FSC Certification in Australia and New Zealand Is it making a difference?

Transcription

1 FSC Certification in Australia and New Zealand Is it making a difference? Jodie Mason, Senior Consultant, URS Forestry Loy Jones, Asia Pacific Regional Manager, Smartwood Program of the Rainforest Alliance Introduction The Forest Stewardship Council s (FSC) program of responsible forest management certification has been implemented internationally for the past ten years, with over 84 million hectares certified in 77 countries (The Forest Stewardship Council, 2006). In recent years, growth in the uptake of certification has increased rapidly, and this trend has been reflected in Australia and New Zealand. Figure 1 shows the increase in the area of FSC-certified forests since Figure 1: Increase in area of FSC certified forests over time Source: The Forest Stewardship Council, 2006 The first New Zealand certificate was issued to softwood plantation grower, Craigpine Timber, in 1998, and Hancock Victorian Plantations, a hardwood and softwood plantation grower, was the recipient of the first Australian certificate in At the end of 2006, there were 550,391ha of FSCcertified forests in Australia and 673,900ha in New Zealand (The Forest Stewardship Council, 2006). The concept of forest management certification was developed when group of timber users, traders and representatives of environmental and human-rights organizations (The Forest Stewardship Council, 2006) met in California, USA, in 1990 to discuss how they could collectively improve global forest management, in the absence of political leadership on the issue (Cashaw et al, 2006). Although the idea of forest certification was originally conceived with developing countries and tropical forests in mind, there has been greater adoption of certification in developed countries (Cashaw et al, 2006). A question often raised regarding certification in developed countries is whether certification is adding any value in improving sustainable forest management, or merely rubber stamping operations that are already meeting or exceeding FSC requirements. This paper reviews the certification assessment reports for all certified Forest Management Organisations (FMO) in Australia and New Zealand to identify the changes they were required to make to their operations in order to gain certification. In Australia, certification assessments have been carried out by the SmartWood program of the Rainforest Alliance (SmartWood) and the Soil Association s Woodmark program (Woodmark). In New Zealand, certification assessments have been carried out by SmartWood, the Qualifor program of Societe Generale Surveillance (SGS Qualifor) and Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). At the end of 2006, there were six forest management certificates under FSC in Australia and 19 in New Zealand, encompassing a total of over 1.2 million hectares of forest. Of Australia s FSC-certified forests, about half is blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) plantation, with the remainder radiata pine (Pinus radiata), mountain ash (E. regnans) and shining gum (E. nitens) plantation and a small proportion is Australian sandalwood (Santalum spicatum) plantation, with Allocasuarina and Acacia host species. All of the certified forests are in Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia, and all are forests are privately owned.

