Ken Bragg: LEED Certification Needs Greater Inclusion To Aid Arkansas Forestry

Editor’s note: The author of this guest commentary, State Representative Ken Bragg (R-Sheridan), is the House Majority Leader and has more than 40 years experience in the forest industry.

The recent Talk Business & Politics report (“Sustainability, Technology: Architectural Trends That Are Here to Stay”) provided an in-depth look at the increased focus by architects on LEED green building certification program.

The article was educational and informative yet, from the view of someone who has spent decades working in the Arkansas forestry industry, failed to note a critical problem with the LEED rating system. While LEED is undoubtedly a worthwhile program – helping provide an environmentally friendly construction roadmap for businesses, schools, and non-profits undertaking new projects – it does have one notable shortcoming that if left unaddressed will continue to disproportionately hurt thousands of landowners and businesses in Arkansas.

LEED seeks to promote the use of energy-efficient construction methods and durable materials in buildings where we live, work and go to school. Wood appears to be an ideal material for such markets, yet the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED framework discriminates against Arkansas’ forest products industry, which supports 80,000 jobs and generates billions of dollars for our economy annually. This sector deserves common-sense regulations, especially in fast-growing, “green” building markets. Unfortunately, current LEED regulations restrict the use of the majority of Arkansas timber from qualifying for these projects.

What has happened is that many projects narrow the criteria as to what gets credited as a “sustainable” building material. In the case of LEED projects, only wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) meets this benchmark. Meanwhile, timber certified by other sustainable forestry organizations such as the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is not eligible for LEED’s “sourcing of raw materials” and “ongoing consumables” credits.

Combined, SFI and ATFS certify over 4 million acres of Arkansas land, while FSC certifies only 660,000. Those quantities alone show just how significant the exclusion of SFI and ATFS from the LEED credits affects this important industry in Arkansas. Very clearly, projects giving preference to FSC timber disadvantage the majority Arkansas’ foresters, builders and businesses that make and supply certified sustainable forest products.

Furthermore, 90% of FSC-certified land is located outside of the United States. It stands to follow that if we incentivize the use of FSC timber, as the LEED program has done, the end result will be greater utilization of imported timber over domestic wood. The question that needs to be asked is whether this wood is of better quality than that harvested here in Arkansas. As someone who has seen first hand the environmental stewardship utilized by Arkansas tree farmers and landowners enrolled in other certification programs, the answer is a resounding no.

It’s important to note that FSC is a good and worthwhile certification program. It’s just not the only one. ATFS, FSC and SFI all promote good methods of land management in America by emphasizing benchmarks that foresters and businesses must meet to receive their seal of approval (“certification”). Those who took the time and effort, and spent the financial resources to obtain certification in any of these programs, should not be arbitrarily blocked from the marketplace.

The private sector has better understood the market for sustainable products, and the necessity of treating wood certified by ATFS, FSC and SFI equally. Many large companies have either partnered with multiple certification programs or promoted the benefits of certification. Stores that stock their shelves with goods certified by SFI, FSC and ATFS and buildings that include certified wood from these three programs benefit our economy better than a framework that promotes a specific certification program over all others. Picking winners and losers in industries has never been a strong point of government.

At the end of the day, it is my hope that the U.S. Green Building Council reconsiders its exclusive recognition of only one forestry certification program, and takes a more inclusive approach that will expand the use of sustainably harvested wood products. A framework that treats ATFS, FSC and SFI equally would benefit thousands of Arkansas tree farmers, foresters, small business owners, builders, contractors, taxpayers and consumers who prefer buying high-quality timber harvested right here in the Natural State.