Influence/promote state policy to introduce more consequences for lack of BMP implementation
Influence/promote state policy to introduce more consequences for lack of BMP implementation, in states with lower implementation rates that intersect with the Central Appalachian CBA
2 comments0 replies
0
Christopher Gibbons
Aug 14, 2018
I'm uncertain of the effectiveness of this proposal, just based on the fact that states already have a pretty high rate of BMP implementation. Not having looked specifically at the states impacted, I have to guess there is only about a 10-15% difference in implementation rates, and all rates are probably well north of 70%. So, introducing greater penalties, for a process that already isn't being penalized, seems ineffective.
Ashley Hawk
Oct 12, 2018
What would the consequences be? In this region BMP implementation is already pretty good, and although it is important that they are correctly implemented, perhaps resources and energy would be better spent into monitoring their effectiveness and providing education on correct implementation strategies. For those with low implementation rates, training would be a better option for ensuring increased compliance rather than imposing penalties.
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.
I'm uncertain of the effectiveness of this proposal, just based on the fact that states already have a pretty high rate of BMP implementation. Not having looked specifically at the states impacted, I have to guess there is only about a 10-15% difference in implementation rates, and all rates are probably well north of 70%. So, introducing greater penalties, for a process that already isn't being penalized, seems ineffective.
What would the consequences be? In this region BMP implementation is already pretty good, and although it is important that they are correctly implemented, perhaps resources and energy would be better spent into monitoring their effectiveness and providing education on correct implementation strategies. For those with low implementation rates, training would be a better option for ensuring increased compliance rather than imposing penalties.