The independent Green Building Council of Australia is facing unprecedented pressure from State and Federal Governments to change its environmental standards for sustainable timber.

A small story ran about the issue in the Sydney Morning Herald last week, and another in The Age this morning, but Greenlines thought it worthwhile to flesh out some of the broader issue.

The Green Building Council (GBC), is a voluntary not-for-profit organisation backed by a range of organisations paying membership fees.

Its main connection to Government is through the voluntary green-star program. Some government departments at the state and federal level also use the Council’s code as a guide. Others, like the Federal Environment Department, are members of the Council and pay membership fees.

Having GBC green-stars attached to a building project is also an asset for construction firms applying for Government tenders. Multiplex is understood to have got a huge boost in its successful tender for the new Melbourne Convention Centre by boasting the maximum six-green star rating.

But Government’s have no formal role in the Council’s program - which is voluntary. In short, state and federal government are applying heavy political pressure for a private institution to change its environmental standards.

A meeting of Primary Industry Ministers last week (which included Federal Forestry Minister Tony Burke) resulted in a statement calling on the Green Building Council to accept the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) environmental accreditation scheme.

The AFS is an industry backed scheme and accredit 90 per cent of all timber logged in Australia as sustainable.

It appears the Victorian and Queensland Governments are the main drivers of the pressure. According to the head of forestry division of the CFMEU Michael O’Connor, who spoke to Greenlines last week, Burke is also on board.

Victoria arguably being the most active. Primary Industries Minister Joe Helper presented a report to last week’s ministerial meeting foreshadowing policy changes to entrench the AFS scheme and punish the Green Building Council if it does not accept it.

The Victorian Government’s draft Timber Industry Strategy proposes (point 8.1) that if a body such as the Green Building Council does not recognise the Australian Forestry Standard, then the Government will reduce funding and remove any support for the Council’s activities. That would include Victorian departments cancelling their membership to the council.

It is also understood that direct political pressure has been put on the council, by industry and government figures. So much so GBC executive director Robin Mellon felt the need to last week privately write to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to assert the Council’s independence.

The GBC hands out the green stars on a voluntary basis to buildings that limit their environmental footprint. The Council promotes a range of measures to reducing the environmental footprint of buildings, including energy and water efficiency. One of those values is the sourcing of sustainable timber.

Sustainable timber is defined in a number of ways, depending who you talk to. The GBC traditional position is that the best form of sustainable timber is specially managed timber plantations. That definition means the GBC has in the past backed the certification scheme from the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC).

The FSC is a strict international code, which classifies just five per cent of global timber as coming from ‘‘sustainable’’ sources. The Australian chapter of the FSC also boasts the backing of two conservation groups - the Australian Conservation Foundation and the more hardline Wilderness Society, who sit of the FSC board.

The GBC initially backed the FSC because it was used by similar organisations in the US. The Council also felt the wide range of groups that sit of the FSC's board, including the environmental groups, gave it credibility.

Recently the GBC has endeavoured to develop a more independent assessment of the merits of individual certification schemes. They, through an independent committee of stakeholders including forestry groups, established a criteria to assess sustainable forestry certification schemes.

The AFS has not yet applied to be accepted under that new criteria. Instead, Governments, unions and industry want the council to accept AFS without testing it next to the criteria. Mellon told Greenlines last week that was unlikely to happen.

Very few people outside the environment groups want to get into a debate about what is more environmentally friendly - FSC or AFS.

The Wilderness Society’s position is clear - the AFS has lower standards that the Stewardship Council. The Wilderness Society’s Victorian campaign director, Gavan McFadzean, says any change would undercut the environmental values of the Council’s green-star ratings.

Chris Taylor, an architect who worked on the GBC’s new sustainable timber criteria, agrees there are differences between the two schemes.

Taylor points to an auditor’s assessment last week that native timber harvester VicForests does not live up to four of the ten principles of the Forestry Stewardship Council - including key environmental principles. That is despite VicForests timber already attaining AFS accreditation in a separate assessment.

National Association of Forest Industries chief executive Allan Hansard who says the Australian Forestry Standard is as environmental credible, if not more so, the the Stewardship's certification.

Mr Hansard also says that the Forestry Stewardship standards are not applicable to the Australian context. As a result few forestry schemes get accreditation. Hansard says this is killing Australian jobs because building firms import FSC timber to attain green-stars.

Hansard says construction companies do not often understand that by trying to do the right thing, undertaking environmental assessments like green-stars, has such an effect on the profitability of the local industry.

It is a position also being driven home by O’Connor. O’Connor also asserted to Greenlines last week that builders were having trouble finding FSC accredited timber and were using instead steel and concrete which have other environmental problems.

But the environmental merits of  the two certification programs - or the ‘‘certification wars’’ as it has been dubbed - may not be the point.

The a director of the Australia chapter of the FSC Kevin O’Grady told Greenlines last week he had used both certification schemes in the past while in business, and both had their strengths and weaknesses.

But O’Grady goes on. He says certifications are market based - and that the market will decide on the relevant merits of either scheme by demand.

O’Grady added that the Green Building Council exists in the market and thus should be free to make decisions like any other purchaser of certification scheme.

It is a point McFadzean agrees with. But he is more direct - ‘‘It is then wrong for Governments to tell an independent body what environmental standards it should accept.’’

State and federal primary industry ministers will now decide over the next six months whether to adopt nation wide policy changes to procurement policy and sustainability guidelines to put the maximum pressure on the Council to accept the AFS.

In short, Government and industry are coming hard for the Council. As the Victoria’s draft Timber Industry Strategy states - ‘‘This behaviour is anti-competitive and will be rectified.’’

It will be interesting to see whether the Council can withstand.