- Principles and Criteria
- Requirements & Guidance
- Types of Certification
- 3 Steps to Certification
- Setting Standards
- National Forest Stewardship Standards
- Current Consultations
- Pilot & Field Testing
This section gives you access to current standard interpretations separated by topics and related normative documents.
FSC-POL-20-003 Policy on Excision
Where ‘highly hazardous’ pesticides (HHPs) are used, either by certificate holder (CH) or a 3rd party, in order to comply with national laws,
a) Must the CH apply for a derogation (even if applied by legal authorities)?
b) Can the CH excise the area (e.g. workers’ camps, waterbodies) from the scope if it is a legal obligation (e.g. outside the control of the forest manager)?
c) In this scenario, is this a conflict between national laws and FSC rules as per Criterion 1.4, and if so, what should happen next?
|Published||Friday, 24. April 2015|
a) The use of a HHP to comply with national laws (eg. worker health protection) requires the submission of a derogation application, unless a public authority has ordered the use of that specific HHP or is directly applying it. In that case at a first stage the CH only needs to notify it according to the FSC-PRO-01-004 (V2-2) (revised with the code FSC-PRO-30-001). Later the Pesticides Committee might request the submission of a standard derogation application.
b) The applicability of FSC-POL-20-003 (Policy on the excision of areas from the scope of certification) has to be evaluated by the certification body (CB) on a case by case basis.
c) FSC has developed a special rule in the Pesticides Procedure that is applicable for such situation (see FSC-PRO-01-004 Section 8). The use of HHPs mandated or carried out by public authorities will be further clarified in the revised version (FSC-PRO-30-001).
A certified forest owner wants to start a quarry in an area covered by natural forest included in the scope of their certificate. The land area for the quarry remains in the ownership of the certified landowner and there is an agreement between the landowner and the quarry company saying that the company has right to start and operate the quarry. This kind of conversion is not permitted in the national FM-standard, indicators for 6.10. Is this kind of forest conversion/excision permitted at all according FSC-POL-20-003?
|Published||Tuesday, 21. April 2015|
No, as the forest owner retains control of the activities on the land through the agreement, this kind of conversion is not permitted, unless the requirements in criterion 6.10 of Principles and Criteria V4-0 are met.
Note: Read also FSC-POL-20-003 Clause 2.2.c, the interpretation of this clause published on the 13th March 2014 and FSC-STD-30-010 FSC Controlled Wood Standard for forest management enterprises.
Shall ‘controversial sources’ as referenced in FSC-POL-20-003 The excision of areas from the scope of certification be interpreted as unacceptable sources according to controlled wood requirements?
|Normative Reference||FSC-POL-20-003 (2004)|
|Requirement(s)||Clause 2.2 c|
|Published||Tuesday, 13. May 2014|
Yes, the ‘controversial sources’ referenced in the FSC-POL-20-003 (the Policy) shall be interpreted as unacceptable sources according to controlled wood requirements.
The certification body shall verify the management of the excised area according to requirements for controlled wood categories applicable at the Forest Management Unit level. Thus, the certification body shall perform verification as required by the Policy using relevant requirements of the standards FSC-STD-30-010 and FSC-STD-20-012.
A company has an agreement with the University to perform forestry research on specified sites of the company’s FMU.
The company wants to excise these areas as there is a loss of control of the forest management practices that may not meet the FSC FM requirements due to the research activities.
During the stakeholder consultation to prepare the excision, a complaint from an indigenous community was raised: one of the research areas is part of their winter grazing areas, and research activities are likely to impact them negatively. Is it possible to excise such area if a stakeholder still disagrees?
If not, what could be the solution to continue meeting the FSC FM requirements and, if possible, continue also their research partnership with the University?
|Requirement(s)||Clauses 2.1, 2.2.|
|Published||Tuesday, 10. April 2012|
No, it´s not possible to excise the area where there is a conflict. According to FSC-POL-20-003, if management of the excised area remains in the control of the owners or managers of the remaining FMU, it shall be verified that there is no violation of traditional or civil rights. In addition to this, High Conservation Values shall be maintained, what includes forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities and/or critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity.
Areas where the University develops its research and there is no conflict with local communities can be excised as long as they comply with Policy on Excision. It must also be reminded that the excised area shall be a very limited portion ofthe FMU, and that a long term commitment to adhere to FSC P&C shall be demonstrated.
As for the area where there is this conflict/complaint, a solution would be to keep it within the FSC-certified area of the FMU and rescind the contract withthe University for this area. Compliance with FSC P&C shall be demonstrated.