[ Page 1 of 3 ]

Proposed LEED changes intensify debate over recognition of wood certification systems
By Joann Gonchar, AIA

In response to a long-escalating controversy over the recognition of certified wood products by its LEED rating system, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is considering revising two of the metric’s credits that deal with material and resource use.

Late in May, the council’s board of directors asked the LEED steering committee, the group responsible for shaping the rating system, to address recommendations outlined in a white paper on the topic. The proposed changes would open the door for recognition of wood certification systems favored by the timber industry, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Many in the environmental community consider the forest management practices allowed under these systems less environmentally preferable than those of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)—the sole wood certification system currently recognized by LEED.

One motivation for considering credit revisions was to gain a wider foothold for green building practices. “Wood certification had become a significant issue at the state and local level and had become a distraction” from the council’s mission of market transformation, says Michelle Moore, USGBC vice president.

The changes, if implemented, would double the number of LEED points a project could earn for wood use. “It is justifiable to give additional weight to wood. It is produced by renewable energy [in the form of] sunlight and photosynthesis. It has a high yield, is reusable, and is ultimately biodegradable,” says Alex Wilson, author of the white paper, and executive editor at Building Green. [Note: record publisher McGraw-Hill Construction and Building Green are partners in a magazine for USGBC members about sustainable design.]

Wilson’s paper suggests broadening the current credit that rewards projects for use of building materials derived from rapidly renewable sources—those regenerated in less than 10 years—to one that recognizes all biobased materials, including wood. With this change, wood certified by FSC could receive credit, in addition to wood certified by SFI, CSA, and possibly other organizations.

The Forest Stewardship Council, which certified this teak plantation in South America, is the sole wood certification system currently recognized by LEED. Photography: Courtesy Ecotimber

A comparison of standard forestry and agricultural practices is the basis for the recommendation. Agricultural products now recognized by the rapidly renewable credit, like those made from soybeans or cotton, “often carry significant environmental burdens, [therefore] rewarding rapidly renewable products over wood-derived products may not be justified,” says the paper.

In addition to the move from a rapidly renewable to a bio- based credit, the paper suggests changing a current credit that rewards projects for use of FSC-certified wood only. The revised credit would recognize other biobased materials that satisfy still-undeveloped “robust” criteria.

The proposals are receiving mixed reviews from industry stakeholders. The suggested biobased credit is “an exciting development,” says John Mechem, a spokesperson for the American Forest & Paper Association, a wood products trade group and creator of the SFI rating system. However, he urges the USGBC “to retain a credible independent consultant” to assist with formulating the criteria for certification system assessment.

Other stakeholders worry that inclusion of certification systems previously not recognized by LEED in the proposed biobased credit would be premature. “I am pleased to see wood treated as an environmentally beneficial building material,” says Liza Murphy, a senior manager at the Rain Forest Alliance, a nonprofit FSC certifier. She adds, however, “I encourage the USGBC to have a conversation about the on-the-ground differences among certification systems even before putting the question before its membership.”

Some sources are critical of the paper’s reliance on life-cycle assessment (LCA)—a methodology that takes into account factors like a material’s embodied energy and projected life span. According to Dan Harrington, product development director for EcoTimber, the paper does not “address downstream water quality, seasonal water retention, local and global climate change, and a host of other complex impacts that are difficult to assess using LCA.” EcoTimber is a supplier of FSC-certified wood products.

Rob Watson, a USGBC board member and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, calls the white paper’s suggested credit language “a first cut at a very complicated issue.” Before adoption, the changes must go through several steps, including review by the council’s technical advisory group for materials and resources, a public comment period, and balloting by the full USGBC membership.

“Some have characterized this [white paper] as the end of a process, but it is really the beginning,” says Watson, suggesting that quick resolution is unlikely. “This is one of the most complicated and loaded issues the council will face.”

ADVERTISEMENT