A recent New York Times article discussed the current debate regarding green building systems and, in particular, which certification system, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is more rigorous. However they missed one major aspect that affects businesses here in the Northwest; neither certification body includes a provision for wood products from National Forests.

There is little doubt that the green building movement has successfully begun to affect forest management on private forestlands across the globe. Several green building certification systems (including LEED, Earth Advantage, and Green Globes) either prefer or require use of certified forest products.

While some states have certified their publicly owned forests (including Washington), in the Northwest, over 60% of the forestland is owned by the Federal government. East of the Cascades, the percentage is even higher. Due to this exclusion, many businesses and forest-reliant communities in the Northwest are unable to access these growing “green market” opportunities. This exclusion is not based on an evaluation of current forestry practices; it is simply due to location.

As the manager of the Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership, I work with many small, family-owned businesses that produce wood products -- many of which come from public forests -- that have similar benefits of certified products plus a built-in local component. Our challenge remains gaining access to ecologically-aware consumers who trust a particular forest certification or green building system. It’s time to open a dialogue regarding certification of National Forests that could eliminate the social inequity currently built in to forest certification.