2 In New Zealand, the majority of certified forest area is radiata pine plantation, with about 12,000 ha of native forests and minor areas of other species. There are privately, communally and publicly owned certified forests in New Zealand, and they are located on both islands. Methodology This study reviews certification assessment findings of Australian and New Zealand FSC-certified FMOs to gain an understanding of the influence that forest certification has had in shaping forest management in Australia and New Zealand. The results give an indication of the extent to which specific aspects of forest management are being improved through the certification process and which areas are commonly well managed, according to FSC requirements. In 2005, the Rainforest Alliance undertook a study to examine the changes that FSC certification brought to 129 of its forest management certificate holders across 21 countries, both developing and developed. The comparison of Australian and New Zealand data with the Rainforest Alliance s global data from developed countries provides an indication of how our forest management compares with others internationally. This review is based on the information provided in the publicly available reports that summarise the FSC certification assessment findings, including any Pre-conditions or Conditions set by the assessors. A Pre-condition is a remedial action that must be undertaken prior to certification being obtained, and a Condition is a remedial action that must be undertaken according to an agreed schedule subsequent to certification being obtained. Pre-conditions and Conditions are collectively referred to in this paper as conditions. Once a condition is written into an assessment report, auditors are required to periodically follow up with the FMO to monitor progress towards meeting the condition. If the condition is not met within the specified time period, the certification can be suspended or terminated. Conditions were used as the basis of this review, as they require that the FMO implements changes to particular aspects of its operation. All of the FMOs included in this review have retained certification. Therefore, conditions have: been met; progress is being made toward meeting the condition; or there are outstanding requirements to meet conditions within a timeframe that has not yet expired. The FSC certification standards are based on a three-tiered structure of requirements, with Principles and Criteria, which are determined by the FSC and are consistent internationally, and Indicators, which are determined for each region, to suit local conditions. Conditions have been set at either the Criterion or Indicator level. All conditions set at the time of certification assessments were collated from public reports for 25 FMOs. Conditions were summed for each Criterion and also aggregated into their respective Principles to determine which Principles, and which Criteria within Principles, were most commonly in need of improvement at the time of certification assessment. Where a condition referred to more than one Criterion, all Criteria were included in the data. The types of deficiencies and the actions required by the assessors to correct the deficiencies were reviewed and summarised. Subsequent annual audit findings were also reviewed to identify the types of changes that had been implemented in response to conditions. These are intended to provide practical examples of the ways in which forest management improvements have been implemented. For those FMOs that have recently achieved certification, there will be some outstanding conditions that are still to be addressed over the coming years. Where similar remedial actions were not yet represented in this review by another FMO, the intended actions were included, with a note of the intended status. A total of 505 conditions, from across 56 Criteria, raised for 25 FMOs were included in the review. Criteria with more than 15 conditions form the basis of this discussion, in order to provide a focus on those aspects of forest management on which certification has had the greatest influence.

3 Table 1 lists the broad scope of each of the ten FSC Principles. Table 1: FSC Principles Principle number Principle 1 Compliance with laws and FSC Principles 2 Tenure and use rights and responsibilities 3 Indigenous peoples' rights 4 Community relations and worker's rights 5 Benefits from the forest 6 Environmental impact 7 Management plan 8 Monitoring and assessment 9 Maintenance of high conservation value forests 10 Plantations Findings Overview Figure 2 shows the number of conditions that were set for each Principle, across the 25 FMOs. Figure 2: Number of conditions for each Principle Number of Conditions P1-Compliance with laws and FSC Principles P2-Tenure and use rights and responsibilities P3-Indigenous peoples' rights P4-Community relations and worker's rights P5-Benefits from the forest P6-Environmental impact P7-Management plan P8-Monitoring and assessment P9-Maintenance of high conservation value forests P10-Plantations

4 At the Criterion level, the distribution of conditions is shown in Table 2, which also shows the cut-off point of 15 conditions, which has been set as a focus for discussion of detailed findings in this paper. Number of conditions Table 2: Number of conditions for each Criterion Number of conditions 15 conditions The Principle for which, by far, the largest number of conditions was generated, and for which, therefore, the greatest number of changes were required by FMO s, is Principle 6: Environmental Impact, with 211 conditions. Pre-conditions were common within Principle 6, which demonstrates that significant changes were required to current management and practices prior to certification. The majority of conditions for Principle 6 were shared amongst Criteria 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6, which consider: the incorporation of assessments of potential environmental impacts into management planning; protection of rare, threatened and endangered species; and the use of chemicals, respectively. Criteria 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5, which address: the maintenance and enhancement of ecological function; protection of existing ecosystems; and protection of soil and water resources, also attracted 18, 24 and 18 conditions respectively. The second largest number of changes was required for Principle 8: Monitoring and Assessment, which attracted 70 conditions. Within Principle 8, Criteria 8.1 and 8.2 both attracted considerably more conditions than the other Criteria. Criterion 8.1 addresses having appropriate, consistent and replicable monitoring of impacts of operations over time. Criterion 8.2 addresses the specific elements that are required to be monitored. Principle 4: Community Relations and Workers Rights, had 66 conditions. The Criterion which attracted the most conditions was 4.4, which addresses incorporation of assessments of potential social impacts into management planning, and maintaining consultation with people directly affected by operations. Two individual Criteria that address the specific content of management plans and the co-operation with relevant indigenous people and the recognition and protection of significant sites, also attracted 23 and 17 conditions respectively (7.1 and 3.3). Two Criteria, 3.4 and 5.4 did not attract any conditions, although some recommendations and observations were given. Criterion 3.4 relates to the compensation of indigenous peoples for the use of their knowledge in managing the forest. Criterion 5.4 requires that forest management should strive to strengthen and diversify the local economy. Comparison of findings internationally In their international study of the impacts of FSC certification on forest management, Newsom and Hewitt (2005) found that there was no greater emphasis on one of environmental, social or economic facets of operations than on others, across a combination of developed and developing countries. In the Australian and New Zealand study, although there were conditions set across all three facets, there was

