DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest for All Forever

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forest for All Forever FSC National Risk Assessment For Norway DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0 Version V1-0 Code FSC-NRA-NO V1-0 National approval National decision body: The Norwegian FSC NRA - Working Group / Steinar Asakskogen Date: 31 January 2018 International approval FSC International Center: Performance and Standards Unit Date: 27 August 2018 International contact Name: Anand Punja – European Regional Director FSC International Email address: [email protected] Period of validity Date of approval: 27 August 2018 Valid until: (date of approval + 5 years) Body responsible for NRA The Norwegian FSC NRA - Working group maintenance FSC-NRA-NO V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NORWAY 2018 – 1 of 222 – Contents Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for Norway ........................................................ 3 Background information .............................................................................................................. 5 List of experts involved in the risk assessment ......................................................................... 13 National Risk Assessment maintenance ................................................................................... 14 Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk Assessment ........................... 14 List of key stakeholders for consultation ................................................................................... 15 Risk assessments ..................................................................................................................... 17 Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood .............................................................. 17 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 17 Sources of legal timber in Norway ..................................................................................... 18 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................... 18 Control measures ............................................................................................................. 72 Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights ........ 75 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................... 75 Control measures ............................................................................................................. 75 Detailed analysis ............................................................................................................... 76 Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities ..................................................................................... 144 Experts consulted ........................................................................................................... 149 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................. 150 Control measures ........................................................................................................... 177 Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use ............................................................................................................................................... 180 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................. 180 Control measures ........................................................................................................... 184 Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted ............................................................................................................................................... 185 Risk assessment ............................................................................................................. 185 Control measures ........................................................................................................... 188 Annex C1 List of information sources ................................................................................. 189 Annex C2 Identification of applicable legislation ................................................................. 214 FSC-NRA-NO V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NORWAY 2018 – 2 of 222 – Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for Norway Indicator Risk designation (including functional scale when relevant) Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood 1.1 Low risk 1.2 N/A 1.3 Low risk 1.4 Low risk 1.5 Low risk 1.6 Low risk 1.7 Low risk 1.8 Low risk 1.9 Low risk 1.10 Low risk 1.11 Low risk 1.12 Low risk 1.13 Low risk 1.14 Low risk 1.15 Low risk 1.16 Low risk 1.17 Low risk 1.18 Low risk 1.19 Low risk 1.20 Low risk 1.21 Low risk Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights 2.1 Low risk 2.2 Low risk 2.3 Specified risk: Sea sami rights (Sapmi1). FPIC implementation (Sapmi except of Finnmark county) Low risk: Norway outside Sapmi1 Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests where high conservation values are threatened by management activitie 3.0 Low risk 3.1 Specified risk: Concentrations of near threatened species and near threatened responsibility species Low risk: Protected areas, selected habitat types protected by law, priority species, key habitats, nature type A localities and threatened species 3.2 Specified risk: IFLs in Finnmark Low risk: Rest of the country 1 The assessment is delimited to the Norwegian part of Sapmi as visualized in Fig. 1 (cat. 1.15). FSC-NRA-NO V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NORWAY 2018 – 3 of 222 – 3.3 Specified risk: Nature type B localities and the ***/A and **/B NARIN core areas Low risk: Protected areas, selected habitat types, priority species, key habitats, nature type A localities and old-age forests. 