FSC US creates a defined set of criteria to help forest managers identify areas of concern/interest
FSC US creates a defined set of criteria to help forest managers identify areas of concern/interest within the Central Appalachian CBA. That information is then communicated by certificate holders to suppliers, along with the recommended BMPs for harvest, and contact information of ENGOs that may be interested in protection actions such as easements.
3 comments0 replies
1
Christopher Gibbons
Aug 14, 2018
Yes. This. Maybe. Sort of. Define "FSC-US creates"... how? by who? and how fast?
This is probably the only option presented so far that has a good chance of being implemented in semi short order. There are already BMPs in existence. CHs already have a relationship with their suppliers. This could be rolled out quickly. Especially if coordinated with some sort of eNGO mailing to property owners, there could be real, on the ground, improvements.
Everything else we've been talking about is some version of 'throw money at it and hope it helps'. This is fast, implementable, and audit-able (assuming ASI and the CBs quit hitting the hash pipe quite so often).
Even if a 'throw money at it' option is provided, that option will take time. I cannot imagine a single scenario where anything else would be up and running inside the six month deadline the standard provides CHs for implementation. This can certainly be implemented in that required timeframe.
Ashley Hawk
Oct 12, 2018
A clearly defined set of criteria if done correctly would be a document to be held accountable to and would ideally be easy to follow and roll out quickly.
Andrew Goldberg
Oct 12, 2018
This is a good idea and builds of other existing requirements for forest managment certificate holders to make sure they have a program to be aware, understand and implement management requirements of these important conservation issues in the region. But because we are concerned with non-certified wood, the information needs to reach landowners and the logging community in addition to the forest managers. This is critically important in this region where evidence shows that only a small amount of landowners consider themselves land managers, use forestry consultants or have forest management plans.
Therefore compliance with this measure would have to focus on those audiences.
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.
Yes. This. Maybe. Sort of. Define "FSC-US creates"... how? by who? and how fast?
This is probably the only option presented so far that has a good chance of being implemented in semi short order. There are already BMPs in existence. CHs already have a relationship with their suppliers. This could be rolled out quickly. Especially if coordinated with some sort of eNGO mailing to property owners, there could be real, on the ground, improvements.
Everything else we've been talking about is some version of 'throw money at it and hope it helps'. This is fast, implementable, and audit-able (assuming ASI and the CBs quit hitting the hash pipe quite so often).
Even if a 'throw money at it' option is provided, that option will take time. I cannot imagine a single scenario where anything else would be up and running inside the six month deadline the standard provides CHs for implementation. This can certainly be implemented in that required timeframe.
A clearly defined set of criteria if done correctly would be a document to be held accountable to and would ideally be easy to follow and roll out quickly.
This is a good idea and builds of other existing requirements for forest managment certificate holders to make sure they have a program to be aware, understand and implement management requirements of these important conservation issues in the region. But because we are concerned with non-certified wood, the information needs to reach landowners and the logging community in addition to the forest managers. This is critically important in this region where evidence shows that only a small amount of landowners consider themselves land managers, use forestry consultants or have forest management plans.
Therefore compliance with this measure would have to focus on those audiences.