5 a greater number of conditions set for changes to management of environmental and social aspects of operations than for economic aspects. Issues relating to sensitive sites and high conservation value forests attracted the most conditions of all ecological issues in the Newsom and Hewitt study, followed by rare, threatened and endangered species (Newsom and Hewitt, 2005). In the Australian and New Zealand study, the most common conditions were for rare, threatened and endangered species, and conservation of ecosystems. Of the social issues, communication and conflict resolution with stakeholders, neighbours and communities was the issue most commonly resulting in conditions, followed by training, then special cultural sites, in the Newsom and Hewitt study. In the Australian and New Zealand study, the results were similar, however training issues were not as prevalent in Australia and New Zealand. Of the economic issues, legal compliance was the issue requiring the most change, followed by profitability of the operation, in the Newsom and Hewitt study. Similar rankings were found in the Australian and New Zealand study. Details of findings This section presents details of the conditions for the Criteria for which there were more than 15 conditions across all FMOs, and the actions the FMOs have undertaken to address the conditions. It gives a practical insight into the particular improvements that have been required and some examples of the ways that improvements have been implemented in systems and practices, in order to meet the requirements of FSC certification. Principle 6 states that Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and, by doing so, maintain the ecological functions and the integrity of the forest. Within Principle 6, Criteria 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6 had the greatest number of Conditions, with 32, 44 and 43 conditions respectively. Criterion 6.1 Criterion 6.1 relates to the assessment of environmental impacts and their incorporation into management plans. Twenty FMOs (80%) had a total of 32 conditions relating to Criterion 6.1. Conditions relating to Criterion 6.1 included the need to develop and implement, or improve processes, to undertake environmental impact assessments (EIA) of forest areas. Many FMOs already undertook EIA processes on a local level, but most were required to expand assessments to regional levels and include consideration of environmental impacts outside the forest management area. Several FMOs had little or no consideration of rare, threatened and endangered species or community types, and an inadequate understanding of the local and regional importance of remnant native vegetation. Development or formalisation of an EIA process, implemented at a forest block or regional level, and a schedule for undertaking assessments. EIA procedures included justification of the type of operation to be used and how to mitigate adverse effects if they occur; Provision of EIA training and field guides for staff; Identification of strategic, annual plan and operational level EIA requirements; Updating of GIS and database systems to incorporate information on natural and protected areas, biodiversity and rare, threatened and endangered species that occur, or are likely to occur, in the forest estate; Detailed assessments of remnant vegetation within the FMOs estate; and Baseline ecological surveys of new development areas prior to development and establishment of reserves based on scientific evidence. Criterion 6.2 Criterion 6.2 relates to safeguards to protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats through the establishment of conservation zones and control of hunting, fishing, trapping and collecting. Twenty FMOs (80%) had a total of 44 conditions relating to Criterion 6.2.

