Synopsis stakeholder consultations - BE, DK, IE, VN
Synopsis of Stakeholder Consultations:
FSC Centralized National Risk Assessments
2016 - 2017
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
Consultation Details .................................................................................................. 3
Analysis of stakeholder comments ............................................................................ 4
Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood ........................................... 4
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 4
Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human
rights ..................................................................................................................... 5
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 5
Viet Nam ........................................................................................................... 5
Controlled wood category 3: Wood harvested from forests in which high
conservation values are threatened by management activities .............................. 6
Belgium ............................................................................................................. 6
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 6
Ireland ............................................................................................................... 7
Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or
non-forest use ....................................................................................................... 8
Belgium ............................................................................................................. 8
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 8
Ireland ............................................................................................................... 8
Viet Nam ........................................................................................................... 9
Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees
are planted .......................................................................................................... 10
Denmark .......................................................................................................... 10
Viet Nam ......................................................................................................... 10
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 2 of 10 –
Introduction
During 2014-2016, the FSC Centralized National Risk Assessment (CNRA) was
conducted for controlled wood categories 1 (Illegally harvested wood), 2 (Wood
harvested in violation of traditional and human rights), 3 (Wood harvested from forests
in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities), 4 (Wood
from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use) and 5 (Wood from forests
in which genetically modified trees are planted). For the following 4 countries,
assessments for some of these categories have been consulted and are now ready
for approval:
Belgium (cat. 3, 4)
Denmark (cat. 1, 3, 4, 5)
Denmark (cat. 2)
Ireland (cat. 3, 4)
Viet Nam (cat. 2, 4)
Viet Nam (cat. 5)
Consulted Aug-Oct 2016
Consulted in May 2016
Consulted in March 2017
Consulted in March 2017
Consulted in May 2016
Consulted in March 2017
The assessments followed the process steps and requirements for FSC risk
assessments, as outlined in FSC-PRO-60-002a FSC National Risk Assessment
Framework. Those for controlled wood categories 1, 3, 4 and 5 were conducted by
NEPCon except for Belgium and Ireland which were conducted by FSC, and those for
controlled wood category 2 were conducted by Wolfgang Richert and Leo van der Vlist.
This report provides an overview of the results of the public consultation conducted by
FSC International on these risk assessments. It includes the details of the consultation,
and summaries of the stakeholders that responded and the feedback they provided,
and how the feedback was addressed. This information is organized broadly by FSC
controlled wood category, and then by country.
Consultation Details
As stated above, the risk assessments were published on the FSC International
website in May 2016 / May 2017 for the international consultation (scenario 3
countries) or on the FSC national websites for the national consultations (scenario 2
countries). All drafts were subject to stakeholder consultation for a period of 30 days,
with the exception of the Belgium draft which was consulted during 60 days.
Announcements of the international consultation were sent out via:
Technical news in the FSC newsletter/website
The FSC Network newsletter
Emails sent to mailing lists of certification bodies and the FSC network
The announcement informed stakeholders that the assessments were available and
accessible on the FSC website with information on how to participate in the
consultation.
All comments received were analysed, and were evaluated for relevance and reliability
(on the basis of being well justified and using evidence), and whether they conform to
the requirements of FSC-PRO-60-002a. Analysis of comments, and responses to
them, were formulated by FSC International and the consultants responsible for the
relevant assessment.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 3 of 10 –
Analysis of stakeholder comments
A general comment for risk assessments made for below categories is that control
measures provided in the CNRA are only recommended and will not be mandatory for
organizations to implement.
Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Denmark.
No stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessment for this category.
The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are
specified individually per country.
Denmark
No stakeholder comments received.
Issue of interest:
The risk designation of indicator 1.21 (legal requirements and implementation of due
diligence/due care systems) states that many forester do not have/do not implement
a DDS, though it is a requirement under given circumstances. The final risk
designation is, however, designated as ‘low’. When asked, the consultant stated that
there are two reasons for a finding of low risk despite this fact:
1. It is true for most of Europe that many foresters do not develop/implement
DDS. This would require most European countries already approved to be
reviewed/changed.