3.4 Low risk 3.5 Specified risk: Sami reindeer herding districts (Fig. 1, ind. 1.15) Low risk: Norway outside the Sami reideer herding districts 3.6 Specified risk: Culturally Modified Trees (CMT2) occurring in the counties of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark Low risk: Other protected cultural heritage sites for all counties in Norway Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use 4.1 Low risk Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted 5.1 Low risk 2 CMT is defined in cat. 3.6. FSC-NRA-NO V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NORWAY 2018 – 4 of 222 – Background information What is FSC? The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international non-profit, multi-stakeholder organization established in 1993 to promote responsible management of the world’s forests. The FSC does this by setting standards on forest products, along with certifying and labeling them as eco-friendly. FSC has 10 Principles and associated Criteria (FSC P&C) that form the basis for all FSC forest management standards and certification. FSC International sets the framework for developing and maintaining international, national and sub-national standards. This is intended to ensure that the process for developing FSC policies and standards is transparent, independent and participatory. For more information about FSC, see https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc. In 2010 a first Norwegian attempt to create a national standard was initiated, but this process stranded in the end on disagreements about use of exotic tree species in forest plantations. Presently, a number of Norwegian organizations are holders of FSC certificates based on International Generic Indicators (IGI), which is a standard developed for countries not having a national standard. In writing moment organizations in Norway are working in a new Standard Development Group with the aim to establish national FSC standards. The standard developing process happens as a continuum of the Norwegian NRA-process for Controlled Wood. FSC Controlled Wood The Controlled Wood system was introduced by FSC in 1997 to avoid material from unacceptable sources in FSC Mix products, i.e. products with materials from FSC-certified forests mixed with uncertified materials or material certified by other labels (e.g. PEFC). In the years after, the Controlled Wood system evolved in several stages into the system used today by companies managing an FSC CoC-certificate (Chain-of-Custody Certificate). In 2000, a review of the FSC policy led to a more sophisticated approach towards “controversial sources” and an entire section on this subject was added to the policy. The following categories of uncertified raw materials were considered to be unacceptable as part of an FSC-certified product: 1) Illegally harvested wood; 2) Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights; 3) Wood from forests in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities; 4) Wood from forests being converted to plantations and non-forest use; and 5) Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted. The NRA is organized into five chapters representing an analysis of these five categories. The 2000 policy further required companies to have a public policy to avoid wood from unacceptable sources as well as a monitoring and tracking system to identify the origin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses
    Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 by Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Adviser: Jerry Moon ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 Name of researcher: Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jerry Moon, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2010 This dissertation reconstructs chronologically the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Norway from the Haugian Pietist revival in the early 1800s to the establishment of the first Seventh-day Adventist Conference in Norway in 1887. The present study has been based as far as possible on primary sources such as protocols, letters, legal documents, and articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers from the nineteenth century. A contextual-comparative approach was employed to evaluate the objectivity of a given source. Secondary sources have also been consulted for interpretation and as corroborating evidence, especially when no primary sources were available. The study concludes that the Pietist revival ignited by the Norwegian Lutheran lay preacher, Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824), represented the culmination of the sixteenth- century Reformation in Norway, and the forerunner of the Adventist movement in that country.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventist Church from the 1840S to 1889" (2010)
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2010 The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh- day Adventist Church from the 1840s to 1889 Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Christianity Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Snorrason, Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik, "The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-day Adventist Church from the 1840s to 1889" (2010). Dissertations. 144. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/144 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 by Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Adviser: Jerry Moon ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 Name of researcher: Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jerry Moon, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2010 This dissertation reconstructs chronologically the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Norway from the Haugian Pietist revival in the early 1800s to the establishment of the first Seventh-day Adventist Conference in Norway in 1887.
