Results from stakeholder consultation - Main issues (See table 1)

Transcription

1 Results from stakeholder consultation - Main issues (See table 1) 1.1. Intent of framework 1.2. HCV categories 1.3. Use of thresholds for implementing the HCV framework Tools not rules approach 1.4. Burden on stakeholders for decision making 1.5. Stakeholder consultation 1.6. Recognition of AFS 1.7. Regulatory framework as basis for implementing the HCV framework 1.8. SLIMF requirements 1.9. Dispute resolution HCV1 definition HCV2 definition HCV3 definition HCV4 definition Definition of levels that reflect the steps for implementation of the framework: a) identification of HCVs b) identification of treats to HCVs c) definition of management measures to protect HCVs. Table 1: Main aspects from stakeholder consultation Number of submissions: 29 chamber: 6 chamber:10 chamber: 13

2 Comment Chamber Normative/ Guidance reference Intent and scope of the HCV framework: Expansion of approach of HCV requirements for Controlled Wood to a full certification process according to P9. Request for clarification on the treatment of HCV for FSC Controlled Wood and for the upcoming draft FSC National Standard. Clarification on the different objectives of FSC P&C and FSC Controlled Wood has been included in FSC-ADV Response There is a general confusion regarding the scope of the framework and cross references to other FSC Principles and requirements which are not in the scope of the Controlled Wood standards. Proposal: To restrict the scope of the framework to the application of Annex 3 of FSC-STD and FSC-STD with the acknowledgement that the elements provided in the framework should be considered as a basis for developing indicators for P9 in a national standard context. The national standard setting process should be independent to add credibility and evaluate interrelations with other FSC Principles Use of nationally adapted HCV categories Concerns for deviation from international definition Proposal to use HCV terminology rather than HCVF Use of new categories adds complexity for evaluation purposes. Support of HCV1 and HCV3 amalgamated as used by WWF. The six HCV categories or attributes have been incorporated in the current draft of the P&C review within P9. Furthermore, this has been upgraded to a criterion level. In the past, there was no official designation by FSC regarding the number of attributes. Four attributes were referenced in different FSC standards such as FSC-STD The six categories have been maintained. Furthermore, additional interpretation for each category in the Australian context has been added. The ProForest toolkit has always used the six categories. Use of thresholds for implementing Guidance for the definition of

3 the HCV framework Tools not rules approach Need to incorporate a prescriptive approach for assessment Need to incorporate thresholds to define what is in practice considered a HCV Support of the current approach. HCVs and proposal of thresholds have been included in ProForest HCV Toolkit Number 2: Defining High Conservation Values at a national level: a practical guide Conflicting views on support of the tools not rules approach. chamber and a great portion of the economic chamber request a prescriptive approach. chamber comments partially supportive of the current approach. Some stakeholders would like to see a clear definition of what should be considered a HCV in the Australian context. The next draft will incorporate the values that are considered under each HCV class. Need to incorporate a set of normative criteria for evaluation by certifiers. Need to move towards a more operational identification of the areas where HCVs are likely to be incompatible with timber harvesting, those where HCVs can be accommodated through management. Include appropriate tools and examples of application for each HCV. Burden on stakeholders for decision making The issue is linked to the comments raised above. Concern that high work burden on stakeholders could be placed if Same comment as above Stakeholder consultation is a critical aspect for the identification and management of HCVs. A science based approach with resources appropriate to different stakeholder groups should be put in place to ensure informed participation and involvement. The next draft will include a catalogue of resources.

4 appropriate mechanisms are not used for involvement and participation. Support of strong recognition of stakeholders rights in the framework. Concern that current approach puts all decisions on stakeholders. Conflicts between final decision making by certifiers when stakeholders do not agree on the used tools. Decision making tools to identify HCVs are missing; Consultation with stakeholders is not enough. Tools not rules approach seems to place excessive weight to stakeholder views and not enough weight to sound science in deciding whether a forest is of HCV. Stakeholder consultation General comment: Stakeholder involvement in the development of the framework and national standard and engagement around implementation at the FMU level should be treated differently as they are different processes. ISEAL: Stakeholder consultation practices in Standards Development RO44-Version 1 Controlled Wood Accreditation standards for certification bodies: Development of the HCV framework: Definition of affected vs. interested parties has different implications for both, the national standard setting process and for a certification process at the FMU level. Both processes should be addressed independently. Decision making process by FSC Australia, including rules of engagement of stakeholders would need to be clarified in the