2. In Denmark, all the legislation around the DDS (the things the DDS is
controlling) is well-enforced. This means that not having a DDS in Denmark
has a low risk of resulting in a negative impact on forest management.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 4 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of
traditional and human rights
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Denmark,
Viet Nam. No stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for this
category.
Denmark
No stakeholder comments received.
Issue of interest:
The risk designation of indicator 2.2 (labor rights are upheld including rights as
specified in ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work) was designated as
‘specified’ for gender wage discrimination by the consultant. The consultant based the
finding of ‘specified risk’ in reliable but general sources. PSU received a formal request
from FSC Denmark to change the designation to ‘low risk’, based on the following:
1. The central authority on Danish statistics does not support the ‘specified risk’
conclusion. There are no wage statistics specific to the forest sector, but the
lumped data available show that women’s wages are higher than men’s.
2. The ‘specified risk’ conclusion is not supported by the Danish national center
for social research (SFI). SFI calculated the size of the unexplained wage gap
for every year in the period 1997-2011, and the result greatly differs from the
25 pct. mentioned in the ILO Global Wage Report 2014/15 (source used by the
consultant). SFI’s analysis found that the difference in salary was 13-17 pct. in
2011, while the unexplained salary difference was 4-7 pct.
3. In Denmark the labor participation rate for women is 75 pct (4th highest in the
world) and there is a legal requirement for equal pay.
4. A ‘specified risk’ conclusion will give the impression that FSC has no
understanding of reality and it will distance FSC from key stakeholders in
Denmark.
Based on this arguments, the risk designation was changed to ‘low’ and the
assessment was modified accordingly.
Viet Nam
No stakeholder comments received.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 5 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 3: Wood harvested from forests in
which high conservation values are threatened by
management activities
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Belgium,
Denmark, Ireland. Stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for the
following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland.
The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are
specified individually per country.
Belgium
Stakeholder composition
See evaluation report (national consultation)
General comments:
Stakeholder consultation was done on an assessment changed by FSC Belgium and
not approved for consultation by PSU.
Analysis:
The consultant rewrote the entire assessment taking into account the comments from
PSU, FSC Belgium and the stakeholders. ‘Low risk’ was concluded by the consultant
for all indicators based on the available evidence.
Denmark
Stakeholder composition
1 Economic North member
General comments:
Comments from the stakeholder disagreed with the ‘specified risk’ finding of indicators
3.1 and 3.3. Comments were made pointing out the perceived contradiction between
Category 1, wherein it was determined that Denmark’s legislation was well enforced
and constituted a low risk, and these indicators wherein the implementation of certain
legislation (such as Natura 2000) was called into question, resulting in specified risk to
HCV 1 and HCV 3 for privately owned forests without a green management plan.
It was stated that Danish law is rigorously enforced for all legislation, including the
legislation ensuring protection of HCVs, regardless of forest ownership. No additional
sources were provided.
Analysis:
The consultant did not change their evaluation in response to the stakeholder
comments. It was determined that these were not contradictions, as these indicators
are not about legislation compliance, but threats to HCVs which happen to have
legislation about them. Furthermore, the consultants identified an information gap in
the legislation that, even while being enforced, leaves the protection of HCVs 1 and 3
at risk. Furthermore, the risk designation that is identified for these indicators is
specified to a specific group of forest owners lacking a particular management element
(green management plan).
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 6 of 10 –
Ireland
Stakeholder composition
FSC UK
General comments:
No comments from the stakeholder disagreed with the “low risk” finding of indicators
3.0 to 3.6. Comments were made expressing general agreement and similarities with
UK National HCV Framework. Some comments were made pointing out minor editorial
and style mistakes (e.g., incomplete references, repeated information), and the need
to add general clarifications (e.g., definitions).
