The call for a change in the LEED standard is truly global.  Twelve nations have urged USGBC to end LEED’s discrimination against wood and accept all credible forest certification standards.

In a July 22nd press release, the international non-profit Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), a leading umbrella organization that endorses national forest certification systems, stated:  “Standards from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, along with forest industry associations and companies from many of these countries, have joined North American elected and government officials, professional foresters and other leaders who have told USGBC that  in order to increase the use of wood in buildings, all credible certification systems, including PEFC and FSC, need to be accepted.”

Approximately 543 million acres are certified to national standards endorsed by PEFC- including 377 million acres in North America alone- none of which are recognized by the USGBC’s LEED standard.

Several of these same countries, along with others, accounted for the more than 5,800 signatures on SFI’s online petition that was delivered to USGBC’s President and CEO, Rick Fedrizzi, Thursday, July 15th.

USGBC must do the right thing.  It is not just North America.  The whole world is watching.

“Exclusive recognition of FSC by the USGBC and LEED foolishly narrows the availability of sustainably managed forest products and adds fuel to the unnecessary debate over which certification standard is ‘better.’ The USGBC should embrace standards that support sustainability, not standards that reflect political activism. ”
– Guy Gleysteen, SVP of Production at TIME, Inc.

“I strongly urge LEED to include wood sourced from all forests that are certified as being sustainably managed by credible programs using third party verifiers. This is critically important to ensure that green building is broadly adopted and has global significance.”
– John A. Helms, Professor Emeritus of Forestry at the University of California, Berkeley

“In 1995 I was a member of the team from SFI and FSC that compared the two systems under the mediation of Tim Mealey of Meridian Institute. That comparison over a decade ago found little substantive difference between the two systems in their actual application, and since then there has been continuing steady convergence toward a high degree of commonality. (See http://www.merid.org/showproject.php?ProjectID=9140). About the same time, Richard Donovan of Smartwood, an FSC certifier, told a meeting at the World Bank that in his own experience ‘there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two systems on the ground.’ If LEED wants to be a constructive force for improved forestry, it needs to take an open, unbiased view of forest certification and not allow itself to be — or appear to be — the captive on one system and its advocates. That posture is a disservice to forest certification and green construction.”
– Scott Wallinger, Forest Sustainability Advisor

Seeing these and other heartfelt comments gives me optimism for the expansion of responsible forestry. In a recent Dovetail report, Kathryn Fernholz concludes, “Significant changes have occurred within the major certification programs in recent years, and, in several ways, it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between certification systems in North America.”  This statement supports why we at SFI think LEED should be open to all the credible standards in North America.  We’re encouraged by the widespread support and the comments we’ve received from around the world, supporting changes to the LEED standard and advancing wood as a viable option for green building.

Dovetail also released a report on green building in 2010 that said recent developments point to increasing convergence in green building requirements among various standards: “Consistent elements of such green building programs and standards are: third-party certified wood, regional materials, recycled-content materials, and reuse of salvaged materials. And, as indicated, programs are beginning to align in awarding use of life cycle assessment to inform building design and materials selection.”

Several organizations have demonstrated inclusivity in their standards, which I’ll talk about in tomorrow’s post. Additionally, find the latest information regarding the LEED issue on our website.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI Inc.) promotes responsibly managed forests in North America and around the world.  Consumers can look for the SFI label to know they are buying paper or wood from responsible sources – whether it is reams of paper, packaging, lumber or furniture.

Next time you head out to pick something up from the store; don’t limit yourself to looking only for a recycled label on the packaging.  By looking for both recycled goods and products from well-managed forests, you are encouraging responsible forest management, protecting woodlands for the future and showing you truly care about our forests and the communities that they support.

An online magazine just posted a piece on the USGBC revision of the LEED standard and unfortunately, the reporter really gets lost in the woods.   I can’t post a comment on their forum, so I’ll use my own!

The Emagazine.com piece starts out well, with stats on the tremendous growth of green building in the United States (2% of the construction market in 2005, projected to be 20% by 2013).  Before you have a chance to reflect approvingly on that progress, they quickly shift to a focus on the “heated fight” and “long-running rivalry” between SFI and FSC and the “controversial effort” by the USGBC to open its system to other forest certification standards.

SFI doesn’t see FSC as a rival – when 90% of the world’s forests are not certified at all, where is the value in rivalry?  Less than 20% of the certified fiber in North America is FSC – the remaining 80% is certified to other standards that are recognized by governments and organizations around the world.  SFI wants the USGBC to create fair science-based benchmarks that will open up the credit to ALL credible forest certification systems used in North America – a long running controversy just doesn’t make sense.

A quote at the end of the article, by a character not unknown to SFI, implies that opening the USGBC standard would doom FSC and “the future of many things green.”  What a load of nonsense. That quote really makes it sound like Mr. Goldman (who is FSC’s lawyer and the author of the Forest Ethics and Sierra Club complaints mentioned in the article) is more concerned with the fate of FSC’s monopoly over LEED green building points for the certified wood credit than encouraging responsible forestry.

Besides the hyperbole about SFI and FSC and the impact of any changes, what’s missing from this story is any balance (save for one quote about how maintaining the status quo with the standard will give an unfair advantage to wood from offshore sources).  The reporter doesn’t acknowledge the views of many others who are urging USGBC to accept all credible forest certification standards.  That includes the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), a group of state forestry officials from all fifty states.

NASF has called on green building programs to accept all credible forest certification programs, naming SFI, FSC and ATFS.  These are the real experts – they are the state forestry officials who see firsthand how the standards work on the ground.   The group unanimously passed a resolution that said:

“The ATFS, FSC, and SFI systems include the fundamental elements of credibility and make positive contributions to forest sustainability. . . . 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.”

You can read more of NASF’s resolutions here http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/statements_leed_us.pdf

Governors of several states have also called for an opening of the LEED standard, including Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, who a few weeks ago wrote to USGBC:

“The USGBC should fairly assess and include all credible forest certification programs, including SFI and ATFS systems…I urge you to quickly make a board decision to recognize well-managed wood from Minnesota and all credible forest certification programs. In doing so, USGBC can join other government agencies and green building rating programs in recognizing wood as an environmentally friendly building material.”

You can read excerpts from letters written by several other governors here http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/statements_leed_us.pdf

USGBC needs to start listening to these important voices. Readers of the Emagazine article need a grain of salt.

To read SFI’s statement on the USGBC forest certification benchmarks, click here: http://www.sfiprogram.org/newsroom/?p=245

As you may know, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative&reg (SFI&reg) recently became the world’s largest single forest certification standard, and as our program continues rapid growth, we are often asked questions specifically about SFI and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC.) With the 18 month long development process for our 2010-2014 Standard complete, and our new standard launched, we’ve now compiled a comparison report to help answer those questions. You can download this 4 page report on our website – SFI and FSC Certification in North America: A Summary Comparison

In addition, you may wish to participate in our upcoming webinar on this report scheduled for February 4th from 1:00 – 2:00pm eastern. To save your space for this event, please register online.

If you have a question you’d like addressed in the live event, feel free to email the question to rachel.dierolf@sfiprogram.org and we’ll do what we can to answer them all live.

While the programs do have different origins – SFI having been developed for North American forests and FSC for tropical forests – they share common goals and together are an excellent foundation for any procurement policy or forest products guideline. We encourage everyone to review this summary comparison, share it with your colleagues, staff, and stakeholders.

Kathy