{"id":18226,"date":"2010-02-25T20:38:14","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T20:38:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/162.217.168.59\/?p=18226"},"modified":"2023-03-22T17:16:32","modified_gmt":"2023-03-22T21:16:32","slug":"sfistatementusgbcs3rddraft","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forests.org\/fr\/sfistatementusgbcs3rddraft\/","title":{"rendered":"SFI Statement on USGBC’s 3rd Draft Forest Certification Benchmarks"},"content":{"rendered":"

World\u2019s Largest Forest Certification Standard Urges the United States Green Building Council to Support North America\u2019s Forests<\/strong><\/p>\n

On February 22, 2010, the US Green Building Council released for public comment a 3rd round of draft benchmarks to evaluate forest certification programs.\u00a0 The Sustainable Forestry Initiative\u00ae (SFI) continues to urge the USGBC to end a forest certification policy that discriminates against North American forests and against most of the independent forest certification standards used in the United States and Canada.<\/p>\n

As currently drafted, the USGBC\u2019s complex benchmark system may result in the continued exclusion of independent forest certification standards used in North America, including SFI, the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), the Canadian Standards Association\u2019s Sustainable Forest Management Standard (CSA), and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC).<\/p>\n

During the September 2009 comment period, the USGBC put forward 80 individual benchmarks in its second draft; SFI submitted comments on a significant number of these benchmarks.\u00a0 In the current and third draft, only five of the benchmarks are up for review, which suggests only five of the benchmarks were changed.\u00a0 The other 75 are not available for comment, and the USGBC has not provided any rationale for why it has not addressed the proposed changes to these benchmarks, instead providing casual responses such as \u201cthe requirements were deemed appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSFI has patiently and constructively participated in this USGBC processes for over five years, yet it appears that the USGBC, in its home stretch to finalize the forest certification credit, is set to continue with the status quo policy of excluding forest certification standards other than FSC. This position should not be taken lightly,\u201d says Kathy Abusow, President and CEO of SFI Inc. \u201cWith more than 186 million acres (75 million hectares) certified to the SFI Standard in North America, and another 197 million more acres (79 million hectares) certified to CSA and ATFS combined, excluding these programs means excluding well-managed, third-party certified forests and the communities and jobs that depend on them in the US and Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the USGBC maintains the status quo and does not recognize the SFI Standard, many LEED builders who chase points will turn away reputable third-party certified SFI wood which is grown in their backyard, in the US and Canada, and instead turn to FSC certified wood \u2013 the vast majority of the FSC\u2019s global supply comes from overseas and often from countries without effective social laws,\u201d adds Abusow. \u201cFSC has over 30 different standards around the world, yet almost half of the FSC certifications globally are to standards that are not yet fully endorsed by FSC International and do not measure up to the SFI standard for North American forests.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several State Governors have written to the USGBC to register their dismay.\u00a0 For example,\u00a0\u00a0 Governor Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota in a letter to USGBC leadership stated, \u201cRecognizing 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. \u2026I 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will continue to promote and support responsible forest management through our program and our ongoing collaboration with environmental groups, the academic community, public agencies, forest companies, small landowners, and thousands of others,\u201d says Abusow.<\/p>\n

SFI is the largest single forest certification standard in the world, recognized equally alongside other forest certification standards by organizations such as the National Association of State Foresters, the Society of American Foresters, Environmental Choice, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the UK and numerous Canadian government agencies including the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, the Canadian Competition Bureau and Public Works and Government Services Canada. The American Consumer Council supports the work SFI does and Terrachoice Environmental Marketing speaks to the credibility of the SFI program in their \u201cSeven Sins of Greenwashing\u201d reports.<\/p>\n

A 2008 resolution from the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) explains the rationale for inclusive policies succinctly: \u201crequirements for certification should recognize ATFS, FSC, SFI, and all other credible options,\u201d and goes on to state that \u201cthere is no single \u201cbest\u201d forest certification program. The value of certification is derived from credible processes and not from brand names. Competition among certification programs produces innovation and continuous improvement in certification processes and on-the-ground forestry practices.\u201d\u00a0 Resolutions from the NASF require 100 % membership approval to be passed.<\/p>\n

The USGBC continues to miss the bigger picture.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n