Regarding content related comments, for indicator 3.1 a comment was made
recommending caution in the use of reporting on biodiversity trends to determine
whether regulation successfully protects HCV 1. Additionally, for indicator 3.4 the
question was posed whether or not it is relevant to describe in detail a flood risk
assessment system which is not yet in place.
Analysis:
The consultant did not need to change the evaluation in response to the stakeholder
comments. The mentioned editorial and style mistakes were amended where
considered necessary by the consultant and by PSU.
Regarding indicators 3.1 and 3.4, the consultant explained the reasons to include the
mentioned information as part of the assessment. The explanation was considered
adequate by PSU and no changes were made.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 7 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being
converted to plantations or non-forest use
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Belgium,
Denmark, Ireland, Viet Nam. Stakeholders submitted comments on the risk
assessments for the following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland.
The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are
specified individually per country.
Belgium
Stakeholder composition
See evaluation report (national consultation)
General comments:
A comments was made by a CB criticizing the adequacy of two measurement tools
mentioned in the spatial analysis ('Boswijzer', 'Bosbarometer 2012').
Analysis:
The spatial data mentioned in relation to measurements made by both tools is only a
reference. In addition to this, spatial data provided by FAO in its Global Forest
Resources Assessment was analysed to come to a ‘low risk’ conclusion by PSU.
Moreover, the ‘low risk’ designation is supported by FSC Belgium and the Belgian
working group.
Denmark
Stakeholder composition
1 Economic North member
General comments:
The comment from the stakeholder disagreed with the specified risk finding of indicator
4.1. It was stated that if Category 1 is found to be low risk (that is, there is a low risk of
sourcing illegally harvested wood), then assuming laws are well enforced in Denmark,
forests would not be systematically converted to plantations or non-forest uses.
Furthermore, the FAO determined that the forested area of Denmark increased by
1.1% between the years 2000 and 2010.
Analysis:
The consultant concluded that there has been increased forest cover in Demark
between the years 2000 and 2010, and while their sources indicate 28% of the current
forest cover is not safeguarded by Denmark’s Forest Act, it nevertheless did not pose
a significant risk to forests outside the so-called “reserved forests”. Risk designation
was changed to ‘low risk’.
Ireland
Stakeholder composition
FSC UK
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 8 of 10 –
General comments:
The comment from the stakeholder referred to the ‘undesignated risk’ conclusion by
the consultant.
Analysis:
Following an agreement with PSU, ‘undesignated risk’ is given by the consultants
when the assessment based on legislation is not enough to conclude if the spatial
threshold is met. The assessment based on spatial data was done by PSU using data
provided by FAO. The conclusion for indicator 4.1 is ‘low risk’.
Viet Nam
No stakeholder comments received.
Issue of interest:
The assessment based on legislation was not enough to conclude if the spatial
threshold is met. The assessment based on spatial data was done by PSU using data
provided by FAO. The conclusion for indicator 4.1 is ‘low risk’.
According to the assessment made by the consultant, the government of Viet Nam has
stated clearly that its intention is to convert large forest areas to rubber plantations.
However, the assessment shall deal with the current situation and at the time of the
assessment this was not yet an issue. Additionally, the spatial data provided by FAO
in its Global Forest Resources Assessment leads to a ‘low risk’ designation. In the
case that the threshold is exceeded in the future, an urgent revision according to FSCPRO-60-002 V3-0 can be conducted to change the risk designation.
NOTE: Category 4 for Viet Nam was not approved. Further research is needed in the
spatial analysis to see the impact of the government’s approach on conversion.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 9 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which
genetically modified trees are planted
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Denmark,
Viet Nam. No stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for this
category.
Denmark
No stakeholder comments received.
