Nadine Block, who focuses on Government Outreach for SFI,  headed to the USGBC Federal Summit. The Summit was held at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center May 18-19. Check out her coverage of the event below.

The USGBC Federal Summit in Washington DC last week was a great opportunity to promote SFI forest certification and certified wood products in green building and to display the groundswell of support that has been built to end LEED’s FSC-only stance.  We have gathered 5,700 petition signatures (ipetitions.com/petition/leed), a multitude of letters, articles and opinion pieces, and many other signs of support (sfiprogram.org/leed/). These have come from a whole host of voices including builders, elected officials, scientists, professional foresters, green building organizations, family forest landowners, conservation groups, architects and many more.

Participating in the Summit built on this momentum.  I hosted a “Knowledge Bar” which provided an excellent opportunity to showcase the SFI name and label to the 700+ participants at the Summit. It also provided a great venue to engage participants one-on-one in a dialogue about the role of forest certification in green building rating systems. I talked with participants about the credibility, strength, and scope of the SFI program. Many were impressed with what the SFI program does and appreciated our concern that the LEED rating system is not inclusive of all third-party forest certification systems.

More and more people are learning about SFI and why LEED should be open to all credible forest certification standards.  Our efforts are building a strong force.  The USGBC Federal Summit not only showed this, but it also added to what we’ve built. Let’s keep the ball rolling.

You may have seen recent coverage in Canadian Wood Products and the LBM Journal that point to reasons as to why the US Green Building Council should open the LEED rating system. As the single largest forest certification standard in the world, SFI is committed to promoting responsible forest management in North America and responsible fiber sourcing worldwide. We think opening LEED is a crucial step in advancing responsible forestry and strengthening green building in the U.S. and Canada.

SFI Canadian Wood Products Editor Bill Tice states, “The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Inc. (SFI) is taking a leadership role and has been the most outspoken when it comes to raising awareness that the USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system needs to recognize all credible certification programs.” He also points out that we’re not alone, listing significant support from Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, National Association of State Foresters President Steven Koehn, Mother Nature Network Director of Environmental Affairs Chuck Leavell and Society of American Foresters President Michael Goergen, among others.

In the LBM Journal article titled “SFI vs. FSC”, John Wagner brings up another valid point in regards to inclusivity. “Does the freezing out of SFI (and other standards) foster greener, more sustainably harvested lumber and wood fiber? No, it doesn’t.” At SFI, we believe that in order to better promote and increase green building projects, as well as benefit the North American economy, LEED must open their standard to all credible forest certification standards.

I want to thank you for your continued efforts dedicated to advancing the USGBC’s policy to one that recognizes multiple forest certification standards including SFI. With changes to LEED being decided in coming weeks, we encourage you to voice support now more than ever. Circulate articles like those previously mentioned to those who support green building and the forestry community. Encourage friends and colleagues to sign the petition if they haven’t already. As we engage in the USGBC process, we want to ensure we do everything we can to make sure USGBC voters and the general public have accurate information about our program.

Not only have we received broad support to open the LEED rating system from government and forest community leaders, but have also received thousands of comments on the petition. More than 5,600 individuals have signed. Many of these comments encompass points we’ve made in our U.S. and Canadian statements. I’ve included a few below, and I encourage you to read other comments (and sign the petition/comment if you haven’t done so already).

“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.

Yesterday I talked about how giving credit only to FSC-certified wood discriminates against North American wood for LEED projects. Today’s post discusses the widespread support shown by the forest community and government leaders to open the LEED standard.

SFI and FSC are both respected independent, non-profit charitable organizations. Both groups have third-party audits and have equal representation from environmental, social and economic chambers. Both protect endangered species and water quality. Both are promoting responsible forestry. SFI was specifically developed to advance sustainable forestry in North America, while FSC was developed in response to concerns over global deforestation, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.

