{"id":1304,"date":"2012-03-26T15:52:49","date_gmt":"2012-03-26T19:52:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.goodforforests.com\/?p=1304"},"modified":"2023-03-23T16:51:05","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T20:51:05","slug":"the-future-is-now-usgbcs-decisions-can-sustain-our-forests-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forests.org\/fr\/the-future-is-now-usgbcs-decisions-can-sustain-our-forests-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Future Is Now – USGBC\u2019s Decisions Can Sustain Our Forests"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s been close to a month since Draft 3 of the new LEED 2012 language was released, and my initial reaction has not changed. I\u2019m pleased to see there are credits specific for whole building Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Product Declarations, and I look forward to seeing how these credits get accessed moving forward.\u00a0 However, I remain disappointed with requirements related to local sourcing and forest certification.<\/p>\n

In the latest draft, local sourcing is overly restrictive and confusing \u2013 in some instances the local sourcing radius has been reduced from 500 miles to 50 miles \u2013 which is obviously not helpful for rural-based economies such as the forest products sector. And the \u201cFSC or Better\u201d language in the latest LEED Draft does a disservice to those organizations attempting to constructively engage and support responsible forestry and wood products from well-managed forests. Laura Thompson of Sappi said it well in her Environmental Quotient blog when she said she is \u201cshocked that such a leading organization would write what amounts to me as a sloppy reference in a standard. \u2018FSC or better\u2019? \u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s so true. What are the criteria to determine \u201cbetter\u201d? How will they be assessed, and by whom? With so many different Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards around the world, which one will the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) pick as its baseline? Will USGBC rise to the occasion and give credits for responsible forestry beyond FSC? Or will USGBC take us all down this long path of trying to decipher the baselines and the winners?<\/p>\n

For years SFI has been promoting choice and inclusion of forest certification standards, and we don\u2019t believe it is constructive to be forced to explain why we are better than FSC. This type of conversation is occurring because of USGBC\u2019s new language.<\/p>\n

Ninety percent of the world’s forests are not certified at all, and USGBC can drive demand for more certified lands by recognizing all credible certification standards \u2013 including SFI, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), FSC and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). These programs are pillars of responsible forestry, and they all serve a variety of land ownerships and markets. Together we are building the future of our forests upon which forest products, multiple values and communities can be sustained.<\/p>\n

Our advice to the USGBC is to drop \u201cFSC or better\u201d and instead use the criteria for forest certification set out by the National Association of State Foresters forest certification policy or better yet \u2013 recognize the 10 percent of the world\u2019s forests that are certified, be it to FSC or standards recognized by PEFC, including SFI, ATFS and CSA.<\/p>\n

LEED is a precedent setting standard \u2013 many retailers rely on it to define responsible forest management. The decisions USGBC makes today will determine the future health of our forests and our communities.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s my message to USGBC: The future is decided now, and I hope you will play a pivotal role in keeping well-managed forests and communities alive and thriving.<\/p>\n

What Experts are Saying<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

No doubt USGBC will receive lots of feedback about its draft language. We opened up our Good for Forests blog, and many others voiced their opinions on the topic of FSC or Better:<\/p>\n