The battle in the U.S. between FSC and SFI seems to have blinded much of the green building community and has oriented the USGBC in a sub-optimal development direction that ignores other truly respectable life-cycle based, chain of custody controlled, certified wood like that of PEFC. With an almost identical control system to that of FSC, PEFC is Europe's leading wood certification and has earned the right to be recognized as a sustainable product, as shown by LEED's largest competitors. Experience shows that worse yet, the limited amount of FSC certified forest in Europe promotes suppliers to import wood from areas beyond Europe simply to comply with LEED. Promoting only FSC certified wood limits the application of LEED in Europe. If the USGBC would like to compete with DGNB and BREEAM on the Old Continent, the acceptance of PEFC certified wood products is mandatory.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 3, 2012 - 11:04 am
PEFC started as a European forest certification system (the Pan European Forest Certification scheme), but subsequently evolved into the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, a global umbrella for timber-industry-originated-alternative-to-FSC forest certification systems around the world. These include SFI, CSA and American Tree Farm in North America. To my knowledge, none of these schemes is "life-cycle based" (nor is FSC). Given its scope and diversity, PEFC is not devoid of merit or substance, but there is great variation in the quality of PEFC-endorsed systems, some of which - including SFI - are essentially a front for status quo, business-as-usual industrial forestry. As long as this remains the case, PEFC has no place in LEED. A true leadership standard in green building should limit itself to leadership reference standards, and in forestry, that's FSC.
Ward Miller
Chief Environmental OfficerAlpenglow Advisory
64 thumbs up
March 4, 2012 - 1:27 am
Thanks for the additional info Jason! Please excuse the inaccuracy of the life cycle comment as it was intended to relate to the approach to chain of custody specifically. In any case, the point is that while PEFC has indeed been led astray in its overall approach, there are many PEFC certified forests in Europe that appear to be managed at least as sustainably as their FSC brethren and in some cases this is thanks to national standards, not FSC or PEFC. So just like other products, shouldn't the approach to sustainably sourced wood be determined by the specific standards (since PEFC includes a vast range of certifications it is the specific standards endorsed by PEFC that should be evaluated, not the brand) under which the specific wood products have been forested and followed to installation rather than brand dependent? Set the bar, not the brand!
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 4, 2012 - 11:25 am
The approach you suggest makes sense in principle, and was in fact attempted by USGBC (the forest certification benchmark which failed at ballot in 2010). FSC and its supporters supported the concept of the benchmark and worked hard to try to get USGBC to set a high bar - one that we characterized as "FSC or better." Had such a benchmark been developed and instituted, and if one of PEFC's European affiliates had met it, then I don't think anyone would have objected to its being recognized by LEED provided that you can distinguish those certified products from others certified under other, less rigorous PEFC-endorsed systems. However, in the end, USGBC tried to "divide the baby," and settled on a benchmark that split the difference between FSC and SFI. Both systems and their supporters opposed the resulting benchmark, albeit for different reasons, and it failed at ballot. After all the blood, sweat and tears that went into this process, I will be surprised if USGBC resurrects it.
Susann Geithner
PrincipalEmerald Built Environments
1297 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 5:22 pm
I agree we both of you. I want to uphold a high standard for wood products but I think there is a lot more than just FSC, which deserves to be recognized. PEFC isn't perfect but in many European countries,which have a lot more laws around forestry and environmental protection of ecosystems, it is at least as good as FSC. To Ward's point the best practice is using materials, which are extracted very close to your location. That for sure reduces the impact on the environment.