You’ve probably heard me talk lots about the fact that only 10% of the world’s forests are certified. Today I want to talk about the other 90% — that’s not certified. There are lots of reasons for this, developing nations may lack the capacity, support and legal framework to implement credible, independent forest certification programs. But what about uncertified lands in developed countries, like right here in the United States?

In December I had the privilege of touring uncertified lands owned by private land owners in Georgia. Today there are more than 10 million small family-owned forests in the United States and they produce 60% of the fiber in forest products manufactured in the US. I got to see firsthand this week the commitment these family forest owners have to sustainable forest management. Joe Hopkins, one such forest land owner, showed me a forest that he had recently planted and he told me “I’m not planting these forests for me, I’m planting them for my children and their children. In fact, I will unlikely live to see this forest harvested, but I still care about it because it’s the right thing to do.” Joe represents four generations of family forest owners and he’s just one of thousands across North America who participates in the SFI program through our unique fiber sourcing program.

For many family forest owners in both the US and Canada, certification is not a cost effective option for them. They may make money off their forests or woodlot twice in their lifetime, yet there are annual costs associated with a certification audit. While landowners can’t always justify the cost of an audit, our fiber sourcing program ensures that a company buying the fiber from these landowners undergoes a third-party audit by an accredited certification body to ensure the fiber sourcing requirements associated with landowner outreach, best management practices and logger training were met. In fact, since 1995, more than 110,000 loggers have been trained across North America through the SFI program.

I was moved by the commitment these family forest owners, loggers, foresters and SFI program participants have towards managing forests responsibly, respecting the rights of privacy of land owners and working to ensure forests for future generations. I’m proud that the SFI program has this unique feature – it shows our commitment to sustainable forest management not just on certified lands but on all forest land. Keep up the good work Joe… and the millions of other family forest owners across North America!

I never associated “monopoly” with sustainable forestry standards. At least not until today when I read Craig Webb’s story in ProSales, “FSC Hikes a Fee, Goes After Competitors.” Webb reports that the Forest Stewardship Council’s General Assembly approved a policy motion directing FSC’s administrators to prohibit certifying bodies “from falsely promoting less rigorous competing standards as equivalent to the forest management and chain of custody standards of FSC.” It calls for a review of those certifying bodies’ promotional media when those groups come up for accreditation, and predicts that one result of this initiative will be “fewer certificates being issued for competing schemes.” Unlike other motions for the General Assembly, which often are initiated by global, European or Third World organizations, this one was proposed by Bill Hayward, president and CEO of Hayward Lumber, Monterrey, Calif., and chairman of the FSC’s U.S. arm.

Webb writes that “FSC dislikes this trend in part because it sees its standard as being better than the others.”

We all may feel that way about our standards. But if we are all truly dedicated to managing our forests sustainability, we would focus on the fact that only 10% of the world’s forests are certified. There is a lot of catching up to do. Why spend our time arguing over who the A+ student is? Why don’t we focus where we should – on the 90% that isn’t certified. Sure, I want SFI to continue its rapid growth, but I also want to see more certified land. Attempting to force everyone to use a single standard is a step backwards. The last thing our forests need is a “monopoly” certification standard. Monopolies serve no one’s interests: they drive up costs, limit improvements and reduce choice for customers and consumers. The increase in dual and triple certifications over the past year clearly indicates that the market place also supports this position.

I’ve just returned from Boston, having spent a great day at the USGBC’s Green Build Expo.

This is the 5th year SFI has participated in the USGBC’s Green Build Expo, and over the years the SFI team has spent countless hours in the exhibit hall talking with architects, developers, and policy makers, among others, about sustainability, about the important role of forest certification, and about the evolution of green building.

It is clear to see there really is an evolution – not just for innovative products and building systems, but evolution in people’s environmental consciousness. Across the board, willingness to incorporate sustainability into our lives and adopt workable measures to protect the environment is increasing.