Viet Nam
No stakeholder comments received.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 10 of 10 –
FSC Centralized National Risk Assessments
2016 - 2017
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
Consultation Details .................................................................................................. 3
Analysis of stakeholder comments ............................................................................ 4
Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood ........................................... 4
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 4
Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human
rights ..................................................................................................................... 5
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 5
Viet Nam ........................................................................................................... 5
Controlled wood category 3: Wood harvested from forests in which high
conservation values are threatened by management activities .............................. 6
Belgium ............................................................................................................. 6
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 6
Ireland ............................................................................................................... 7
Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or
non-forest use ....................................................................................................... 8
Belgium ............................................................................................................. 8
Denmark ............................................................................................................ 8
Ireland ............................................................................................................... 8
Viet Nam ........................................................................................................... 9
Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees
are planted .......................................................................................................... 10
Denmark .......................................................................................................... 10
Viet Nam ......................................................................................................... 10
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 2 of 10 –
Introduction
During 2014-2016, the FSC Centralized National Risk Assessment (CNRA) was
conducted for controlled wood categories 1 (Illegally harvested wood), 2 (Wood
harvested in violation of traditional and human rights), 3 (Wood harvested from forests
in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities), 4 (Wood
from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use) and 5 (Wood from forests
in which genetically modified trees are planted). For the following 4 countries,
assessments for some of these categories have been consulted and are now ready
for approval:
Belgium (cat. 3, 4)
Denmark (cat. 1, 3, 4, 5)
Denmark (cat. 2)
Ireland (cat. 3, 4)
Viet Nam (cat. 2, 4)
Viet Nam (cat. 5)
Consulted Aug-Oct 2016
Consulted in May 2016
Consulted in March 2017
Consulted in March 2017
Consulted in May 2016
Consulted in March 2017
The assessments followed the process steps and requirements for FSC risk
assessments, as outlined in FSC-PRO-60-002a FSC National Risk Assessment
Framework. Those for controlled wood categories 1, 3, 4 and 5 were conducted by
NEPCon except for Belgium and Ireland which were conducted by FSC, and those for
controlled wood category 2 were conducted by Wolfgang Richert and Leo van der Vlist.
This report provides an overview of the results of the public consultation conducted by
FSC International on these risk assessments. It includes the details of the consultation,
and summaries of the stakeholders that responded and the feedback they provided,
and how the feedback was addressed. This information is organized broadly by FSC
controlled wood category, and then by country.
Consultation Details
As stated above, the risk assessments were published on the FSC International
website in May 2016 / May 2017 for the international consultation (scenario 3
countries) or on the FSC national websites for the national consultations (scenario 2
countries). All drafts were subject to stakeholder consultation for a period of 30 days,
with the exception of the Belgium draft which was consulted during 60 days.
Announcements of the international consultation were sent out via:
Technical news in the FSC newsletter/website
The FSC Network newsletter
Emails sent to mailing lists of certification bodies and the FSC network
The announcement informed stakeholders that the assessments were available and
accessible on the FSC website with information on how to participate in the
consultation.
All comments received were analysed, and were evaluated for relevance and reliability
(on the basis of being well justified and using evidence), and whether they conform to
the requirements of FSC-PRO-60-002a. Analysis of comments, and responses to
them, were formulated by FSC International and the consultants responsible for the
relevant assessment.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 3 of 10 –
Analysis of stakeholder comments
A general comment for risk assessments made for below categories is that control
measures provided in the CNRA are only recommended and will not be mandatory for
organizations to implement.
Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Denmark.
No stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessment for this category.
The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are
specified individually per country.
Denmark
No stakeholder comments received.
Issue of interest:
The risk designation of indicator 1.21 (legal requirements and implementation of due
diligence/due care systems) states that many forester do not have/do not implement
a DDS, though it is a requirement under given circumstances. The final risk
designation is, however, designated as ‘low’. When asked, the consultant stated that
there are two reasons for a finding of low risk despite this fact:
1. It is true for most of Europe that many foresters do not develop/implement
DDS. This would require most European countries already approved to be
reviewed/changed.
