Certification enters the picture when many builders that use wood products want to know that they are supporting a sustainable industry rather than one that leaves land barren, scarred and poisoned. Over the years, various credible certification systems have emerged, each of which measures sustainability in slightly different ways. Many land managers seek certification to build their brand among businesses that sell and consumers that buy their products.

Examples of groups that perform this function are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) certification programs. Together, these groups certify nearly one-third of Michigan's forestland. FSC and SFI, for example, recognize the Michigan State Forest. However, private landowners may only have invested in one system, as it can be costly and redundant to seek recognition from multiple programs.

A sensible approach for policymakers entails accepting any of these credible certifications as sustainable, but unfortunately common-sense has not guided oversight of this market. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit organization, through its LEED system, only endorses FSC certification. Government agencies often require projects receiving public funding to follow the USGBC's guidelines.

The government choosing one certification program over other credible options negatively affects the forestry industry, jobs and the economy.

Government agencies and elected officials should want to promote both sustainability and growth. Unfortunately, they don't always think beyond the initial stage of a policy's impact. The USGBC's LEED system is aligned with FSC, a timber association based in Germany. Not only do forests recognized by FSC represent less than a third of the certified land in this country, but FSC's certification standards are much lower for countries such as Russia and Brazil.

The result of this bias is that many American projects will end up using foreign wood products that fail to meet the standards of timber harvested in the U.S., and do nothing to support domestic workers and families. This negatively impacts countless local communities in Michigan and throughout the U.S. that rely on forestry a source of well-paying employment and revenues for town, city and county operations.