For example, since 2000, membership at the USGBC has more than tripled, and the market value of green building is projected to keep drastically rising as well. According to McGraw-Hill Construction, the green building market at comes in at around $12 billion value in 2008 and the report projects growth to $60 billion value by 2010. (As an aside, we did a special insert with McGraw-Hill and BusinessWeek magazine about mainstreaming “green” and construction – you can download it here: http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/feature-businessweek-2008.pdf )

For SFI we’ve seen double and triple digit growth across our program. We now have close to 150 million acres of land certified across North America, and over 320 Chain of Custody Certificates. For the year 2007, we calculated a 386% increase in CoC certificates, and with 2008 nearly over, I can assure you that momentum is strong!

The movement is clearly growing.

These programs and organizations themselves are changing too. For SFI, a clear example of how we reflect emerging public values and adapt to new information and science is our public review process which happens every five years. You can learn more about that on our site here: http://www.sfiprogram.org/standard-development-process.php

And as I am sure you all know, the USGBC is considering revising their system to recognize numerous forest certification programs, including SFI. If you didn’t catch it already, you can read my blog post about LEED and SFI here: http://www.goodforforests.com/archives/89

While we’ve participated in the USGBC show as exhibitors for a number of years, today I had the honor of addressing the crowd and introducing a long-time champion of green building, Architect Stefan Behnisch. The USGBC have posted a videostream of the session – you can watch it here: http://www.greenbuild365.org/GreenExpoVideoDetail.aspx?GreenExpoID=19

In addition to being the founding member of international design firm Behnisch Architekten and US-based Behnisch Architects, Mr. Behnisch has lectured at universities around the world. His approach to sustainable architecture is highly acknowledged in Europe and all over the world. He was recently deemed “Environmental Champion” by EnvironDesign Journal and Interiors & Sources and his buildings have been honored by prestigious institutions and industry organizations alike.

I was interested to read some of Stefan’s views on sustainability. In one interview, he said that sustainability is “not a miracle, or secret science, but is mostly common sense and a significant amount of work and effort.” He also said that architecture and environmental responsibility are eternally meshed and “all architects should be practicing responsibly.” I couldn’t agree more.

By the way, have a look at the new ad we launched at GreenBuild: http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/ads/ad-solidwood-twoways.pdf. It is one of my favourites for sure.

I’ve been thinking about the value of certification for all lands, including public lands, as we finalize SFI’s submission to the U.S. Forest Service, which is inviting views about whether U.S. national forests should be certified. (If you want to send in comments, the deadline for submissions is this Monday, Nov. 17, and the website with all the details is http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/forestcertification/index.shtml)

It’s clear to me that certification is a valuable tool for all forest managers, regardless of who owns the land and how the forest is being used – whether it is for water quality, conservation objectives, timber production, recreation or research. You only have to look at the list of SFI program participants to recognize that certification lets managers consider multiple uses and options for the forest.

Governments are important players in ensuring forests are well managed today for future generations, and U.S. national forests are a great example of public lands that would benefit from certification. The study by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation commissioned by the USFS showed the benefits of certification for national forests, and SFI Inc. welcomes the study and the USFS’s open and thorough response.

The USFS mission statement is to “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” This mission is achieved under sustainable multiple-use management.

Third-party forest certification can help Forest Service managers meet their goals, and SFI’s single standard makes it a lot easier for an agency like the USFS that manages lands across the country. It provides a common framework, with objectives, performance measures and indicators that can be tracked and compared to improve planning, practices and reviews in a consistent and comparable context.

SFI has other advantages when it comes to public lands – from our open complaints process to regional SFI Implementation Committees that help to improve practices on the ground, train forest professionals and address questions about practices.

Two-thirds of the 150 million acres of SFI-certified lands in North America are publicly owned. Obviously, a lot of this is in Canada where the vast majority of forestland is publicly owned. But a quarter of the SFI-certified land in the United States is also in public hands – our program participants include state agencies from Maine to Indiana to Washington.

Of course public lands are not the same as private lands. That’s why the SFI 2005-2009 Standard has specific requirements around public lands – there’s more emphasis on public involvement and program participants must participate in land and resource management planning. I fully expect this is an area we will be examining in our review process leading to the SFI 2010-2014 Standard (you’ll soon be hearing more about our regional workshops early in 2009)