6 Conditions relating to Criterion 6.2 included the absence of, or insufficient, consideration of rare, threatened and endangered species during planning, a requirement to broaden consideration of biodiversity to encompass the range from genetic to landscape scale. The inadequacy of assessments and insufficient data about the occurrence of rare, threatened and endangered species within the forest estate was also raised in a number of cases. Development and documentation of guidelines and practical management plans for the management of areas supporting rare, threatened and endangered species, in consultation with relevant experts; Provision of training for staff in the identification of rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitat, and in their management; Implementation of a reporting system for all sightings of rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitat; Inclusion of existing data on the locations of rare, threatened and endangered species on coupe maps; Integration of biodiversity management requirements into harvest planning systems; Initiation of surveys for specific species within the forest estate and identification of roosting sites prior to harvesting in locations in which the species has been found; Improvement of monitoring processes to ensure the ability to ascertain the presence of rare, threatened and endangered species; and Intention to develop methodologies to allow monitoring of the effects of forest management practices on rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitat and to establish priorities for active management or restoration, as appropriate (condition still open). Criterion 6.4 Criterion 6.4 relates to protection, in their natural state, of representative samples of existing ecosystems in the landscape. Fifteen FMOs (60%) had a total of 24 conditions relating to Criterion 6.4. Conditions relating to Criterion 6.4 included: insufficient protection of representative samples of existing ecosystems; the lack of delineation and management of wetlands in accordance with statebased classification schemes; absence of restoration of degraded native vegetation; impacts of grazing on native vegetation areas; removal of native plants by indigenous stakeholders; inadequate prescriptions for protection and restoration of native vegetation; insufficient baseline information on rare, threatened and endangered species and natural ecosystems within the plantation estate; inadequate assessment of representativeness, condition or management needs of native forest areas; and absence of planning for riparian zones on streams in native forest. Cessation of grazing on native forest areas, and inclusion in lease agreements that fences are to be effective; Monitoring of the effects of grazing on areas of native vegetation; Proactive discussions with government to integrate company reserves into the regional reserve system; Flora and fauna surveys of remnant native vegetation; Revegetation projects in degraded native vegetation; Development of a process and supporting documents for the identification of wetland dependent communities; Establishment of continuous riparian buffers on streams greater than 3 metres width or of ecological or environmental importance within harvesting blocks; Review of species likely to be present and baseline surveys for rare, threatened and endangered species;

7 Management and monitoring plans for a number of rare, threatened and endangered species; Intention to assess the effects of removal of native plants by stakeholders on obligations under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), protection of rare, threatened and endangered species, and cultural rights of indigenous people (condition still open); Criterion 6.5 Criterion 6.5 relates to the development and implementation of written guidelines to minimise erosion and other soil damage, and to protect water resources. Fourteen FMOs (56%) had a total of 18 conditions relating to Criterion 6.5. Conditions relating to Criterion 6.5 included the lack of documented guidelines and monitoring procedures for site preparation, reliance on verbal rather than written instructions to contractors, inadequate development of harvesting plans to protect soil and water, inadequate documentation of measures to protect soil and water in harvesting plans (although they exist in the code of practice), inadequate implementation of a waterways classification system and environmental guidelines for planting near waterways, insufficient consideration of the migration of fish species in culvert design, lack of a practical guide as to what constitutes a sensitive waterway, significant erosion impacts observed, and damage to council roads during wet weather use. Provision of maps to contractors indicating areas suitable for wet and dry weather harvesting and areas where harvesting is to be excluded; Assessment of existing culverts for impediments to fish migration, and development of a program of future aquatic surveys; Development and implementation of stream crossing designs that allow for fish migration; Development and use of pre- and post-operational checklists for site preparation and roading, with a focus on soil and water protection; Development of a strategy for the identification, and protection, where necessary, of sensitive waterways, including an analysis at an estate-wide level to identify priority sites; Development of harvest planning guidelines that address the potential for soil damage and the location of landings to minimise impacts on soil and waterways; Intention to include, in harvesting plans, measures to protect soil and water quality (condition still open); Criterion 6.6 Criterion 6.6 relates to the use of chemicals for the management of pests. Twenty-one FMOs (84%) had a total of 43 conditions relating to Criterion 6.6. Conditions relating to Criterion 6.6 included the absence of: an integrated pest management system; best practice procedures and monitoring of impacts on non-target species; commitment to reducing the quantity and toxicity of pesticides used; research into alternatives to chemicals; knowledge of the list chemicals of prohibited use; and a clear plan for the phase out of the most toxic, persistent and bioaccumulating chemicals. Issues also included the use of prohibited chemicals, and if exemptions or derogations had been granted, compliance with the exemptions. The absence of training for staff in chemical use, checks of contractor compliance with chemical users code of practice, non-compliance with codes of practice for chemical storage and lack of appropriate cleaning facilities for staff handling chemicals were also raised. Immediate phase out of some toxic chemicals; Compilation of information on persistence and bioaccumulation of chemicals used; Development of projects to reduce chemical use, including the increased use of spot ground application, rather than aerial application, a review of methods of weed control used on firebreaks and roads, and trials of lower toxicity chemicals;

