense task, and we sure can’t do it alone.

That’s why I welcomed the UN’s International Year of Forests in 2011, why I applaud the efforts of the nation’s State Foresters, and why I am encouraged by a message that is based on hope and renewal. It tells us that forests matter, and we must care for them responsibly. To do that, we need more opportunities for meaningful discussion about how we conserve the health and productivity of our forests. SFI is committed to that mission; our label is a sign of responsible forestry and our commitment is to maintaining our treasured forests for today and into the future.

British Columbia has more than 130 million acres/53 million hectares of certified forests – over 40 percent of them certified to the SFI 2010-2014 Standard.

And forest professionals contribute a lot to forest certification. So it wasn’t a surprise when the Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals made certification the theme of its November/December magazine – BC Forest Professional – with articles on a range of topics, including SFI certification and audits.

In An SFI Audit: How it Works and What’s Involved, Chris Ridley-Thomas, who leads KPMG Performance Registrar Inc.’s forest certification practice, said the key factors that drive successful SFI audits are competent auditors, clear standards, reliable audit processes and transparent reporting.

He pointed out that regulatory compliance alone is not enough to achieve SFI certification. Chris said that’s because the SFI Standard has unique requirements such as landowner outreach, fiber sourcing and research, and because “. . . regulation provides a static performance target based on conditions to be avoided while voluntary standards provide a dynamic performance target based on processes to improve performance over time.”

In Interfor: 10 Years of SFI Certification, Gerry Fraser, Interfor’s Manager of Sustainable Forestry and a founding member of the Western Canada SFI Implementation Committee, looked back at some of the reasons why his company chose to be certified to the SFI standard in 2000.

“We chose SFI certification for a number of reasons,” Gerry wrote. “It meant we could integrate performance measures and objectives into the environmental management systems we had in place and SFI had broad recognition in the United States – our largest market. We found that certifying our lands gave us the incentive to improve practices and helped us strengthen and formalize many of the environmental and social actions that are part of doing business in British Columbia.”

And on the ground, he added, “the similarities between the three certification standards in British Columbia outweigh the differences.”  Gerry noted that most forest professionals in British Columbia choose SFI or Canadian Standards Association Z809 certification – and since lands certified to CSA are recognized by SFI, this means products from 95% of British Columbia’s certified lands are eligible to use the SFI chain-of-custody label.

If you’ve had a chance to check out the new section on our website – In Case You Were Wondering – you’ll know we welcome this kind of informed discussion about certification. A vote of thanks to Gerry and Chris for doing their part.

Today marks the launch of SFI’s In Case You Were Wondering section of the website (sfiprogram.org/facts). This part of the site is a resource for anyone with questions about forest certification or SFI and explains the values our program is grounded in, the importance of promoting responsible forest management and helps
consumers make informed purchasing decisions.

Independence and inclusion, rigorous third party audits and understanding eco labels are the themes covered throughout this area of our site. We showcase leaders in their respective fields with videos and information featuring me and other key contributors to forest certification:

Additionally, there is a “share” feature on each page, making it easy for you to post and email information about the site to your social networks.

I couldn’t be more excited about the site, and we hope you find it valuable. Feel free to share your feedback by commenting on the post or emailing info@sfiprogram.org.

I sometimes think the debate about LEED’s unfair treatment of certified wood is so wrapped up in politics it misses the most important point – wood from responsible sources is a great choice for green building.

So obviously I was delighted to see an article by John D. Wagner in the October issue of LBM Journal entitled LEED Acceptance of SFI Now Pending: Could SFI products finally achieve LEED credits?

Wagner’s column says the U.S. Green Building Council’s decision in June to list SFI and other forest certification standards equally in a section on ‘pre-authorized certifications and labels’ in LEED Pilot Credit 43 “has potentially opened the door for granting LEED credit to SFI-certified products for non-structural wood items, such as furniture, flooring, and windows.”

The item appeared shortly after the U.S. Department of Agriculture stated in a news release: “Sustainability of forest products can be verified using any credible third-party rating system, such as Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest Stewardship Council or American Tree Farm System certification.”

The USDA was announcing a new report that supports what a lot of us have been saying for a long time – using wood obtained through sustainable forestry practices in green building applications promotes a healthy environment and a strong economy.

Right now, only wood certified to the Forest Stewardship Council – which accounts for about one quarter of North America’s certified forests – is eligible for the LEED certified wood credit. Most FSC-certified forests are outside of North America, and 90 percent are outside of the United States. It was nice that the USDA explicitly recognized standards that are widely represented here, like SFI and Tree Farm.

USGBC really needs to start paying attention to the evidence being put forward by the USDA and so many others, and extend the inclusive approach in the pilot credit to all LEED 2012 rating tools. This would encourage more builders to use North American wood in green building projects – and make it a lot easier for them to find the products they need.

Wagner – an award-winning author and consultant on green building – knows what he is talking about because he has been following SFI for years, and was at our last two conferences. So it means a lot to me when he says: “. . . I would urge doubters to check out SFI. It really is a solid and balanced organization, run by very decent people with a clear sense of their sustainability mission.”

USGBC needs to know it is finally heading in the right direction with Pilot Credit 43 – there is no deadline to post comments through the LEED user forum. If you want more information, check out our update link on USGBC, LEED and SFI.