SFI now allowed??

Ronnie, that is accurate. There is more information under the credit language tab above, on the Legal Wood pilot credit here on LEEDuser, and on this analysis posted at our sister site, BuildingGreen.com.

The USGBC did announce a new pilot credit... Using legal wood in LEED should be a prerequisite, not an option.

http://us.fsc.org/newsletter-online.362.470.1025.htm

Ronnie - See also this press release on the USGBC website - http://www.usgbc.org/articles/usgbc-announces-new-leed-pilot-acp-designe... and MRpc102 listed in this article - http://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-addenda-update-april-2016.

I think it's important for everyone to bear in mind that USGBC is currently indicating that, while it credits SFI etc., the intention of this ACP is to pilot the feasibility of a new prerequisite for legal wood. From the USGBC press release:

"The pilot ACP builds on the robust infrastructure that has been built around responsible wood sourcing and chain of custody to test an approach to prerequisite requirements, which could serve as a model for other building materials."

Quote by Sara Cederberg from the BuildingGreen article:

The ACP “is not intended to replace rewarding leadership practices in sourcing. It is a minimum set of requirements for legality...I think our aim here is to really shift the conversation to talk about legal wood as the main issue. The focus on legality and traceability really draw attention to this topic."

In other words, if USGBC follows through on these statements, then when the pilot is finished SFI etc. will NOT be credited in LEED - the crowing of SFI and its allies notwithstanding. Rather, SFI/PEFC/CSA/ATFS will likely be accepted as sufficient proof of legality for LEED purposes, along with - presumably - other widely accepted risk mitigation tools such as third-party legality verification and FLEGT licenses.

While I appreciate that USGBC is saying that this pilot is intended only to explore the possibility of including a prerequisite for legal wood (which is great, since it does seem to be a real problem), these statements do not align with how the pilot credit is written. The ACP does perfectly align with what SFI and others are saying about this.

If the goal is only to assess the viability of a legal wood prerequisite, I can't understand why this wasn't launched as a pilot innovation credit, instead of one that directly replaces MR Credit: Certified Wood?

morning all - glen raised a question as to why we're pilot testing this prerequisite idea as an acp rather than as a stand alone pilot. the short answer is percentages. to expand on that a bit:

prerequisites need robust and diverse testing. we're currently living the challenges associated with unintended consequences of new prerequisites in v4 (especially internationally) and it's a big challenge.

the best way to understand the pros and cons of a prerequisite idea is to get as many projects to engage and provide feedback as we can - here's where percentages come in.

at the top right of this screen you'll see historic credit achievement for this credit - 32% (the numbers we pulled just recently are a bit lower than that but in the ballpark). for id&c projects it's roughly half that already pretty low achievement rate. contrast that with activity in the pilot credit library where less than 20% of the ideas account for more than 40% of all pilot credit activity. in the assessment we made during development we contrasted relatively low credit achievement rates in the base rating system with the highly competitive pilot landscape and concluded that the best way to get significant numbers of projects engaged was to position this as an acp.

hopefully that makes sense.

By that logic, wouldn't leaving it to the project team to determine whether it be an ACP or an ID&C credit promote the highest adoption rate and increase the diversity of its testing environment? What would be the problem with awarding a team one point for securing >50% of the new wood is FSC and awarding a second point for ensuring the remaining <50% is legal?

I think Ward's point is very well taken.

Thanks for the clarification Brendan, makes sense.