top of page

Mitigation Option Shared Criteria 

In 2018, regional meeting participants together developed the following criteria as a shared lens for building alignment on mitigation options. The criteria were refined across the course of the three Controlled Wood Regional Meetings and were finalized following the third and final meeting. They were used by the participants as they provided input during the regional meetings and through the online discussion forum, by FSC US staff as they developed the final draft mitigation options, and by the FSC US Board of Directors as they reviewed and endorsed the final set of mitigation options. These criteria are NOT intended to be used to evaluate the implementation of mitigation options.

*No priority intended by numbers, just for reference

A. For each mitigation option, at least one of the following applies:

  1. Results in decreased negative impact(s) and/or increased positive impacts from forest management activities within the specified risk area

  2. Improves knowledge about how, and places where, the conservation value is being threatened within the specified risk area so that those places are avoided or mitigated; limited to situations where there is an explicit need for this specific information to improve conservation of and mitigation associated with the value

  3. Promotes, expands or improves an ongoing initiative/program that is already producing verifiable positive outcomes within the specified risk area

  4. Implements a new/innovative initiative/program that will fill a gap or address a weakness in the existing network of initiatives/programs associated with forest management impacts on the value in within the specified risk area.

  5. Promotes, expands or improves implementation of actions within the specified risk area identified through diverse-stakeholder planning processes (e.g., State Wildlife Action Plans, regional conservation plans, Federal recovery plans)

B. For each mitigation option, ALL of the following apply:

  1. Proven or a reasonable expectation of effectiveness in maintaining or enhancing the conservation value within the specified risk area

  2. Passes through topline filters of efficacy, clarity, efficiency, practicality, measurability and auditability

  3. Doesn’t require companies to make extensive investments to infrastructure/resources, but will require engagement across chambers

C. For the set of mitigation options, ALL of the following apply:

  1. Provides a workable option for all enterprises, regardless of size or location in the supply chain

  2. Doesn’t require certificate holders to have knowledge of specific sites from which their forest materials originate, in situations where the procurement processes and/or antitrust concerns make this information inaccessible.

  3. Differentiates requirements between companies that buy directly from the forest, and those that don’t

bottom of page