2. In Denmark, all the legislation around the DDS (the things the DDS is
controlling) is well-enforced. This means that not having a DDS in Denmark
has a low risk of resulting in a negative impact on forest management.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 4 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of
traditional and human rights
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Denmark,
Viet Nam. No stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for this
category.
Denmark
No stakeholder comments received.
Issue of interest:
The risk designation of indicator 2.2 (labor rights are upheld including rights as
specified in ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work) was designated as
‘specified’ for gender wage discrimination by the consultant. The consultant based the
finding of ‘specified risk’ in reliable but general sources. PSU received a formal request
from FSC Denmark to change the designation to ‘low risk’, based on the following:
1. The central authority on Danish statistics does not support the ‘specified risk’
conclusion. There are no wage statistics specific to the forest sector, but the
lumped data available show that women’s wages are higher than men’s.
2. The ‘specified risk’ conclusion is not supported by the Danish national center
for social research (SFI). SFI calculated the size of the unexplained wage gap
for every year in the period 1997-2011, and the result greatly differs from the
25 pct. mentioned in the ILO Global Wage Report 2014/15 (source used by the
consultant). SFI’s analysis found that the difference in salary was 13-17 pct. in
2011, while the unexplained salary difference was 4-7 pct.
3. In Denmark the labor participation rate for women is 75 pct (4th highest in the
world) and there is a legal requirement for equal pay.
4. A ‘specified risk’ conclusion will give the impression that FSC has no
understanding of reality and it will distance FSC from key stakeholders in
Denmark.
Based on this arguments, the risk designation was changed to ‘low’ and the
assessment was modified accordingly.
Viet Nam
No stakeholder comments received.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 5 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 3: Wood harvested from forests in
which high conservation values are threatened by
management activities
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Belgium,
Denmark, Ireland. Stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for the
following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland.
The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are
specified individually per country.
Belgium
Stakeholder composition
See evaluation report (national consultation)
General comments:
Stakeholder consultation was done on an assessment changed by FSC Belgium and
not approved for consultation by PSU.
Analysis:
The consultant rewrote the entire assessment taking into account the comments from
PSU, FSC Belgium and the stakeholders. ‘Low risk’ was concluded by the consultant
for all indicators based on the available evidence.
Denmark
Stakeholder composition
1 Economic North member
General comments:
Comments from the stakeholder disagreed with the ‘specified risk’ finding of indicators
3.1 and 3.3. Comments were made pointing out the perceived contradiction between
Category 1, wherein it was determined that Denmark’s legislation was well enforced
and constituted a low risk, and these indicators wherein the implementation of certain
legislation (such as Natura 2000) was called into question, resulting in specified risk to
HCV 1 and HCV 3 for privately owned forests without a green management plan.
It was stated that Danish law is rigorously enforced for all legislation, including the
legislation ensuring protection of HCVs, regardless of forest ownership. No additional
sources were provided.
Analysis:
The consultant did not change their evaluation in response to the stakeholder
comments. It was determined that these were not contradictions, as these indicators
are not about legislation compliance, but threats to HCVs which happen to have
legislation about them. Furthermore, the consultants identified an information gap in
the legislation that, even while being enforced, leaves the protection of HCVs 1 and 3
at risk. Furthermore, the risk designation that is identified for these indicators is
specified to a specific group of forest owners lacking a particular management element
(green management plan).
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 6 of 10 –
Ireland
Stakeholder composition
FSC UK
General comments:
No comments from the stakeholder disagreed with the “low risk” finding of indicators
3.0 to 3.6. Comments were made expressing general agreement and similarities with
UK National HCV Framework. Some comments were made pointing out minor editorial
and style mistakes (e.g., incomplete references, repeated information), and the need
to add general clarifications (e.g., definitions).
