I would like all stakeholders to send their feedback on this second draft of LEED 2012 by September 14^th, plus I strongly encourage you to send positive feedback on USGBC’s LEED Pilot Credit 43. This pilot credit for non-structural certified wood products (furniture, flooring, windows) lists SFI, FSC and other forest certification standards equally in a section on ‘pre-approved certifications and labels’.  We would like to keep this positive pilot credit language top of mind.

Pilot Credits are used in USGBC to test drive an idea before making it an official credit in the LEED rating tool.  USGBC refers to pilot credits as “multi-stakeholder market tests” and relies heavily on user input.

We specifically want those commenting on this Pilot Credit 43 to ask that this language be extended into all LEED 2012 rating tools and that this language be extended to also include structural wood products (not just non-structural as is currently the case.) A few examples why we believe Pilot Credit 43 is positive include:

Again, we encourage you to work with builders and architects to post comments on the LEED User blog and keep this pivotal turning point by the USGBC top of mind.

Below is Robert’s article for you to read.

END THE BATTLE OF FSC VS. SFI WOOD IN LEED
Building Design & Construction

By Robert Cassidy, Editor-in-Chief
Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Enough already! For the past decade, the USGBC has given the Forest Stewardship Council a monopoly on wood from its forests being used in LEED projects. It’s time for the USGBC to open the door to other wood certification programs.

Consider this: Sixty percent of FSC-certified wood comes from outside the U.S. and Canada. Why does the USGBC encourage the importation of FSC wood from thousands of miles away, when at the same time it offers a credit for using locally produced materials—the so-called “500-mile rule”?

Wouldn’t it be more environmentally beneficial to use locally grown wood, shipped over much shorter distances? Between them, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) have 373 million acres of certified forests. SFI alone has about 80% of the certified woodlands in North America, while FSC has only 18%. Building Teams in the U.S. and Canada are being forced in many cases to go overseas instead of being able to use certified wood from their own backyards.

Here’s another inconsistency: Why doesn’t the USGBC require other building products to “prove” their environmental bona fides to the same extent that it does wood products? Why do steel and glass and ceiling tiles and hundreds of other building products get a pass, while wood has to go through 49 mandatory benchmarks to be considered for use under LEED? Are all these products and materials so environmentally pure?

Take cement, the key ingredient in the manufacture of concrete, without which not a whole lot of building would get done. But did you know that the cement industry produces about 5% of all carbon emissions globally, a fact I was first made aware of by Scot Horst, for years chair of the LEED Steering Committee and now the USGBC’s SVP of LEED?

I would bet that very few of the 130,000 or more LEED Accredited Professionals out there would hesitate to use cement-containing concrete in their LEED projects. But are they aware that, in doing so, they are contributing to global warming, with its deleterious impact on the environment and human health?

I don’t mean to single out the cement and concrete industry, which (at least outside of China and India) is working hard to reduce its emissions. But the question remains: Why isn’t the USGBC devoting the same rigorous attention to other building products that it has so diligently bestowed on wood products?

Green Globes, the U.K.’s BREEAM, Built Green Canada, Japan’s CASBEE, and the ANSI National Green Building Standard recognize SFI and other wood certification standards. Australia’s Green Building Council recently rescinded its FSC-only restriction.

Could it be that the anti-lumber industry lobby within USGBC simply cannot bear the fact that SFI, CSA, and other certifications are just as good as FSC’s?

Click here for the original article: http://www.bdcnetwork.com/end-battle-fsc-vs-sfi-wood-leed

In arriving at the decision to vote against the proposed benchmarks, we had to consider the fact that the USGBC made zero changes to the final version, despite the plethora of comments it received from SFI and others. Furthermore, the 81 detailed benchmarks represent an overly complicated set of criteria that no other building material is measured against. This is not a decision that we arrived at lightly or easily. We believe in the power of working with stakeholders to find solutions that promote responsible forestry and support our communities across North America. These ideas are the very essence of our own program. It was for these reasons we participated in each of the four rounds of comments on the USGBC benchmarks. The fact is, a process that is being criticized by all sides is not a “winning formula” – it means we need to find a different solution, one that can achieve broader buy-in.

