FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council closely linked to the forestry sector, and are therefore reinforcing the status quo of forest management rather than improving it. There is widespread failure to recognize the rights of forest-dependent people to participate in decision-making.” 425 FSC certification more demanding than PEFC In the summary of the discussion on the Role of Governments in timber certification of the FAO/UNECE Timber Committee Policy Forum Marieta Koleva (2005) quoted: “Dr. Bick (Federal Research Center for forestry and Forest Products, BFH, Germany) pointed out some differences in the wording in the principles and criteria of FSC and PEFC, which lead to different obligations for the forest managers from both schemes, and thus make FSC certification more demanding. It might be questionable whether PEFC requirements will be able to comply with the public timber procurement standard.” 426 “Markets Initiative” The “Markets Initiative” is a team based in Canada with the goal to protect the world’s ancient and endangered forests by creating new markets. The Montreal-based management consultants ÉEM Inc. compared for the “Markets Initiative” the three dominating forestry certification schemes acting in Canada: the FSC, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certifications (PEFC), and the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI). The study is based on an analysis of the written standards of those schemes. In October 2007 they published their study, designed to help paper purchasers determine which certification system best suits their environ-mental paper procurement criteria. The “Markets Initiative” summarizes that the FSC is the most effective certification system of those three for achieving sustainable forest management in Canada. “Unlike the other certification systems, namely CSA, SFI and PEFC, FSC is the only one that prohibits the use of genetically modified trees, prevents the conversion of nat- 425 FERN (2004): Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification. FERN, UK. http://www.fern.org/pubs/reports/footprints.pdf (as of June 2008) 426 Koleva, Marieta (2005): Forest certification – do governments have a role? Proceedings and Summary of Discussions at the FAO/UNECE Timber Committee Policy Forum, 2005. Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Paper 44 214 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
4. Beyond FSC: 4.3 Comparing certification systems ural forest to plantations and requires a precautionary approach to the management of areas with high conservation value”. The ÉEM inc. (2007) 427 highlights their conclusions and findings, that in North America “(…) A sustainable forest is most likely to exist under an FSC certification. FSC strengths include the protection of ecologically important forests and the banning of the conversion of natural forests into plantations. A CSA certification can be acceptable but further knowledge of the forest and management practices is required. The CSA standard does not address forest conversion into plantations, or protection of high conservation value areas and wildlife habitat, other than those protected by government. The SFI program is weaker with respect to forest management practices and the lack of independence in the certification process in the past means that it is still struggling with credibility issues. This survey formed the knowledge base of a paper procurement tool for our client. ÉEM Inc. generalized results were as follows: • “The SFI Program is weak with respect to forest management practices and the lack of independence in the certification process in the past means that it has credibility is-sues. Implementation of recent improvements will take time. • A CSA certification can be acceptable, but further knowledge of the forest and management practices is required to assure the environmental performance of the forest is adequately defined and managed. • A PEFC label is unreliable in Canada as it unconditionally endorses both CSA and SFI • The FSC certification is most likely to ensure a sustainable forest.” 428 427 EEM Inc. (2007): Survey of Forestry Certification Schemes in Canada. For The Market Initiative. http://www.eem.ca/index.php/case-studies/survey-of-forestry-certification-schemes-in-canada 428 EEM Inc. (2007): ibid. 215 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:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164: 3. Impact on forest policy: 3.1 FSC
Page 165 and 166: 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: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?