5 For the HCVF framework development Clarification on the decision making process during the development of the HCV framework. Is there any threshold to consider wide acceptance? What weightings were given to different parties? How conflictive submissions were resolved? Clarify whether the CWRAT team or the FSC Board has the authority to use their expertise to disregard arguments which were in their opinion not reasonable or relevant next draft of the HCV framework. Controlled Wood implementation: The responsibility of the purchaser on stakeholder consultation is a big step forward to improving buyer supplier s relationships. Furthermore, buyers responsibility in identifying timber origin and assessing their timber supplies has been specified in the US Lacey Act and the new European legislation against illegal logging. Guidance on Stakeholder consultation for FM operations and buyers shall need to be developed to support the HCV framework implementation. Reference to the ISEAL code of good practice to address the need to provide clear terms of reference, available to all stakeholders, which define the roles and rules of engagement during the HCV framework development. In the context of implementation of Annex 3 of FSC-STD Need definition of substantial stakeholder acceptance Need to provide guidance on what constitutes a reasonable level of stakeholder consultation and feedback utilization CW purchaser has limited capacity to

6 address stakeholder views about the forest management systems implemented by particular forest growers. Development of guidance document to assist forest managers on stakeholder consultation Guidance for certifiers on the nature and extent of stakeholder engagement and substantial stakeholder acceptance In relation to HCV 4, conflicting views on support of the differentiation between affected and interested parties Perception that the opinion of certain stakeholders and certain chambers (particularly the environmental chamber) is currently given more weight that other stakeholders views which needs to be recognized and rectified. Recognition of AFS Request immediate recognition to AFS and other internationally endorsed certification schemes as CW sources and formally engage with these schemes in negotiations to consider full mutual recognition. Report: Review of PEFC adequacy in delivering ACE commitments Final report by ProForest FSC encourages other certification schemes to raise their standards as high as the FSC standards. However, several reports and comparisons of other standards all around the world have demonstrated that FSC standards are the highest and therefore a mutual recognition process is not possible. See results regarding a comparison between the AFS standard and the FSC CW standard below. (taken from ProForest

7 There are existing comprehensive science-based consultative processes and legislative requirements in place in Australia for defining and meeting the CW criteria, and in particular the HCV criteria, such as the AFS. report) Tetra Pak is part of the Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE) which also includes Elopak, Combibloc. ACE members have signed a commitment to ensure sources of wood fibre used in the production of liquid packaging board (LPB) come from legal and acceptable sources. These include certified sources or controlled sources. Controlled sources are further defined as excluding: Illegally harvested wood; Wood harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights; Wood harvested in forests in which high conservation values are threatened; Wood harvested from areas being converted from forests to non-forest uses; Wood from areas where genetically-modified trees are planted. Tetra Pak asked ProForest to carry out an analysis of whether or not PEFC-certified fibre will reliably deliver these safeguards. The first two PEFC national schemes under review were SFI and AFS. This analysis was completed in March 2009 which found that the AFS and SFI did not deliver these safeguards. The Australian Forestry Standard AS addresses the three HCVs related to biodiversity. However, the standard requires that the assessment of biological diversity and forest planning instruments are undertaken in a regional context, rather than on forest management unit (FMU) level. This requirement is not sufficient to protect biodiversity and may lead to conversion. The other three HCVs on social aspects are not adequately addressed. And there is no requirement to consult stakeholders to in relation to precautionary measures to maintain or

8 enhance HCVs. Current legislation programmes and tools also are not sufficient to ensure that there is a strong system of protection. Management related to high conservation value forests is regulated at a commonwealth level under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Though the EPBC Act is apparently comprehensive, it does not apply where regional forest agreements have been signed under the Regional Forest Agreement Act 2002 (RFA). Many stakeholders considered RFA process to not be balanced or rigorous enough to effectively address management of high conservation value forests. Particular concern was raised about how effectively issues of rare, threatened or endangered species had been addressed under RFAs. Regulatory framework and protected areas system as basis for implementing the HCV framework The framework does not adequately recognize the significant extent of legislative and regulatory protection afforded HCV attributes in forest regions in Australia Current regulatory framework and reserve system is sufficient to protect forests with exceptional values FSC Australia Risk Assessment matrix According to the requirements of Annex 2 of the Controlled Wood standard, the issue of whether legislation and protected areas system are enough to protect HCVs has already been addressed through the development and approval of the Risk Assessment matrix by FSC Australia. The process was overseen by FSC International and the stakeholder consultation process resulted in the following conclusions: Requirement from the standard: 3.2 A strong system of protection (effective protected areas and legislation) is in place that ensures survival of the HCVs in the ecoregion HCV in production forests should not be under threat in lieu of HCV already protected in the Protected Areas Network FSC International advice is that national or state legislative controls can be accepted if: a) A (national) legal system of protection is in place (and this is widely accepted by stakeholders as providing adequate protection)