8 Development of an integrated pest management system, linked to local government plans, including a timetable for the phase out of some chemicals and the reduction in the use of others; Provision of training for staff in chemical handling; Checks for contractor compliance with chemical users codes of practice; Compliance of chemical storage facilities with codes of practice; Amendment of procedures to comply with derogation requirements; Use of a biological control 1 to control gum tree scale; Selection of chemicals based on lowest environmental risk; Target-specific spraying of pest species, rather than broadcast spraying; Principle 7 Principle 7 states that A management plan appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations shall be written, implemented, and kept up to date. The long term objectives of management, and the means of achieving them, shall be clearly stated. Within Principle 7, Criterion 7.1 had the greatest number of conditions, with 23 conditions. Criterion 7.1 Criterion 7.1 relates to the specific content of management plans. Management plans are required to include objectives, forest description, environmental limitations, land use and ownership status, socioeconomic conditions, a profile of adjacent lands, silvicultural information, rationale for harvest rate and species, provisions for monitoring growth, environmental safeguards, plans for the protection of rare, threatened and endangered species, maps, and a description and justification of the harvesting techniques and equipment to be used. Fifteen FMOs (60%) had a total of 23 conditions relating to Criterion 7.1. Conditions relating to Criterion 7.1 included: lack of documentation of operational procedures; inadequacy of management plans to address long term issues; absence of systematic updating of management plans; management plans not available to the public upon request; inadequacy of management plans to address from one to many of the requirements, including the management of rare, threatened and endangered species, protected areas, social impacts of planning decisions, or visual impacts of harvesting, even though it was recognised by the FMO as a priority issue in the area; and management planning was not effective in preventing the design of a coupes that straddle permanently flowing watercourses. Revision of management plans to include some of the recommendations from flora, vegetation and fauna surveys conducted on the property, and nomination of native forest into a conservation program; Development of a resource-wide management plan that complements site management plans; Management plans were made available on the FMO s website and copies were provided to interested stakeholders; Development of a social and economic profile of the communities that have an association with the FMO s operations; Development and implementation of a procedure to identify and respond to impacts on the community of the FMO s operations; Principle 8 Principle 8 states that Monitoring shall be conducted appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management to assess the condition of the forest, yields of forest product, chain of custody, management activities and their social and environmental impacts. 1 The use of biological controls is assessed under FSC certification through Criteria 6.8.