With similar goals and rigorous certification standards, it doesn’t make sense not to include both standards in the LEED rating system. In fact, LEED should include all credible certification programs including the American Tree Farm System, the Canadian Standards Association and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. We’re not alone in that thought. Several in the forestry community, as well as government officials, have spoken out:

Larry Selzer, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund (statement March 2010)
“Independent certification of sustainable forest management, such as that provided by the SFI program, is a powerful tool for ensuring these forests are managed well, and it is long past due for certification programs such as the USGBC to recognize the value of the SFI and its peers. The Conservation Fund has been involved in the SFI Program since its inception because we see the incredibly positive results on the ground – and we believe consumers increasingly are recognizing the power of SFI to drive good conservation in our nation’s private forests.”

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Chair Kathy Dunderdale (Dec. 2, 2009 letter to USGBC)
“The draft benchmarks recently circulated for comment are so detailed and prescriptive that they would likely exclude most credible forest certification programs – even including several regional, national or interim FSC standards currently recognized in LEED … The environmentally preferable, as well as administratively more manageable, solution is for the USGBC to recognize all credible forest certification programs, namely the Canadian Standards Association Z809 standard, the Forest Stewardship Council, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and national standards around the world independently endorsed by the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (Feb. 16, 2010 letter to USGBC)
“Recognizing only FSC-certified wood in the LEED benchmarks will result in discrimination against wood products derived from well-managed lands in green building projects. 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.”

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (Oct. 2, 2008 letter to USGBC)
“By recognizing internationally endorsed certification systems, the proposed changes in USGBC policy have the potential to include forest products from more than 800 certified family forest owners in our state. Many more small forest parcels can be included as certification systems bring more lands under recognized sustainable management practices. Forest products from 4.8 million acres of third party audited state and industrial forestlands also have the opportunity to be included for LEED rating points under proposed changes in USGBC policy.”

Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (April 16, 2010)
“I appreciate the efforts of the U.S. Green Building Council to promote energy efficiency and environmental conservation in building design and construction. I have been disappointed to learn, however, that the USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system discriminates against wood products produced in our own backyard and prohibits the two largest sustainable forest certification program in the U.S. – the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) – from gaining credit by recognizing only Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood.”

As you may have seen, the National Association of State Foresters and Canadian Institute of Forestry have also shown their support with letters to the USGBC.

We’re grateful that these and other leaders see a strong value to including SFI and other third-party certification systems in the LEED rating system. You can find a broader list of supporting statements on our website. Additionally, we’ve gotten extensive support in the way of signatures and comments on the petition to open LEED. I’ll share some of these comments in tomorrow’s post. And as always, find the latest information regarding the LEED issue on our website.

Two major North American groups representing forestry experts have weighed in with the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) on the LEED standard.  Steven Koehn, president of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), recently wrote a letter to USGBC CEO & Founding Chairman Rick Fedrizzi stating that the revised standard should:

The NASF is comprised of directors of forestry agencies across the U.S. and promotes forest conservation and sustainable forestry.

Additionally, Mr. Fedrizzi has received a letter urging LEED to be more inclusive from the Canadian Institute of Forestry. The organization also put out a press release about the LEED issue. President Anne LeBrun Ruff and Executive Director John F. Pineau state,

“Even though Canada has over 40% of the certified land globally, only 10% of the world’s forests are certified. Yet private and some government agencies are still splitting hairs over specific aspects of forest management certification systems. In doing this, the focus on the overall goal of sustainable management is lost. Each standard has a different background and assesses planning and practices in a slightly different way. However, the end result of sustainably managed forests is the same, which leads us to the issue at hand.”

They also make the vital point that wood is a smart choice for green building, yet many of its positive aspects are not recognized in the LEED rating system.

I’m pleased that the NASF and Canadian Institute of Forestry have taken a stand on the LEED issue. At SFI, we hope Mr. Fedrizzi and the rest of the USGBC listen to what the rest of the forestry community already knows—an inclusive stance better supports responsible forestry.