9 b) The effectiveness of law enforcement in the country can be demonstrated through a high rating ( 75%) in the World Bank rule of law index ( Conclusion: Current legislation, programs and tools such as the Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system based on the JANIS criteria and the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) have not passed the test of wide stakeholder acceptance as 'strong system of protection'. Evidence still exists that HCV are still being impacted across Australia. Therefore, risk remains unspecified at the Annex 2 level. In relation to the identification of HCVs at the FMU level, which is the purpose of this framework, it is recognized that current legislative framework and resources under the Protected Areas Network can be used as effective tools for the identification of HCVs at the FMU level. However, activities to manage and protect these values shall have to be implemented at the FMU irrespective of whether those values are being protected in the Protected Areas Network. See below advice from the FSC Principles and Criteria technical working group on this issue: When a national or local authority implements strategies for maintaining/enhancing HCVs in the FMU based on national or local laws that equal or exceed FSC requirements, the organization is not required to duplicate efforts Maintenance/enhancement shall occur in the FMU irrespective of whether the HCV is already protected

10 somewhere else Intent and scope of the HCV framework: Expansion of approach of HCV requirements for Controlled Wood to a full certification process according to FSC Principle 9. Request for clarification on the treatment of HCV for FSC Controlled Wood and for the upcoming draft FSC National Standard. Clarification on the different objectives of FSC P&C and FSC Controlled Wood has been included in FSC-ADV There is a general confusion regarding the scope of the framework and cross references to other FSC Principles and requirements which are not in the scope of the Controlled Wood standards. Proposal: To restrict the scope of the framework to the application of Annex 3 of FSC-STD and FSC-STD with the acknowledgement that the elements provided in the framework should be considered as a basis for developing indicators for P9 in a national standard context. (See sections 2 and 8 above) The national standard setting process should be independent to add credibility and evaluate interrelations with other FSC Principles SLIMF requirements Agree with the general framework approach that allows for a scaled assessment process CWRAT consideration that SLIMF are not burdened with the same requirements would, in effect lead to the development of two separate standards References: FSC-STD FSC-STD SLIMF FM operations that apply for a FM Controlled Wood certificate: Specific requirements for SLIMF FM operations that wish to implement the Controlled Wood standards for Forest Managers have been defined by FSC International in FSC- STD Requirements pertaining HCVs applicable to SLIMFs are the following: Agree with the notion that SLIMFs should not require the same level of effort as for larger forest owners. However, it is important that the 5.1. Forest management activities in the FMU shall not threaten high conservation values in accordance with section 5.2 below.

11 current size threshold for SLIMFs which is being applied in Australia, is not exceeded. HCV should be protected irrespective of the size of the operation. Reduction of standards for SLIMF is not supported 5.2. High conservation values in the FMU shall be identified and precautionary measures taken by the Forest Management Enterprise to eliminate potential negative impacts to high conservation values present. Please note that the main difference with requirements for other types of operations is related to stakeholder consultation requirements. It is important to clarify that the SLIMF threshold (size) is the one developed by FSC Australia and approved by FSC International. Controlled Wood Buyers supplying from SLIMF FM operations: Buyers supplying from SLIMF operations shall implement the requirements of Annex 3 of FSC-STD The standard allows for a lower sampling intensity when implementing field verification of SLIMF suppliers at the FMU level but keeps the level of requirements as equal as non SLIMF operations including stakeholder consultation for the identification of HCVs. Application of the HCV Framework to SLIMFs: FSC Australia has defined a size threshold of 1000 hectares as the size criteria for SLIMF operations in Australia. The condition is that the applicant for certification needs to submit a forest management plan to FSC Australia in order to demonstrate low risk regarding threats to HCVs.

