FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council cies. China ( 318 ) has integrated FSC sustainable forest management standards in its National Forest Strategy. The governments of Denmark ( 319 ), Japan ( 320 ) and New Zealand ( 321 ) accept FSC certification as proof of legality and sustainability for timber in their public procurement policy. (…) Two further governments studied, Bolivia and Guatemala, also have a direct user relationship with a voluntary standard. However, the standard is not named. (…) Cities and municipalities also work with voluntary standards. “Cities for Forests”, a campaign by WWF Spain ( 322 ) includes Barcelona and 40 other local administrations that have committed themselves to buy FSC certified products. As part of its strategy to magnify this campaign beyond its own territory, Barcelona recently twinned with the municipality of Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Bolivia to facilitate technical support to help Santa Cruz implement new legislation approved in July 2007 establishing a responsible purchasing policy for forest products.” (Carey & Guttenstein 2008) 323 . Carey & Guttenstein revealed that “governmental use of voluntary standards is characterized by diversity. Governments are successfully engaging with a range of standards in countries of different stages of economic development, under different policy environments, and for different motivations.” (…)“ there is extensive interaction between voluntary standards and public bodies. Bolivia’s New Forest Law 1700 requires forest concession holders to undergo an audit of their operations every five years and recognizes third-party sustainable forest management certification as equivalent to government audits. (See more in Carey 2008/1: Case study 2 on Bolivia). The Guatemalan National Council for Protected Areas (CONAP) forest concession contracts stipulate that concession holders must obtain forest management certification within 318 www.unece.org/press/pr2006/06tim_n01e.htm 319 www.2.skovognatur.dk/udgivelser/2003/tropical/ 320 www.env.go.jp/en/ 321 www.fao.org/forestry/media/11153/1/0/ 322 Global Forest and Trade Network http://www.illegallogging.ifo/uploads/WWF_Spain_Seminar_Conclusions_(Englis).pdf (as of July 2008) 323 Carey, Christine (2008): ibid. 162 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC’s governance is unique the first three years from being awarded the concession, and maintain it for the duration of the concession contract. In both these case studies the FSC is de facto the only voluntary standards system used because it is the only one available meeting the specifications both governments have written in law.”(See more in Carey 2008/2: Case study 4 on Guatemala). Carey & Guttenstein (2008) showed examples for governments’ drivers to apply FSC: “International Recognition & Credibility: When the Bolivian New Forest Law 1700 was adopted in 1996, the FSC was the only voluntary forestry standards system that met the law’s requirement for independent third party verification of the operations of forest concessions holders. As the government has been working to develop implementation guidelines for its own auditing scheme, FSC became the de facto standard used and continues to be the only forest certification system used in Bolivia today, allowing the law to be implemented despite the government audit scheme not yet being finalized. Reputational risk management: CONAP, the Guatemalan National Council on Protected Areas, adopted the FSC amongst its requirements from forest concession areas in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in order to clearly communicate that if it was going to allow harvesting from a protected area, harvesting would be verified as sustainable, and the benefits equitably distributed. FSC certification, developed through consensus between economic, social and environmental stakeholders, was for CONAP a way to guarantee and communicate this.” “(…) most governments interviewed use a range of implementation mechanisms, often a combination of fiscal and non-fiscal ones. The choice is varied. [e.g. Requirements as conditions of access to forest concessions in the case of Guatemala, and tax relief on stumpage fees in the case of Bolivia – the editor, according to table 4 of the authors.] This variation is likely to be a reflection of the particular national approaches to policy implementation inherent to each country (e.g. more liberal or interventionist) than any particular constraint or requirement within voluntary standards systems.” 324 Carey & Guttenstein (2008) describe the outcomes when governments engage with voluntary standards: “Governments typically engage with a voluntary standard where they can see it provides a way to deliver their intended public policy objective. All the governments inter-viewed reported positive outcomes from their use of voluntary standards. 324 Carey, Christine (2008): ibid. 163 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
Page 1 and 2:
Forest FSC’s Stewardship vision a
Page 3 and 4:
FSC’s vision and mission FSC’S
Page 5 and 6:
FSC’s vision and mission 2.3 Envi
Page 7 and 8:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.1 Why FSC 1.
Page 9 and 10:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.2 FSC in figu
Page 11 and 12:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.3 FSC’s sco
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
1. Introducing FSC: 1.4 Measuring F
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 157 and 158: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC
Page 161: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC
Page 167 and 168: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.2 Inf
Page 177 and 178: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Gov
Page 185 and 186: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.4 Dev
Page 187 and 188: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.5 Cor
Page 195 and 196: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.1 Certification of
Page 197 and 198: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.1 Certification of
Page 199 and 200: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.2 Combating the il
Page 201 and 202: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.2 Combating the il
Page 203 and 204: 4. Beyond FSC: 4.3 Comparing certif
Page 213 and 214:
4. Beyond FSC: 4.3 Comparing certif
Page 215 and 216:
4. Beyond FSC: 4.3 Comparing certif
Page 217 and 218:
5. Conclusion FSC arguing that with
Page 219 and 220:
5. Conclusion (Poschen 2003). In ge
Page 221 and 222:
References REFERENCES Arboleda, Mar
Page 223 and 224:
References Errol Meidinger, and Dea
Page 225 and 226:
References FSC (2000): FSC Principl
Page 227 and 228:
References Corrêa Alves, Rodrigo F
Page 229 and 230:
References the Convention on Biolog
Page 231 and 232:
References PricewaterhouseCoopers (
Page 233 and 234:
References Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. (
Page 235 and 236:
References Turtica, Marius (2006):
Page 237 and 238:
References Yuan, Yuan & Eastin, Iva
Page 239 and 240:
Annex I: 5 Develop an ongoing dialo
Page 241 and 242:
Annex II:Annex I: opment Facility 4
Page 243 and 244:
Abbreviations and definitionsAnnex
show all

FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?