Demonstrate contributions/participation in efforts related to conserving aquatic biodiversity
1 comment
Demonstrate contributions/participation in efforts related to conserving aquatic biodiversity within the Central Appalachian CBA; consider contributions to FSC that are pooled and used together to maximize their impact
0
Christopher Gibbons
Aug 14, 2018
Good idea in theory.
My general statement, about small CHs bailing the moment more money is required, fits here too.
I like that this provides companies the opportunity to create new and potentially unique opportunities for contributions/participation. General Patton once said, "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do, and let them surprise you with their results." Having said that, I worry that not having any guidance will just create a morass of wasted time, money, and energy, with no beneficial outcome. Once again, larger companies, with staff already dedicated to FSC, will be able to handle this concept better than the little guys. The medium and small sized companies are going to struggle without direction.
Fun side note: a millwork shop is considered a "small business" in the United States (by the SBA and IRS) if it employs less than 500 people. A 500 employee company in the wood products industry could potentially be a $50,000,000 company. So when you're thinking about what size of companies I'm talking about when I say "small" - it's that size of company.
And finally, all the concerns I have about 'pooling mitigation monies' also cover the concept of pooling contributions here too.
Use of Blue Ridge Forever conservation value viewer (or another similar tool that identifies areas of higher value and/or higher risk) to identify areas of greater risk for threats to aquatic biodiversity within the Central Appalachian CBA, and establish a mitigation bank for those areas with ‘forest conservation credits’
Participate in the discussion forum to share ideas and provide feedback about practical actions that companies can take to promote positive impacts on forest management, and reduce the risk of procuring wood from forests where important ecological values are threatened.
The forum is organized by each Regional Meeting with each Specified Risk Topic listed under each meeting:
Asheville (Appalachian Region)
Atlanta (Southeast/Mississippi Alluvial Valley Regions)
Portland (Pacific Coast/Rocky Mountain Regions)
Please post your comments and mitigation ideas under the correct topic. Example: To suggest a mitigation idea for Houston Toad, go into "Atlanta Meeting", find "Houston Toad" and add your comment within that section.
Please keep all comments as succinct as possible, and be respectful of others and their ideas. Moderators will remove any inappropriate content.
If you have any general questions, please fill out the contact form, or email standardsforum@us.fsc.org.
Want to post anonymously? Send your comments with the specific topic to standardsforum@us.fsc.org to be posted.
Good idea in theory.
My general statement, about small CHs bailing the moment more money is required, fits here too.
I like that this provides companies the opportunity to create new and potentially unique opportunities for contributions/participation. General Patton once said, "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do, and let them surprise you with their results." Having said that, I worry that not having any guidance will just create a morass of wasted time, money, and energy, with no beneficial outcome. Once again, larger companies, with staff already dedicated to FSC, will be able to handle this concept better than the little guys. The medium and small sized companies are going to struggle without direction.
Fun side note: a millwork shop is considered a "small business" in the United States (by the SBA and IRS) if it employs less than 500 people. A 500 employee company in the wood products industry could potentially be a $50,000,000 company. So when you're thinking about what size of companies I'm talking about when I say "small" - it's that size of company.
And finally, all the concerns I have about 'pooling mitigation monies' also cover the concept of pooling contributions here too.