Regarding content related comments, for indicator 3.1 a comment was made
recommending caution in the use of reporting on biodiversity trends to determine
whether regulation successfully protects HCV 1. Additionally, for indicator 3.4 the
question was posed whether or not it is relevant to describe in detail a flood risk
assessment system which is not yet in place.
Analysis:
The consultant did not need to change the evaluation in response to the stakeholder
comments. The mentioned editorial and style mistakes were amended where
considered necessary by the consultant and by PSU.
Regarding indicators 3.1 and 3.4, the consultant explained the reasons to include the
mentioned information as part of the assessment. The explanation was considered
adequate by PSU and no changes were made.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 7 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being
converted to plantations or non-forest use
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Belgium,
Denmark, Ireland, Viet Nam. Stakeholders submitted comments on the risk
assessments for the following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland.
The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are
specified individually per country.
Belgium
Stakeholder composition
See evaluation report (national consultation)
General comments:
A comments was made by a CB criticizing the adequacy of two measurement tools
mentioned in the spatial analysis ('Boswijzer', 'Bosbarometer 2012').
Analysis:
The spatial data mentioned in relation to measurements made by both tools is only a
reference. In addition to this, spatial data provided by FAO in its Global Forest
Resources Assessment was analysed to come to a ‘low risk’ conclusion by PSU.
Moreover, the ‘low risk’ designation is supported by FSC Belgium and the Belgian
working group.
Denmark
Stakeholder composition
1 Economic North member
General comments:
The comment from the stakeholder disagreed with the specified risk finding of indicator
4.1. It was stated that if Category 1 is found to be low risk (that is, there is a low risk of
sourcing illegally harvested wood), then assuming laws are well enforced in Denmark,
forests would not be systematically converted to plantations or non-forest uses.
Furthermore, the FAO determined that the forested area of Denmark increased by
1.1% between the years 2000 and 2010.
Analysis:
The consultant concluded that there has been increased forest cover in Demark
between the years 2000 and 2010, and while their sources indicate 28% of the current
forest cover is not safeguarded by Denmark’s Forest Act, it nevertheless did not pose
a significant risk to forests outside the so-called “reserved forests”. Risk designation
was changed to ‘low risk’.
Ireland
Stakeholder composition
FSC UK
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 8 of 10 –
General comments:
The comment from the stakeholder referred to the ‘undesignated risk’ conclusion by
the consultant.
Analysis:
Following an agreement with PSU, ‘undesignated risk’ is given by the consultants
when the assessment based on legislation is not enough to conclude if the spatial
threshold is met. The assessment based on spatial data was done by PSU using data
provided by FAO. The conclusion for indicator 4.1 is ‘low risk’.
Viet Nam
No stakeholder comments received.
Issue of interest:
The assessment based on legislation was not enough to conclude if the spatial
threshold is met. The assessment based on spatial data was done by PSU using data
provided by FAO. The conclusion for indicator 4.1 is ‘low risk’.
According to the assessment made by the consultant, the government of Viet Nam has
stated clearly that its intention is to convert large forest areas to rubber plantations.
However, the assessment shall deal with the current situation and at the time of the
assessment this was not yet an issue. Additionally, the spatial data provided by FAO
in its Global Forest Resources Assessment leads to a ‘low risk’ designation. In the
case that the threshold is exceeded in the future, an urgent revision according to FSCPRO-60-002 V3-0 can be conducted to change the risk designation.
NOTE: Category 4 for Viet Nam was not approved. Further research is needed in the
spatial analysis to see the impact of the government’s approach on conversion.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 9 of 10 –
Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which
genetically modified trees are planted
Draft assessments for the following countries were subject to consultation: Denmark,
Viet Nam. No stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for this
category.
Denmark
No stakeholder comments received.
Viet Nam
No stakeholder comments received.
SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK
ASSESSMENTS 2016-2017
2017
– 10 of 10 –