There is a simpler solution, one suggested by forest sustainability experts like The National Association of State Foresters (NASF), whose members are responsible for public forestlands on behalf of current and future generations and who passed a resolution containing five key elements of credible forest certification systems.  NASF has urged the USGBC to consider these elements and “reward forest certification, not one brand, and show leadership by promoting certified wood as preferable to the vast majority of wood sourced from unknown sources.” We agree – with only 10% of the world’s forests certified, the USGBC should recognize the value of wood products from responsibly-managed forests and should recognize all credible forest certification standards: SFI, FSC, PEFC, CSA and ATFS. This is the solution supported by more than 6,000 people worldwide, including 99 Congressmen and Governors who urge the USGBC to recognize all credible forest certification standards in the wood certification credit and reward the use of domestic wood. The USGBC understandably must listen to the voices within their membership, but should also listen to a broader set of stakeholders, such as elected officials who are entrusted with the public good. With government-owned or occupied buildings making up close to one-third of all LEED projects, the government voice is one that should not be ignored.

USGBC President and CEO Rick Fedrizzi recently wrote “what makes leaders are the hard times and not the glory days.” How true. Making difficult decisions is never easy, and it certainly is difficult to diverge from a process that has taken five years and is still not complete.

We are ready and willing to work with the USGBC and other interests to find a sustainable and workable solution that recognizes the benefits of wood in green building and the proof point offered by forest certification. Until a solution is found, the building community can and should continue to use SFI-certified products in LEED buildings. By trading the one point available for certified products, they can demonstrate their pride and support for North American forests, communities, and jobs.

For information contact Jason Metnick at Jason.Metnick@sfiprogram.org.

__________________________________________

NASF -2008-7 Policy Statement Forest Certification as it Contributes to Sustainable Forestry, “Key Elements of Credible Forest Certification Systems, http://stateforesters.org/files/2008.Forest%20Certification.pdf

Last week, The Oregonian published an op-ed written by four leaders in Oregon’s forestry community, including State Forester Marvin Brown, who also serves as board chair for SFI. Other signatories include Clint Bentz, David Ford and Steve Wilson. These experts cite benefits for Oregon’s forests, the economy and green building in the state as reasons for supporting the presence of multiple forest certification programs.

They write, “With a lifetime of first-hand experience and extensive background in the application of forest certification programs in our state, we find it bewildering that the Green Building Council has not opened its LEED policy to all credible forest certification programs … In Oregon, our forests and communities benefit from the improvements resulting from the work of all organizations that certify sustainable forest practices.”

The piece also notes support for an inclusive LEED policy from Oregon Representatives Kurt Schrader, Greg Walden and David Wu, and Governor Ted Kulongoski.

We agree—with most of Oregon’s certified forest lands certified by SFI and programs SFI recognizes, such as ATFS, it’s imperative to open the policy to all credible forest certification programs. That’s a trend across the U.S. and Canada, where more than three quarters of our certified forests meet or are recognized by SFI. It’s also critical that the USGBC recognize wood’s superior environmental benefits and encourage the use of wood products in green building.

Read the piece in full, and check out our green building video if you haven’t already. You can see additional support for an inclusive LEED policy on our petition and website.

I recently had the pleasure of taking part in a series of radio interviews across the U.S. to explain the importance of opening LEED to all credible forest certification standards. The reporters and talk show hosts I spoke to were very engaged and concerned about the impact on their states. This was the case on stations from Arkansas to Michigan to Oregon to Mississippi, and places in between.

We want local forest owners to get a fair shake from the USGBC and be able to fully get credit for their certification to SFI, CSA or ATFS. Green building is expected to be a $140 billion dollar industry in the next three years. An unintended consequence of the USGBC’s current FSC-only policy is that because the majority of FSC’s certified lands are outside the U.S. and Canada, builders and architects may source from oversees to obtain the 1 certified wood credit under LEED, and say no to domestic products certified to SFI, ATFS and CSA. Obviously green building is an important part of the economy which makes opening the LEED rating system even more important to tree farmers, architects, builders and many more across North America.

It’s exciting to see more and more people take notice and support the movement to open LEED. Click on the play buttons below and take a listen to a few of the interviews.

Jason Metnick on the Lars Larson Show
Jason Metnick on the Lars Larson Show

Jason Metnick on Voices of Montana with Aaron Flint
Jason Metnick on Voices of Montana with Aaron Flint

Jason Metnick on the Mississippi State Network
Jason Metnick on the Mississippi State Network

Jason Metnick on KEX-AM
Jason Metnick on KEX-AM

Jason Metnick on Timber Talk, KZHE-FM
Jason Metnick on Timber Talk, KZHE-FM

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.