    [Show full text]
  • ISDC's Letter N°55
    ISDC’S LETTER| N° 55 Page 1 ISDC’s Letter N°55 2e édition 2020 – Juin avec supplément spécial COVID-19 Éditorial Édition: Jun Zheng, Alfredo Santos, Marie Papeil Contributions de l’Institut par : John Curran, Karim El Chazli, Karen T. Druckman, Johanna Fournier, Anne-Grace Kleczewski, Krista Nadakavukaren, Rodrigo L’Institut 2 Polanco, Ilaria Pretelli, Josef Skala, Henrik Westermark et Jun Zheng. Bibliothèque 3 Chères lectrices, chers lecteurs, Covid-19 4 Nous avons le plaisir de vous proposer la deuxième édition de l’ISDC’s Letter pour Brèves juridiques 16 l’année 2020. Cette newsletter, rédigée pendant cette période de confinement si Allemagne 16 particulière, se concentre sur deux axes principaux, les nouveautés liées à l’Institut Angleterre, Autriche 17 et les nouveautés dans le monde juridique. Nous avons évidemment ajouté du Belgique, Chili 18 contenu par rapport au Covid-19, sur les différentes législations en cours ou Chine 19 modifiées pendant cette période. Danemark, Egypte 20 EAU, Espagne 21 Pour les nouveautés juridiques, elles se composent tout d’abord de brèves, dans 20 USA, Inde 22 ordres juridiques différents, classées par ordre alphabétique. Puis, nous vous Italie, Liechenstein 23 présentons un extrait d’une étude comparative sur le droit à l’autonomie et le droit N. Zealand, Norvège, Portugal 24 de vote pour les personnes handicapées. Rep. Tchèque, Royaume-Uni 25 Suède 26 Nous espérons que cette newsletter vous trouve en bonne santé et que nous pourrons vous revoir prochainement au sein de l’Institut suisse de droit comparé ! Étude de droit comparé 27 Les éditeurs Autour de l’Institut 29 Agenda 30 ISDC’S LETTER| N° 55 Page 2 L’Institut Réouverture de l’Institut Depuis le 14 mars, notre bâtiment est fermé au public.
    [Show full text]
  • Endring Av Tillatelse Til Landing Med Helikopter I Øvre Anarjohka Nasjonalpark
    FYLKESMANNEN I FINNMARK FINNMÁRKKU FYLKKAMÁNNI Miljøvernavdelingen Birasgáhttenossodat Bongo / Hætta / Sokki siida v/ Mikkel Per Bongo Stornes 9520 KAUTOKEINO Deres ref Deres dato Vår ref Vår dato Sak 2016/2326 10.06.2016 Ark 432.3 Saksbehandler/direkte telefon: Jan Erik Knutsen - 78 95 03 14 Endring av tillatelse til landing med helikopter i Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark Vi viser til brev datert 25. mai 2016, vårt saksnummer 2016/2326, hvor Bongo/Hætta/Sokki siida v/Mikkel Per Bongo ble innvilget tillatelse til to landinger med helikopter i Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark. Tillatelsen ble avgrenset til tidsrommet 23. mai – 10. juni 2016. Søker kontaktet Fylkesmannen på telefon den 8. juni, hvor han informerte om at de ikke fikk gjennomført flyvningene før 10. juni på grunn av at det ikke har vært mulig å få tak i helikopter. De tar imidlertid sikte på å få gjennomført det i løpet av uke 24. Fylkesmannen viser til vurderingene som fremgår av vedlagte vedtak av 25. mai 2016. Formålet og forutsetningene for tillatelsen er fortsatt de samme. I og med at tillatelsen ikke er benyttet vurderer Fylkesmannen at endring av dato kun utgjør en mindre endring av gjeldende tillatelse. Fylkesmannen vedtar på den bakgrunn å endre tillatelsen slik at den er gyldig til og med 30. juni 2016. Vedtaket gjøres med hjemmel i naturmangfoldloven § 48 første ledd første alternativ. For øvrig gjelder de vilkår og forutsetninger som fremgår i brev av 25. mai 2016. Vedtaket kan påklages til Miljødirektoratet innen 3 uker, jamfør forvaltningsloven §§ 28 og 29. Klagen skal være skriftlig og begrunnet og sendes via Fylkesmannen i Finnmark, jamfør forvaltningsloven § 32.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGMENT Pronounced 22 December 2020 by the Supreme
    UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION JUDGMENT pronounced 22 December 2020 by the Supreme Court of Norway in plenary session with Chief Justice Toril Marie Øie Justice Jens Edvin A. Skoghøy Justice Bergljot Webster Justice Wilhelm Matheson Justice Aage Thor Falkanger Justice Kristin Normann Justice Henrik Bull Justice Knut H. Kallerud Justice Arne Ringnes Justice Ingvald Falch Justice Espen Bergh Justice Cecilie Østensen Berglund Justice Borgar Høgetveit Berg Justice Erik Thyness Judge Kine Steinsvik HR-2020-2472-P, (case no. 20-051052SIV-HRET) Appeal from the Borgarting Court of Appeal judgment of 23 January 2020. Natur og Ungdom Föreningen Greenpeace Norden Naturvernforbundet (Friends of the Earth Norway) (Intervenor) Besteforeldrenes klimaaksjon (Norwegian (Advocate Emanuel Feinberg – for assessment Grandparents Climate Campaign) (Intervenor) Advocate Cathrine Hambro – for assessment) versus The Government of Norway through the (the office of the Attorney Ministry of Petroleum and Energy General of Norway in the person of Advocate Fredrik Sejersted) (Co-Counsel Advocate Anders Flaatin Wilhelmsen) UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION 2 VOTING (1) Justice Høgetveit Berg: The issues in the case and its background Subject matter in the case (2) The case involves the issue of whether a Royal Decree of 10 June 2016 is invalid. The decree – the Decision – involves awarding 10 petroleum production licences for a total of 40 blocks or sub-blocks on the Norwegian continental shelf in the maritime area referred to as Barents Sea South and Barents Sea South-East – the 23rd
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 Contents
    SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY SUPREME COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2015 CONTENTS CONTENTS The Supreme Court in its bicentenary year 2015 Page 4 Summary of Supreme Court cases and procedure Page 6 The Supreme Court’s Bicentenary Page 7 - “HONOURABLE GENTLEMEN!” Page 8 - 200 years in two minutes – It began in a library Page 10 - The Bicentenary Meeting Page 12 Bicentenary celebration at Akershus castle Page 14 Open house in the Supreme Court Page 16 Justice Tjomsland captivates his audience Page 18 “The most difficult thing I have ever done as a researcher” Page 20 A powerful meeting with the lions Page 21 Law Truth Justice Page 22 Supreme Court commemorative stamp Page 23 A selection of cases from 2015 Page 24 The Supreme Court and International Law Page 29 Supreme Court Justices Page 31 Justice Liv Gjølstad looks back Page 33 The Supreme Court's administration Page 36 Rizwana Yedicam informs Page 41 New faces Page 42 County tour 2015 Page 43 Outside the courtroom Page 44 Statistics Page 46 Cover page: The Justice Building in Christiania 1903, which is now the Supreme Court Building. Photo: Unknown photographer Oslo Museum 2 3 Photo: Morten Brakestad SUPREME COURT SUPREME THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS BICENTENARY YEAR Under the Norwegian Constitution of 1814, the entertainment, etc. outside the building. year, judiciary service has carried on as usual, and Supreme Court is one of our three constitutional The event attracted an enthusiastic crowd. You can as such, 2015 has been a busy year with many bodies. However, it took time to establish a read more about the various events in the important cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Insolvency Review
    The InternationalThe InternationalInsolvency Review Insolvency Review Third Edition Editor Donald S Bernstein Law Business Research The International Insolvency Review The International Insolvency Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The International Insolvency Review - Edition 3 (published in October 2015 – editor Christopher Kandel) For further information please email [email protected] The International Insolvency Review Third Edition Editor Donald S Bernstein Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Katherine Jablonowska, Thomas Lee, Felicity Bown, Joel Woods ACCOUNT MANAGER Jessica Parsons PUBLISHING MANAGER Lucy Brewer MARKETING ASSISTANT Rebecca Mogridge EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Sophie Arkell HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Claire Ancell SUBEDITOR Janina Godowska MANAGING DIRECTOR Richard Davey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2015 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Norway
    SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY On 9 May 2018, the Supreme Court gave an order in HR-2018-869-A (case no. 2017/1119), civil case, appeal against order, 2017/1124, civil case appeal against order Assuranceforeningen Gard – gjensidig – Stolt Commitment B.V. Stolt Tankers B.V. Stolt-Nielsen B.V. (Counsel Herman Steen Counsel Kaare Andreas Shetelig) v. A Line Corporation Trust Company Complex Marship MPP GmbH Co. KG (Counsel Kristian Lindhartsen Counsel Andreas Stang Lund) (1) Justice Normann: The case concerns the question whether Norwegian courts have jurisdiction in an action brought directly against a Norwegian P&I insurer after a collision in foreign waters between ships registered abroad. The proprietors and managing owners of both ships are foreign companies. It also raises the question of whether the claimants may include in their action against the insurer a claim against the proprietor and the managing owner of the ship that are allegedly liable for the collision. (2) On 16 December 2015, the cargo ship "Thorco Cloud" sank after colliding with the chemical carrier "Stolt Commitment" in Indonesian territorial waters in the Singapore Strait. Six crewmembers on "Thorco Cloud" died in the shipwreck. "Stolt Commitment" only suffered minor damage in the collision and was back in operation after the damage had been repaired. (3) "Thorco Cloud" is registered in Antigua & Barbuda. The proprietor is A Line Corporation Trust Company Complex – hereinafter A Line. A Line is a company registered on the Marshall Islands and is a subsidiary of the Danish shipowner Thorco Shipping AS. Managing shipowner at the time of the collision was Marship MPP GmbH Co.
    [Show full text]
  • The Horseshoe of Fennoscandia, Norway, Rein Midteng
    The Horseshoe of Fennoscandia-A corridor for the long term survival of old-growth forest dependent species in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Rein Midteng, Asplan Viak. Norway. [email protected] 1.What is the Horseshoe of Fennoskandia? 2. What is its ecologial function? 3. Which subparts does it consist of? 4.Transboundary zones 5. How continuous and broad is the Horseshoe? 6. Key regions and areas in need of protection 7. Futher emphazis Un-protected old-growth forest in Pasvik 1.What is the Horseshoe of Fennoskandia? • Its a more or less continously corridor of old-growth forests from southern Finland/southeast Karealia to southern Norway/Sweden. • It consists of four subparts that are connected as a whole. These four subparts are although presented individually. In addition, it exists so called transboundary zones, which are “green” corridors with mostly continuously old-growth forests that stretch out from the Horseshoe. • Old-growth forests dominate the Horseshoe while in the rest of Fennoscandia culture forests dominate. • It consist of both protected and unprotected old-growth forests. • It includes a great variation of vegetationzones and foresttypes. • It is of major importance in the implementation of the Nagaya goals • It is of major importance for the preservation of old-growth forest species in Norway, Sweden, Finland and probably also in some parts of Russia. 2. What is its (ecologial) function? • It is a migrationzone east-west (since the last ice age), and the Fennoscandinavian countries share therefore to a large extent the same flora and fauna as Russia (low level of endemism). • It provides an exchange of species, individuals and genes to and forth in the Horseshoe.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Structure and Gene Flow in a Continuously Distributed Large Terrestrial Carnivore - the Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) in Northern Europe
    Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis 2015:72 Genetic structure and gene flow in a continuously distributed large terrestrial carnivore - the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Northern Europe Genetisk struktur og genflyt i et kontinuerlig distribuert stort rovdyr - den nordeuropeiske brunbjørn (Ursus arctos) Julia Schregel Genetic structure and gene flow in a continuously distributed large terrestrial carnivore - the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Northern Europe Genetisk struktur og genflyt i et kontinuerlig distribuert stort rovdyr - den nordeuropeiske brunbjørn (Ursus arctos) Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis Julia Schregel Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås 2015 Thesis number 2015:72 ISSN 1894-6402 ISBN 978-82-575-1309-2 PhD supervisors Dr Snorre B. Hagen1 Dr Hans Geir Eiken1 Professor Jon E. Swenson2 1Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy (NIBIO), Section of Biotechnology and Molecular Genetics, Frederik A. Dahls vei 20, N-1430 Ås, Norway 2NMBU, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management P.O.Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway PhD evaluation committee Professor Ettore Randi University of Bologna Instituto Superiore per la protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) Via Cà Fornacetta 9 I-40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), Italy Dr Øystein Flagstad Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) P.O.Box 5685 Sluppen N-7485 Trondheim, Norway Committee coordinator Dr Katrine Eldegard NMBU, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management P.O.Box 5003N-1432 Ås, Norway ii Table of contents Summary ................................................................................................................................... v Sammendrag ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bjørn Og Tove Frøvoll Thoresen Toresbakken 10 3039 DRAMMEN
    Bjørn og Tove Frøvoll Thoresen Toresbakken 10 3039 DRAMMEN SAKSBEHANDLER: HEGE JAREN ARKIVKODE: 2015/7567 - 432.4 DATO: 25.02.2016 Tillatelse til oppføring av tilbygg til uthus i Trillemarka-Rollagsfjell naturreservat - Bjørn og Tove Frøvoll Thoresen Forvaltningsstyret for Trillemarka-Rollagsfjell naturreservat behandlet i møte den 22.02.2016 søknad om tillatelse til oppføring av tilbygg til uthus, sak 3/2016. Følgende vedtak ble fattet: Bjørn og Tove Frøvoll Thoresen gis tillatelse til oppføring av mindre tilbygg til eksisterende uthus ved hytta Blåsbort, gnr 170 bnr 13 i Trillemarka-Rollagsfjell naturreservat, Sigdal kommune slik det er beskrevet i søknaden. I vurdering av søknaden er det lagt vekt på at tiltaket ikke vil ha negativ innvirkning på naturverdier og verneformål. Tiltakshaver har ansvar for at tiltaket utføres i samsvar med plan- og bygningslovens bestemmelser med tilhørende forskrifter, kommuneplanens arealdel, reguleringsplan og tillatelser. Tiltaket må heller ikke komme i strid med annet regelverk. Tillatelsen omfatter nødvendig materialtransport med innleid snøscooter/fører (anslagsvis 6 turer) i tidsrommet 22.2.2016-30.4.2016. Søknaden er behandlet med hjemmel i verneforskrift for Trillemarka-Rollagsfjell naturreservat § 5 punkt 1. Kopi av saksprotokoll er vedlagt. Vedtaket kan påklages til Miljødirektoratet innen tre uker, jamfør forvaltningsloven §§ 28 og 29. Klagen sendes til Trillemarka-Rollagsfjell naturreservat, Pb. 1604, 3007 Drammen. Klagen må inneholde opplysninger om hvilket vedtak som påklages, årsaken til klagen, hvilke endringer som ønskes og eventuelt andre opplysninger som kan ha betydning for vurdering av klagen. Partene i saken har adgang til å gjøre seg kjent med sakens dokumenter. Den som klager kan be om at iverksettelsen av vedtaket utsettes.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the River Tana Salmon Populations
    STATUS OF THE RIVER TANA SALMON POPULATIONS REPORT 1-2012 OF THE WORKING GROUP ON SALMON MONITORING AND RESEARCH IN THE TANA RIVER SYSTEM Contents 1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 The group mandate and presentation of members ..................................................................... 10 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 11 4 The River Tana, the Tana salmon, salmon fisheries and management ........................................ 12 4.1 The Tana and its salmon ....................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Tana salmon fisheries ........................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Management of the Tana salmon fishing ............................................................................. 28 5 Local/traditional knowledge and local contact ............................................................................. 29 5.1 How the Group will approach these issues........................................................................... 29 5.2 Current locally raised issues .................................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Predation ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]