Demonstrate efforts to influence state/local agencies to adopt/revise BMPs
Demonstrate efforts to influence state/local agencies to adopt/revise BMPs for states/local municipalities that intersect the Central Appalachian CBA
3 comments0 replies
0
Christopher Gibbons
Aug 14, 2018
Sooo.... we bribe them? and keep records? I'm concerned that the concept of how bribery works was not clearly explained to someone.
Also, this seems to be a fine idea. But again, the devil is in the details. What is considered 'demonstrable effort'? Are CBs going to be tasked with that determination? No thank you, that is not audit-able. Is FSC going to publish a list of acceptable actions? Are State and Local governments going to be weighted differently? There's a lot to unpack inside of this idea.
Ashley Hawk
Oct 12, 2018
How would agencies be influenced? Through research on BMP effectiveness? That research already exists. What then are other ways to influence agencies to use adaptive management regarding BMPs?
Andrew Goldberg
Oct 12, 2018
Not sure there is much interest in an FSC-driven revision to BMPS in the region. But if this could be met be specific actions toot sure how to make it auditable like Chris above) drive continuous improvemnt ein the BMPS and in increasing BMP compliance then (nit would help improve perfromance in th wooods and help reduce risk
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
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.
Sooo.... we bribe them? and keep records? I'm concerned that the concept of how bribery works was not clearly explained to someone.
Also, this seems to be a fine idea. But again, the devil is in the details. What is considered 'demonstrable effort'? Are CBs going to be tasked with that determination? No thank you, that is not audit-able. Is FSC going to publish a list of acceptable actions? Are State and Local governments going to be weighted differently? There's a lot to unpack inside of this idea.
How would agencies be influenced? Through research on BMP effectiveness? That research already exists. What then are other ways to influence agencies to use adaptive management regarding BMPs?
Not sure there is much interest in an FSC-driven revision to BMPS in the region. But if this could be met be specific actions toot sure how to make it auditable like Chris above) drive continuous improvemnt ein the BMPS and in increasing BMP compliance then (nit would help improve perfromance in th wooods and help reduce risk