Synopsis stakeholder consultations - BG, EE, IN, LV, LT

(1)

Synopsis of Stakeholder Consultations:

FSC Centralized National Risk Assessment

(2)

SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT 2015 - 2016

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 5 countries, assessments for some of these categories have been consulted and are now ready for approval: assessments, as outlined in FSC-PRO-60-002a FSC National Risk Assessment Framework. Those for controlled wood categories 1, 3 and 4 were conducted by NEPCon, and those for controlled wood category 2 were conducted by Wolfgang Richert Consulting 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 either in March 2015 or in May 2016 and were subject to stakeholder consultation for a period of 30 days. Announcements of the 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.

(4)

2017

– 4 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: Estonia, India, Latvia. Stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for the following countries: Estonia, India, Latvia.

The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are specified individually per country.

Estonia

Stakeholder composition

1 Economic North (member) 1 Economic Other

WOLF/FSC Estonia (“inconsistencies”)

Indicator 1.6 Value added taxes and other sales taxes

Stakeholders provided information on new legislation that was not contained in the initial assessment, stating that there was no need for the new and stricter value added tax system. According to the Estonian Ministry of Finance & Estonian Tax and Customs VAT violations in the Forestry sector had reduced.

Response:

This new information was evaluated as valid and the assessment was amended accordingly, resulting in a change in the risk designation from specified to low risk.

1.11 Health and safety

Stakeholders provided correspondence from the “Work Inspectorate.” According to their opinion the statistics from the Labour Inspectorate are not representative of the forest sector because don’t show information about self-employed individuals, since according to the legislation work inspectorate is not obliged to control them.

New information from the “Estonian Environment Agency and Labour Inspectorate” about the volume of timber cut by chainsaw operators versus mechanical methods was also provided, showing the total volume of timber cut in 2014 increased by 1 million m3 from 2013, while total workers accidents in a year decreased from 20 to 19.

Response:

The comment was noted and the risk assessment was amended accordingly, resulting in a change in the risk designation from specified to low risk.

Indicator 1.12 Legal employment

(5)

2017

– 5 of 10 –

inclusion. It also questioned the level of impact regarding illegal employment of chainsaw operators as possibly being disproportionally negative on the risk assessment if these operators comprised a large portion of labour.

Response

The additional data and data source were incorporated in the risk assessment, though the risk designation of low risk did not change due to the consultant following up with more recent (2016) data which confirmed their prediction of continued improvement in relation to illegal employment.

Indicator 1.21 Legislation requiring due diligence/due care procedures

The specified risk designation for this indicator was suggested to be changed to low risk. The reasoning provided was that Estonian Forest Law requires an EUTR-compatible due diligence system. This together with an IT-based log transport E-waybill system allows wood tracing online by companies, the Environmental Inspectorate, Estonian Tax and Customs Board and the Police. It was stated that there could have been a misunderstanding of the requirement for a written due diligence system during the risk analysis.

Response:

This comment was noted and the CNRA/risk assessment amended accordingly.

India

No stakeholder comments received. WOLF/FSC India (“inconsistencies”)

Indicator 1.1 Land tenure and management rights

It was identified that Category 2 found specified risk for the application of relevant laws (specifically about indigenous peoples’ rights to land and self-governance). FSC India provided two sources that questioned whether the legislation was effectively enforced.

Response

The consultant did not provide any specific evidence to counter these claims. As such, these sources were added to the text, and the designation of specified risk expanded (it was already specified risk).

NB: No additional control measures were added.

NB: Indicator 1.18 text came to the conclusion of “low risk”, while the risk designation was “specified risk”. After asking NEPCon, they asserted that it was an error, and the risk designation was changed to “low risk”.

(6)

SYNOPSIS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION: FSC CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK

Comments stated that there was some confusion regarding the overall structure of the document, the accuracy of the data, interpretation of information and the lack of clear data sources. It was stated that the information about the state-owned forest lands in the overview of the assessment is incorrect.

Response:

It was maintained that the assessment was based on official statistical data of the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Welfare and subordinated institutions and that reliable source of information – databases of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, statistical forest inventory results of the State Forest Service or the Forest Research Institute “Silava” were references.

Indicator 1.2 Concession licenses

Comments stated that the analysis was only conducted for one forest owner in Latvia and not the general situation. It was argued that the assessment does not contain clear justification and analysis of whether the “Long-term Logging Contracts” (LLC), concluded in the 1990s, are comparable to a concession license. It was also stated that the analysis of LLC has been carried out without justification of the sources used or for not including historical and national legislative context of the Latvian forest sector. Information said to correctly describe the non-renewal of the LLC contracts was provided.

Response:

Based on the criticism, a more profound argumentation, including historical context, has been added for this indicator for the sake of clarity, and the assessment was updated based on the new information which has been included in the final assessment.

