The USGBC has been working since 2006 to come up with new language that replaces its FSC-only preference with verbiage that would make it possible for any certification scheme that meets certain benchmarks to have its certification qualify for LEED points. Wood certification has been one of the most contentious issues the USGBC has grappled with over the years, even though the head of the USGBC committee charged with managing the question has told CUSTOM HOME’s sister publication ProSALES the fight is “totally out of proportion to its importance” in the overall green building movement.
On Feb. 22, the USGBC opened a third public comment period for its latest proposal. That comment period ended March 14.
The USGBC revised several proposals that drew fire from the 1,200 participants in its second public comment period. (See related story.) For instance, it no longer requires that the governing body of a certification group allocate no more than one-third of its votes to governmental or for-profit forest owners, producers, and other commercially involved entities. It also knocked out a requirement that any decision approved must be supported by a majority of the board’s members representing environmental, social, and economic interests.
However, the differences in philosophies that drive these various groups—differences that range from who runs the certification groups to what constitutes good forestry—also make it virtually impossible for the USGBC to satisfy everyone.
Among its comments, the FSC-US disliked how the proposal eliminated the need to go beyond what the USGBC required as prerequisites for any certification scheme and get at least 40 percent of what USGBC identified as optional credits. “This change is a substantial lowering of the bar without any explanation,” the FSC-US said. It also said USGBC’s rules would recognize governance models for certification groups that don’t encourage transparency and said the USGBC “still fails to make prerequisite critical protections for indigenous peoples.”
SFI’s statement took issue with what the USGBC failed to do once it got the last round of comments. “During the September 2009 comment period, the USGBC put forward 80 individual benchmarks in its second draft,” the SFI said. “SFI submitted comments on a significant number of these benchmarks. In the current and third draft, only five of the benchmarks are up for review, which suggests only five of the benchmarks were changed. 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 ‘the requirements were deemed appropriate.'”
Once the USGBC’s panel finishes its work, the proposed revisions will be submitted to the USGBC membership for a vote. That could happen later this year.
Craig L. Webb is editor of ProSALES. This article first appeared on www.prosalesmagazine.com.
