|
| Gaps between FSC Certification Criteria and Japanese Approval Criteria for Forest Management Plans (January 1, 2003) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Key people involved in consideration of a local timber certification system for Aichi Prefecture痴 Higashi Mikawa timber had the opportunity to observe a trial simulation at the end of July for applying FSC forest certification standards. From the FSC side, participants included the chair of the working group on Japanese standards (Mr. Tomimura) and a specialist on the timber chain-of-custody from the certification body SGS (Mr. Sasaki), and from the local side, representatives of the prefectural government, Holtz Mikawa (the Mikawa Distribution and Processing Center), the nonprofit organization Honokuni Morizukuri no Kai, and the forestry cooperatives involved. This was a valuable activity for both sides, giving the FSC participants the chance to try checking their tentative Japanese standards, and the local participants the chance to get a real sense of what kinds of problems could arise to make local timber certification standards pass the FSC hurdles. Discussions covered many issues, from complex matters relating to holders of land rights to harvest levels, but here I will introduce some of the discussions about the relationship between forest management plan approval and FSC certification. Forest Management Plans represent the part of Japan痴 forest planning system that is closest to being 登n-the-ground・ and serve as the apex of the National Forest Plan, which is based on Japan痴 Forest Law. The system allows forest owners to prepare these plans voluntarily and seek approval from the head of the local village or town. A subsidy system is in place for projects that adhere to the approved management plans, and it is this system that plays an important role in ensuring implementation of the forest plans in the field. The national government determines the criteria for this approval, and it was the relationship between those criteria and the FSC certification criteria that I found particularly worthy of attention. Starting in April this year, Japan痴 forest management planning system underwent extensive changes, based on the principles of the Basic Law on Forests and Forestry that was enacted last year. New approval criteria were created in three categories (forests for soil and water conservation, for use by the people, and for cyclical use of forest resources), and the thinking behind the criteria changed significantly. I was struck by the comments of the prefectural representative that with the recent changes in criteria, the approval criteria for Forest Management Plans become much closer to FSC criteria. He then gave an explanation based on a paper that had just been prepared for a seminar organized by the prefecture. The important things about this revision are, first of all, that the earlier harvesting criteria resulted in a system that required the gradual logging of old-growth forests, but this was changed to having criteria based on the average timber growth increment. Second, the preparation of Forest Management Plans, previously restricted to forest owners, has been expanded to include forestry cooperatives working under contract. I think that it will be possible to cover a large portion of the FSC certification criteria by satisfying the Japanese approval criteria for management plans. It should be possible to calculate from two parameters the extent to which Japanese management plan approval criteria cover the FSC certification criteria. Namely, (a) the extent to which effort is put into which parts of FSC principles if Japanese forests are being examined for FSC certification, and (b) the extent to which these are covered by Japanese Forest Management Plans. I have attempted to evaluate arbitrarily the various parameters based on the information provided at the above-mentioned simulation by Mr. Tomimura, who in the past has participated in actual FSC certifications in Japan. The results of the calculation, shown in the table below, show an overlap of 55 percent.
Whether this result is seen as a lot or as a little is a matter of opinion. The important point is that what is needed to eliminate the remaining 45 percent is not a large financial burden, but rather the effort and initiative of the parties responsible for forest management (i.e., resource managers). I think that if the management plan or the documentation attached to the plan contains consideration of the following three points after discussion, half of the remainder can be cleared, and by sharing those details with the parties concerned, the balance of the remainder can be cleared. The three points are as follows: 2. Consideration of cutting volumes and cutting blocks that consider financial aspects and the environment. 3. Consideration of other items relating to contribution to the environment and contribution to the local community. This article does not represent a formal comment of the FSC, of course, and though it may not be exact, I hope that it will be helpful as input to persons who are thinking about seeking timber certification in the future, and to those who are developing various certification criteria. ( * The original article was posted on 11 August, 2002 on Japanese page. ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
like btn
  |
