Differences for the Risk Assessment for Controlled wood between version 2.1 and 3.0 of FSC-STD-40-005
The below description is a summary of the diffences for the the Risk Assessment for controlled wood between the two standard versions. In the new version of the standard this risk assessment is named Simplified risk assessment. It may be used under certain circumstances, please check in the standard.
Simplifed risk assessment
See Annex A in the new standard for controlled wood. Clause 3
Controlled wood category 1 – Illegally harvested wood
Additional in ver 3.0
The evaluation of risk for illegal harvesting shall include consideration of at least the following:
– The perceived level of corruption related to forest activities;
– The degree of transparency about information that is likely to reveal or reduce illegal harvesting if made public;
– The degree to which key data and documents relevant to illegal harvesting exist and are of satisfactory quality; and
– Independent reports about illegal harvesting.
Additional for 1.1
The organization shall use the ‘Minimum list of applicable laws, regulations and nationally-ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements’ (Table A) for the identification of logging related laws in the supply area under evaluation.
The organization may use existing national lists from approved FSC National Forest Stewardship Standards and other reputable sources in order to compile the list.
Where the FSC Global Forest Registry contains an FSC approved list of applicable laws for a country, it is mandatory to use this list.
Additional for 1.4
The annually published Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) shall be used. Countries with a score of less than 50 shall be considered unspecified risk, unless there is specific independent and credible information at a lower scale (e.g. implemented independent timber tracking systems) that demonstrates the contrary.
There are some new examples of sources of information in the table.
Table A. Minimum list of applicable laws, regulations and nationally-ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements is new.
Controlled wood category 2 – Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights
Additional for 2.5
The standard does not refer to the ratification of ILO 169 and a risk assessment shall involve an assessment of evidence of violation of ILO requirements, irrespective of whether they have been ratified by the country in which the risk assessment is made.
Controlled wood category 3 – Wood harvested from forest in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities
Additional in ver 3.0
NOTE 1: Threat in the context of this standard means having an uncertain chance of continued survival or presence of HCVs at the ecoregion level. This standard requires the identification of threats to HCVs caused by forest management activities.
NOTE 2: There is no difference in the definition of HCVs and their different categories between the FSC Principles and Criteria (FSC-STD-01-001) and this standard. The difference relates to the objectives of both standards. While the FSC Principles and Criteria require the maintenance and enhancement of HCVs at the management unit level, this standard requires the organization to avoid timber from forests where HCVs are being threatened at the ecoregional level.
3.8 General requirements for risk assessment:
a) HCVs that provide basic services of nature in critical situations and those that are fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities can be considered low risk, if indicators 2.4, and 3.1 and/or 3.2 are met. That is, there are recognizable and equitable processes in place to resolve conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining to traditional rights including use rights, cultural interests or traditional cultural identity in the supply area concerned.
Addition for 3.1
The organization shall first assess whether any HCVs are threatened at the ecoregional level. If there are any HCVs are threatened at the ecoregional level, the organization shall assess how forest management activities relate to these HCVs at the supply area level.
For the risk assessment of this category the identification of ecoregionally significant HCVs is required, which in practical terms implies that locally relevant values are not in the focus of this step of the risk assessment.
Threatened ecoregions can be identified through the supporting information that references, but is not limited to e.g. Biodiversity Hotspots, Global 200 Ecoregion, Frontier Forest, Intact forest landscapes.
Regarding Intact Forest Landscape, firefighting or fire prevention for the protection of public safety is not considered an economic activity of minimal disturbance. Fire control in the context of forest management activities is not considered to be an economic activity of minimal disturbance.
Low risk for this indicator may be demonstrated as follows:
a) Material does not originate from any of the mapped areas of HCVs (as listed in 3.1), or
b) There are no ecoregionally significant HCVs in the supply area according to independent verifiable information at the supply area/supply unit level (NGO reports, environmental impact assessments, etc.).
Additional for 3.2
Low risk for this indicator shall be demonstrated as follows:
a) A strong system of protection of HCVs is in place. The definition of strong shall be based on the effectiveness of law enforcement in the country. This can be demonstrated through a high rating (≥ 75%) in the World Bank ‘rule of law’ index (www.govindicators.org), and
b) Significant support by relevant national/regional stakeholders from the assessed supply area, or
c) The forest manager has agreed to an approach of HCV protection at the supply unit level with national/regional environmental stakeholders relevant for the assessed supply area.
c) Indicator 3.2 cannot be met if there is substantial objection from relevant national or regional stakeholders against a low risk designation for the HCV category.