9 Within Principle 8, Criteria 8.1 and 8.2 had the greatest number of conditions, with 22 conditions each. Criterion 8.1 Criterion 8.1 relates to having appropriate monitoring procedures that are consistent and replicable over time to allow comparison of results and assessment of change. Fourteen FMOs (56%) had a total of 22 conditions relating to Criterion 8.1. Conditions relating to Criterion 8.1 included: a lack of definition of the areas that require monitoring, including social and environmental impacts and monitoring of natural areas; no monitoring of effects of operations on stream turbidity and temperature, changes in key indicator species, and affects of introduced browsers; and no monitoring of changes to local and regional social and economic conditions attributed to the FMO s actions. In some cases, native vegetation data was collected, but not assessed quantitatively, and some of those FMOs that were collecting and presenting quantitative data had no targets and indicators for comparison of that data. Completion of baseline surveys of waterways within the forest estate, and liaison with universities to obtain additional data for incorporation into the monitoring program; Implementation of baseline vegetation survey in priority forests; Monitoring of riparian zones for impacts of grazing; Monitoring program for wildlings outside plantation areas; Development and implementation of a program to monitor the effects of forest operations on the stream environment; Development and implementation of a monitoring program to evaluate the effects of weeds and insect pests on native forest; Intention to monitor socio-economic conditions using a set of defined key indicators (condition still open); Intention to establish targets and indicators for native vegetation monitoring data (condition still open). Criterion 8.2 Criterion 8.2 relates to research and data collection to monitor: yield of all forest products harvested; growth rates, regeneration and condition of the forest; the composition and observed changes in flora and fauna, environmental and social impacts of harvesting and other operations; and costs, productivity and efficiency of forest management. Seventeen FMOs (68%) had a total of 22 conditions relating to Criterion 8.2. Conditions relating to Criterion 8.2 included: very little or no systematic monitoring of remnant native vegetation and wetlands and insufficient baseline information about these areas; very little or no systematic monitoring of on-site and off-site impacts of operations, including wildlings, the spread of dieback, wetlands and groundwater-dependent communities and water quality; areas of native vegetation affected by spray drift and invasion by wildlings were not reported; no monitoring of the social impacts of operations such as harvesting. One forest manager was not reconciling predicted harvest yields with actual harvest yields and formally reporting results to management, and another was using an insufficient number of plots to monitor regeneration. Development of a program to progressively undertake baseline surveys of native vegetation; Development of a wetlands monitoring program; Implementation of post-operation monitoring on all operations to assess the environmental and social impacts of harvesting; Increase in the number of regeneration plots assessed each year to provide higher quality data about regeneration; Development of a program to monitor native vegetation for wildlings.

10 Intention to undertake social impact assessment of effects of operations (condition still open); Intention to document monitoring procedures (condition still open); Intention to develop and implement systems to reconcile predicted with actual harvest yields at the harvest area level, for total merchantable volume, key log grades, recovered value and costs, and to develop a formal reporting mechanism to management (condition still open); Principle 4 Principle 4 states that Forest management operations shall maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic well-being of forest workers and local communities. Within Principle 4, Criterion 4.4 had the greatest number of conditions, with 36 conditions. Criterion 4.4 Criterion 4.4 relates to the incorporation of social impact evaluations into management planning and operations, including maintenance of consultation with people and groups directly affected by operations. Nineteen FMOs (76%) had a total of 36 conditions relating to Criterion 4.4. Conditions relating to Criterion 4.4 included: no formal process for community consultation and no means to ensure community views are incorporated into business strategy and operational decisionmaking; negative perception of the FMO among some regulators and industry associations; community concerns about the social impacts of blue gum plantation forestry; reactive approach to community engagement; and lack of social performance indicators and public reporting of results. Issues also included: collaboration with agencies responsible for nature conservation had not been pursued; senior operational staff had not been trained in stakeholder communication and liaison; social impacts of log transport had not been undertaken; operations planning did not assess potential impacts on stakeholders; social impact of a significant operational decision was not assessed nor was a mitigation strategy developed; lack of a formal process for communicating local community of upcoming operations; no database of stakeholders; lack of effective two-way communication and follow-up processes; inconsistency in notification of neighbours of aerial spraying and other pest control operations; no system of communicating with stakeholders regularly; limited contact with neighbours; and social impact assessment process had been developed, but not implemented. Development of a Community and Stakeholders Relations Strategy and improvement of stakeholder database; Appointment of community liaison officers; FMO offers company and industry information to all interested stakeholders; Implementation of a complaints database, with all complaints followed up; Formalisation of a community sponsorship program; Development of a stakeholder survey to better understand the needs of local communities; Training of senior operational staff in conflict resolution and communication skills; Development of a social impact manual for management of impacts on employees; Intention to develop a social impact manual for management of impacts on the wider community from management and operational decisions (condition still open); Initiation of a website, averaging 350 hits per month, which has current information on forestry operations, including spraying and harvesting. Field day open to the public, prior to harvesting in a forest block. Principle 3 Principle 3 states that The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected. Within Principle 3, Criterion 3.3 had the greatest number of conditions, with 17 conditions.

