FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forest Stewardship Council claims was a specific issue that was sometimes required to be addressed in these conditions. (...)” 188 The observation that operations undergoing FSC certification in less developed countries require more social improvements than those in more developed countries (Ros-Tonen 2004) 189 is supported by the Newsom & Hewitt study. 95 % of operations certified in the less developed countries were required to improve upon their communication and conflict resolution with stakeholders, neighbors and communities, versus 56% of forestry operations in more developed countries. This difference may be attributable to a higher awareness of individual “rights” in more developed countries, and the presence of more laws outlining how landowners’ actions can affect their neighbors.” 190 Protecting indigenous rights in the Republic of Congo: a review of progress John Nelson (2006) 191 summarizes the results of his assessment on behalf of the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) of the Congolaise Industrielle des Bois (CIB) logging concessions in northern Republic of Congo. The purpose of his visit to CIB was to assess progress against the Criteria set out under FSC Principles 2 & 3 protecting the rights of indigenous communities in logging concessions. A visit in 2004 to examine CIB’s efforts to improve its operations in line with FSC Principles 1-10 led to recommendations to CIB to improve its operations in line with FSC Principles 2 & 3, including establishment of a new social project coupled with a community based mapping process, both specifically targeting indigenous communities, and which CIB directors subsequently agreed to implement. John Nelson found that 188 Newsom, Deanna and Hewitt, Daphne (2005): The Global Impacts of SmartWood Certification. Final Report of the TREES Program for the Rainforest Alliance. http://www.rainforestalliance.org/programs/forestry/perspectives/documents/sw_impacts.pdf (as of June 2008) 189 Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. (2004): Final Report: Congress on Globalisation, Localisation and Tropical Forest Management in the 21st Century. Amsterdam Research Institute for Metropolitan and Int. Development Studies, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 190 Newsom, Deanna and Hewitt, Daphne (2005): The Global Impacts of SmartWood Certification. Final Report of the TREES Program for the Rainforest Alliance. http://www.rainforestalliance.org/programs/forestry/perspectives/documents/sw_impacts.pdf (as of June 2008) 191 Nelson, John (2006): Protecting Indigenous Rights in the Republic of Congo through the Application of FSC Standards in Forest Plans: A review of progress made by Congolaise Industrielle des Bois (CIB) against FSC Principles 2 and 3. Forest Peoples Programme. http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/africa/congo_cib_prog_rev_jan06_eng.pdf (as of August 2008) 98 of 245 ® FSC, A.C. All rights reserved. FSC-SECR-0002
2. Impact in and beyond the forest: 2.3 Social effects “particularly in Kabo concession, CIB is implementing a wide range of far-reaching measures designed to comply with FSC Criteria under Principles 2 & 3. Implementation of these by CIB represents a significant advance in the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights in the Republic of Congo and the region generally, and sets a new high standard for forestry in the Congo Basin.” It is worth noting that, by using innovative methods that take account of very low literacy levels, one of the most marginalized indigenous people in the world, namely the Pygmy hunter-gatherers, have been actively participating in protecting their rights. The following measures have been implemented by CIB, designed to comply with FSC Criteria under Principles 2 & 3: • Establishment of a new social program and the hiring of a skilled manager, who has begun to hire and train indigenous translators and cartographers to help communities map community forest use; • Recognition of indigenous communities’ usage rights throughout the concessions; • Information meetings with indigenous communities to discuss CIB forest plans; • Provision of information to indigenous communities about CIB logging operations; • Mapping with indigenous communities of key sites located within proposed logging areas, such as fields, (…) and hunting and gathering areas generally; • Establishment of protection measures for key sites identified with communities through the mapping process, including, immediately, conservation zones around all sacred sites; • Implementation of procedures to ensure that CIB staff are aware of community conservation zones so that these are not disturbed during logging operations; • Immediate changes to logging operations to take into account community forest use data directly it becomes available; • Support for communities to identify their development priorities, some of which will be funded by CIB through its long-term development fund; • Establishment of formal agreements for development projects between communities and company directors; • Provision of appropriate information and documentation to communities covering the above; • Establishment of clear procedures to enable fair consultations to occur and for conflicts to be resolved with the full participation of the population; 99 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: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
Page 97: 2. Impact in and beyond the forest:
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:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.2 Inf
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
3. Impact on forest policy: 3.3 Gov
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
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 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
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 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
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?