Meaningful engagement with land trusts active within the Central Appalachian CBA
Meaningful engagement with land trusts active within the Central Appalachian CBA to access sustainably managed forests that protect aquatic habitat
3 comments0 replies
0
Christopher Gibbons
Aug 14, 2018
I'm a personal fan of land trusts, and conservation easements. It is a market driven answer to a non market issue. It dovetails nicely with the premise of FSC.
With that said, we (FSC) would need to curate a list of stable and effective land trusts. Otherwise we run the risk of financing someone's jet that they bought on the proceeds of the land they sold when their land trust got in trouble with the IRS. They would then fly said jet to a non extradition country, and boy wouldn't FSC look silly then.
In all seriousness though, we would need to pick organizations with a good reputation and history, then continue to review those organizations yearly to ensure they're continuing to be good stewards, environmentally and corporately. That's an entirely new field for FSC to delve into. I worry about FSC-US having the bandwidth for something like that.
And... small business.... money... upset... quit FSC... that speech here too. This would have to be one of a few options.
Lastly, "meaningful engagement" doesn't actually mean anything unless defined. And without a clear definition here, there's really nothing that possibly can be commented on in this suggestion.
Ashley Hawk
Oct 12, 2018
I fully support working with dependable land trusts – they do excellent work to protect aquatic (and other) biodiversity and overall healthy forests in Appalachia. As Christopher asked, what does “meaningful engagement” mean? Sounds nice, but it’s very vague…how can we create working connections with land trusts that actually have meaningful impact on the ground?
Andrew Goldberg
Oct 12, 2018
I agree and believe that providing information on conservation funding and land trusts to loggers and landowners could be a part of meeting the “meaningful engagement” requirement. Other ways to meet that "meaningful engagement" threshold ay require the certificate holder to learn about the land trust communtiites' conservation priorities in the region and how the working forest landscape fits in.
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
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.
I'm a personal fan of land trusts, and conservation easements. It is a market driven answer to a non market issue. It dovetails nicely with the premise of FSC.
With that said, we (FSC) would need to curate a list of stable and effective land trusts. Otherwise we run the risk of financing someone's jet that they bought on the proceeds of the land they sold when their land trust got in trouble with the IRS. They would then fly said jet to a non extradition country, and boy wouldn't FSC look silly then.
In all seriousness though, we would need to pick organizations with a good reputation and history, then continue to review those organizations yearly to ensure they're continuing to be good stewards, environmentally and corporately. That's an entirely new field for FSC to delve into. I worry about FSC-US having the bandwidth for something like that.
And... small business.... money... upset... quit FSC... that speech here too. This would have to be one of a few options.
Lastly, "meaningful engagement" doesn't actually mean anything unless defined. And without a clear definition here, there's really nothing that possibly can be commented on in this suggestion.
I fully support working with dependable land trusts – they do excellent work to protect aquatic (and other) biodiversity and overall healthy forests in Appalachia. As Christopher asked, what does “meaningful engagement” mean? Sounds nice, but it’s very vague…how can we create working connections with land trusts that actually have meaningful impact on the ground?
I agree and believe that providing information on conservation funding and land trusts to loggers and landowners could be a part of meeting the “meaningful engagement” requirement. Other ways to meet that "meaningful engagement" threshold ay require the certificate holder to learn about the land trust communtiites' conservation priorities in the region and how the working forest landscape fits in.