12 Dispute resolution The process by which the interpretation of the certification body can be tested must be clearly documented, independent, fair and equitable for all parties; a detailed description of the conflict resolution process should form part of the framework. International standards shall not be subject to interpretation by certification bodies as they constitute a set of rules. Conflict resolution regarding a certification process is addressed by the certifier and in a final instance by FSC International. If FSC Australia set up an arbitration board to deal with disputes relating to the application of HCV this needs to be supported by FSC International Policy. At present there is no basis in the standards to support such a proposition HCV1 Definition This class extends the threshold beyond concentrations of biodiversity values at a globally, nationally or regionally significant level to any listed species to trigger an assessment. The introduction of the IBRA bioregional level is a significant lowering of thresholds. ProForest HCV Toolkit Number 2: Defining High Conservation Values at a national level: a practical guide The intent of this class is to promote the conservation of concentrations or exceptionally important values, which require extra precautions. The issue has been addressed by the P&C review technical working group. The next draft of the HCV Framework will include a database of HVC values and tools to enable a relative evaluation of those values within the bioregion. I All native forests in Australia may be captured by the definition as they all

13 contain listed species, and there is no basis on which high significance can be ascertained Required definition of forest areas There are a number of implied concepts in the language used to define the class. For example, species/ecosystems that are depleted or poorly reserved meet the test for high significance. Proposal to include specific values to the class. Example: centres of species endemism The type of approach leaves almost everything up to the certifier and the stakeholder process what is the status of conservation values that might fit under the criteria? HCV2 definition Proposal to extend the criteria specified for this class The threshold has been lowered by reference to bioregional level On the basis of the CW standard HCVF definition large should be at least ha (not ha) and a minimal width of 10 kms. The definition of intact forest landscape defined in FSC-STD is related to the risk assessment process (Annex 2) considering the ecoregion as the assessment unit. It does not necessarily reflect the intent of this HCV class for the purpose of annex 3 implementation. Definition in FSC-STD : Intact Forest Landscape. An intact forest landscape is a territory within the forest zone, which contains minimally disturbed by human economic activity forest and non-forest ecosystems with an area of at least 500 sq. km and with a

14 The inclusion of mosaics and refugia less than ha is inconsistent with the focus on large forest landscapes, and the intent seems to be adequately dealt with under HCV1. The reference to remnant vegetation is also confusing in the context of this value. minimal width (diameter of the inscribed circle) of 10 km FSC Australia has defined the assessment unit as the bioregion through the development of the FSC Australia Risk assessment matrix. The threshold to define large forests should be variable at a bioregional level. HCV 3 Definition Definition of critical situations: Critical situations need to be well defined. They should be specific to the maintaining of human health and availability of basic resources. Definition of critical situations will be provided in the next draft Proposed use of the definition provided by Pro Forest: Critical situation: Would entail a breakdown in these services that would have a catastrophic or cumulative impact Important to limit the role a forest plays in performing a function or providing an output and the circumstances when that role is critical Carbon: Not clear how the CB would evaluate

15 no loss of carbon across estate as a whole HCV4 Distinction between affected and interested parties when identifying HCVs. The intent to include interested parties into this criterion goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation of basic needs in an Australian context where needs are well catered for by national, state and local landuse planning. Concerns that decisions about forest management sometimes place the views of interested stakeholders above the needs of affected stakeholders who live in or near the forest and depend on the forest for their jobs, community life and sense of self-worth Not considered appropriate that recreation, hunting, amenity and aesthetics are defined as fundamental needs. Of the main values identified by the CWRAT for HCV4 (water, food, shelter and income), water is probably the only value that could be Considerations for affected and interested parties will be included in the HCV framework for this category

16 considered fundamental to basic needs, and this is already captured in HCV3. Support to the application of the concept of interested and affected parties. Affected parties and interested parties should be defined by the basic need s level of impact not geographic proximity. Definition of levels that reflect the requirements for implementation of the framework HCV1 Level 1 how would a forest manager/auditor know if there is a low likelihood of HCVs being threatened by management activities, before they have evaluated the presence of HCV? General ProForest HCV Toolkit Number 2: Defining High Conservation Values at a national level: a practical guide Annex 3 of the CW standard requires companies to implement the following actions at the FMU level regarding HCVs: 1. Identification of HCVs that are present in the FMU 2. Identification of threats to existing HCVs 3. Identification of management measures for HCVs Current proposed levels are basically focused on tools to make management changes when HCVs exist in the FMU. However, tools to support the identification of HCVs in the FMU are absent. They will be incorporated in the next draft. Submissions from Wilderness society and other NGOs propose the criteria for such values within each HCV category. For example:

17 HCV1: centres of species endemism HCV2: undisturbed mature forests Therefore, the recommendation is to include levels of assessment according to each of the 3 steps required in Controlled Wood for HCVs and list of resources if available. For example: Resources for identification of HCVs: HCV1: National Action Plan for Australian Birds, Schedules of Threatened Species listed on State Schedules Expert/stakeholder elicitation methods should be relevant through the 3 steps in the process.