Indicator 1.4: Harvesting permits

Stakeholders described the analysis of this indicator as difficult to understand, stating that it is unclear whether the issuance process of the felling licenses (permits) for all forest owners, including state and local governments, churches, businesses, and private owners, was included in the analysis. It was proposed that the assessment of Indicator 1.4 (the felling license (permit) issuance process) is analysed as per

national legislation. Attention was also drawn to a perceived lack of analysis of the donation process of the state-owned companies. The company donates a part of the company’s profit to different social projects (which is strictly regulated by the law), and therefore it is unacceptable to state that the company gives bribes.

Response:

A more detailed description of harvesting permit issuing process and the legal and institutional framework was included in the analysis based on the comments.

(7)

2017

– 7 of 10 –

involved in hazardous work, legislation against forced and compulsory labour, and discrimination and freedom of association.

Response:

Additional data regarding these topics were added to the risk assessment, with the conclusion changed to specified risk.

NB: Indicator 2.2 has a note that predicates its risk finding of “low risk” on confirmation by applicable legislation in category 1. Indicator 1.12 relates most strongly to this topic, and its finding does notconfirm 2.2’s risk designation._{This is}

justified by the understanding that specified risk for legality (Category 1) relates to issues other than those assessed in Category 2.

Indictor 1.21 Legislation requiring due diligence/due care procedures

Stakeholders provided extensive information regarding EUTR implementation in Latvia, to correct “mistakes” in the assessment. The final risk designation of “specified risk” was assigned.

Response:

(8)

2017

– 8 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: Bulgaria, Estonia. Stakeholders submitted comments on the risk assessments for the following countries: Bulgaria, Estonia.

The number of stakeholders, and their FSC membership/stakeholder type are specified individually per country.

Bulgaria

1 CNRA coordinator (WWF)

General Comments:

Comment from stakeholder disagreed with the low risk finding for indicator 2.3. The comment focused on the importance of local communities with traditional and legal rights in the absence of indigenous or traditional peoples (IP/TP). It stated that reports from WWF Bulgaria could be used to review that indicator assessment.

The source stated that local community rights, while formally protected by law, are not always upheld. Local communities’ opinions are not always taken into account or respected in forest management decisions. In particular, protection of forest-dependent water sources, protection of municipal roads, and compensation for property damage are highlighted as being deficient. It is stated that these risks are widespread, and there are reports of them happening in FSC-certified forestry units.

Analysis:

Although it is acknowledged that IP/TP do not exist in Bulgaria, the consultant has argued that these local communities are covered by the same traditional rights. Upon reviewing the consultation feedback provided by the stakeholder, the consultant agreed that there is evidence of possible violation of the traditional rights of local communities. Therefore, the risk designation was changed to specified risk.

Estonia

1 Economic North member/Accredited CB 1 Economic Other

WOLF/FSC Estonia (inconsistencies)

General Comments:

(9)

2017

– 9 of 10 –

It was stated that a low number of women working in the forestry sector compared to men does not indicate discrimination. Experience from forest management audits, and correspondence with companies was said to indicate that many women work for forestry companies in specialist or office roles, and that it is natural that the physical work in the forest sector means less women are employed within it. Furthermore, few women choose to study forestry or pursue a forestry career. With respect to the pay gap between the two genders, it was stated that the evidence provided is not specific to the Estonian forest sector and there was no information from local authorities. The relevant Estonian statistics were said to not include the forestry sector, and that data from Eurostat does not take into account the indicators of enterprises and institutions with fewer than 10 employees, and excludes the earnings of employees in agriculture, forestry and fishing and in public administration and defence. Statistics specific to the forestry sector or some information from local authorities was expected.

Analysis:

There is very little data on the forestry sector. Other sector-specific information could not be found, neither positive nor negative, and conclusions had to be drawn based on the information referred to in the assessment. In review of the available data, it is agreed with the stakeholders that (1) there is evidence that the gender pay gap is less in the forestry sector compared to other Estonian sectors, and (2) there is no specific evidence that this gender pay gap is very large in the forestry sector. Therefore the risk determination has been changed to low risk of gender discrimination in this sector.

Comment: Regarding data on illegal workers, the statistic that “27% workers working without the contract” was questioned if that is representative of the forest sector.

Analysis: The guidance provided are being followed and the issue of 'use of illegal workers' is not an issue that should be included in Category 2 and the conclusions and the risk assessment have been changed accordingly to low.

Comment: The statistic of 27% of workers being unregistered was indicated as being high, with the addition that the Tax and Customs board determined that 60% of their field audits of harvest sites included illegal labour.

(10)

2017

– 10 of 10 –

Controlled wood category 3: Wood harvested from forests in

which high conservation values are threatened by

management activities

Lithuania

The assessment was done as part of a pilot testing (in 2013) and, based on the national feedback received, the final report version was developed.

Synopsis stakeholder consultations - BG, EE, IN, LV, LT

Synopsis of Stakeholder Consultations:

FSC Centralized National Risk Assessment

Contents

Introduction

Consultation Details

Analysis of stakeholder comments

Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood

Estonia

India

Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of

traditional and human rights

Bulgaria

Estonia

Controlled wood category 3: Wood harvested from forests in

which high conservation values are threatened by

management activities

Lithuania

Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being

converted to plantations or non-forest use

Lithuania