11 Criterion 3.3 Criterion 3.3 relates to the identification, in co-operation with relevant indigenous people, recognition and protection of sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples. Twelve FMOs (48%) had a total of 17 conditions relating to Criterion 3.3. Conditions relating to Criterion 3.3 included: insufficient contact with local indigenous people to identify significant sites; assessment of sites and resources of importance to indigenous groups had not been undertaken on freehold new development blocks; no clear process for establishing and maintaining regular contact between the FMO and the local indigenous group; no policy or procedures for identification and management of indigenous sites; it was unclear whether the FMO had been consistent in proactive notification to indigenous groups of the identification of sites on forest estate; and there was a lack of documentation of operational procedures. Database searches for known historic and archaeological sites prior to major forest operations and purchase of new property; Establishment of an agreed protocol between the FMO and the local indigenous group establishing a process for identifying cultural values; Training on recognition and identification of indigenous sites for all harvesting crews and all operational staff; Modification or establishment of operations planning processes and related documents to ensure that prior to operations that might disturb the land or its resources, staff inspect the operational area for the presence of cultural heritage sites; Discussion and Conclusions This study indicates that the process of FSC certification has influenced changes in both systems and practices in Australian and New Zealand forestry. In the certifications undertaken to date, there has been a greater requirement for changes to environmental and social aspects, than for changes to economic elements. Compared with global data, for developed countries, it appears that the Australian and New Zealand FMOs have collectively had a lesser requirement to change economic practices than those from the global study. Comparisons between the Australian and New Zealand review and the global study can be considered indicative at best, as there is a degree of subjectivity involved in allocating conditions to a category. The greatest changes required, as part of the certification process, were to the protection of rare, threatened and endangered species, the maintenance of stakeholder consultation and incorporation social and environmental impact assessments into planning, the use of chemicals for pest management, and management planning. Requirements for change and implemented improvements have been expressed both as systems changes and changes to operational practices. The changes highlighted at the certification stage should not be considered the total quantum or focus of change that the certification process has influenced. In most cases, prior to certification, FMOs have undertaken preparation and further development of systems to maximise chances of achieving certification. Some have undergone pre-certification assessments to highlight major deficiencies, which needed to be addressed prior to the certification assessment. These changes to systems and practices undertaken prior to certification have not been captured in this study. The concept of continual improvement is also an important component of FSC certification. FMOs are required to continually monitor and review impacts of operations and implement changes to practices over time in response to monitoring data. Implemented appropriately, continual improvement will have an ongoing influence in improving the sustainability of forest management.

12 References Cashaw, B., Gale, F., Meidinger, E. and Newsom, D., Confronting Sustanability: Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Countries. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Newsom, D. and Hewitt, D., The Global Impacts of SmartWood Certification. The Forest Stewardship Council 2006, The Forest Stewardship Council, Bonn, Germany, viewed 20 January

13