2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.8001 fax
Public Notification Letter FSC® Chain of Custody Controlled Wood Stakeholder Consultation To: Interested Parties From: SCS Global Services Consultation period: September 12 – October 24, 2019 Re: Notification of intent to audit Drax Biomass Inc. against FSC Chain of Custody Controlled Wood standard FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1 The Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC) requires that a certification body conducting an audit of a certified organization or applicant must consult stakeholders whenever the audit includes intent to source and use uncertified material in an FSC Chain of Custody (CoC) program according to the requirements in FSC-STD- 40-005 V3-1 “Requirements for Sourcing FSC Controlled Wood”. Therefore, SCS Global Services (SCS) is seeking input from interested and directly affected stakeholders regarding the relevance, effectiveness, and/or adequacy of Drax Biomass’ Due Diligence System (DDS).
An explanation of ‘FSC Controlled Wood’, as well as a copy of FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1, is available here: https://ic.fsc.org/en/certification/types-of-certification/controlled-wood-02 ; a copy of this standard is also available from SCS upon request.
Due Diligence Systems are required for certified organizations in order to avoid the sourcing and use of material originating from unacceptable sources in their FSC CoC program.
Directly affected stakeholders include any person, group of persons, or entity that is, with high probability, subject to the effects of the activities related to an organization’s controlled wood sourcing program, including the activities of their suppliers and sub-suppliers, as well as those who influence risk identified through the organization’s Due Diligence System.
This letter serves as SCS’ invitation to directly affected stakeholders to participate in our consultation process. This letter also serves as SCS’ public notification for any interested stakeholders, who are also invited to participate in the consultation process. Participation in this stakeholder consultation process is voluntary; stakeholders are not required to submit comments.
Scope of audit and audit details: The audit will assess the conformity of the organization’s controlled wood program – including Risk Assessment(s) and DDS – according to the certification requirements as per FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1.
The company’s DDS Public Summary and Risk Assessment (excluding confidential information), as well as any other information or documents deemed relevant for the purpose of this stakeholder consultation, are included as appendices to this letter—see below. For a list of the information that is required to be publically available for stakeholder consultation by SCS, see FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1, Section 6.
Version 1-0 (February 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 1 of 2
Additional certificate holder information: https://info.fsc.org/details.php?id=a024000000Qen1HAAR&type=certificate
Options for participation and provision of comments: Please submit written comments and evidence (where appropriate) by mail, FAX or email to SCS:
SCS Global Services Att’n: Joseph Kochanski, Chain of Custody Certification Services 2000 Powell Street, Suite 600 Emeryville, CA 94608
Fax: 510-452-6882
Email: [email protected]
A summary of the stakeholder consultation and comments received will be made publically available on the FSC certificate database, as per FSC-STD-20-011 V4-0. Verbatim comments will only by published with prior consent from the stakeholder and will not be associated with stakeholder names.
Note that, while SCS is required to evaluate all information and comments objectively, SCS certification decisions are affected by stakeholder comments only insofar as the comments provide evidence of conformity or nonconformity to the applicable requirements.
Within 30 days of making our certification decision, SCS will respond to all stakeholders who provided comments to explain how their comments were taken into account.
More information about FSC and SCS can be found on our respective websites: www.fsc.org and www.scsglobalservices.com.
Version 1-0 (February 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 2 of 2
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.6882 www.SCSglobalservices.com
Publicly Available Information for FSC Controlled Wood Certificate Holders
INSTRUCTIONS
FSC® requires that organizations track their controlled material and publish specific findings. This form helps you meet the requirements in Section 6 of FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1 “Publicly Available Information”.1
Organization Name Drax Biomass Inc.
FSC COC Certificate Number SCS-COC/CW-005130
Name of Authorized Representative (Contact information for person or Kyla Cheynet position responsible for addressing complaints)
All complaints related to FSC COC are directed to the Sustainability Manager: Kyla Cheynet (404)-229-8847
Complaints Procedure DBI is committed to providing our suppliers, customers and other interested parties with exceptional service, and therefore we have created a process to handle any concerns or complaints related to our certified work. DBI Procedure for filing complaints recognizes that complaints ma Note: for further details on complaints In the case that there is a complaint related to Controlled procedure, see section 7 in FSC-STD-40- Wood, Drax Biomass Inc. will respond using the following 005 V3-1 steps: 1. Assess the evidence provided from the complaint within 2 weeks of its receipt; 2. When evidence is considered relevant, conduct investigation and propose actions in response within (2) months after its receipt; and 3. Exclude the supply and supplier from the Drax Biomass Inc’s controlled material category if any non-compliance with the FSC Controlled Wood
1 This document is meant as guidance only, utilization of templates and guidance documents is no guarantee of conformity with FSC requirements. It is your organization’s responsibility to conform to relevant FSC requirements.
Version 2-0 (January 2019) | © SCS Global Services Page 1 of 6 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.6882 www.SCSglobalservices.com
requirements is found and reinstate supply only after the supplier has proven that it complies with FSC Controlled Wood requirements. • If more time than (2) months is needed to complete the investigation, the complainant and certification body shall be notified. • Records of all complaints received, and actions taken will be maintained in DBI’s internal complaint tracking system. • DBI will notify the FSC US National Office and their CB of non-compliance instances with FSC Controlled Wood requirements in areas considered as low risk. If there are frequent non-compliances with the FSC Controlled Wood requirements in areas deemed to be low risk, a review of the current DBI risk assessment will be performed.
Version 2-0 (January 2019) | © SCS Global Services Page 2 of 6 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.6882 www.SCSglobalservices.com
Risk Assessment Summary In the case that there are multiple risk assessments, copy and paste this table below for each assessment. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, west-central to northern Alabama, eastern Texas, southeastern Description of Supply Area Oklahoma, and western Tennessee.
FSC-NRA-USA V1-0
Applicable FSC Risk Assessment n/a, no FSC Risk Assessment currently available for supply area Submit applicable risk assessment (excluding confidential information) in a separate document Risk Designations Summary For any category not rated as “Low” please fill in control Sub-category measures by risk assessment indicator In order to select a checkbox, “double-click” on the box, and select default value as “checked”. Un/specified (see below for Overall Risk Designation for the Supply Area unspecified risk designations) Low 1. Illegally harvested wood 1.1 Un/specified Low Overall Risk Designation: Unspecified Low 1.2 Un/specified Low Control Measures per indicator (if applicable) 1.3 Un/specified Low 1.4 Un/specified Low 1.5 Specified Low 1.6 Specified Low 1.7 Specified Low 1.8 Specified Low 1.9 Specified Low
1.10 Specified Low
1.11 Specified Low
1.12 Specified Low
1.13 Specified Low
1.14 Specified Low 1.15 Specified Low 1.16 Specified Low 1.17 Specified Low 1.18 Specified Low 1.19 Specified Low *Indicator 1.5 to 1.21 only applicable when using FSC 1.20 Specified Low
Version 2-0 (January 2019) | © SCS Global Services Page 3 of 6 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.6882 www.SCSglobalservices.com
(Centralized) National Risk Assessments 1.21 Specified Low 2. Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights 2.1 Un/specified Low Overall Risk Designation: Unspecified Low 2.2 Un/specified Low Control Measures per indicator (if applicable) 2.3 Un/specified Low
2.4 Unspecified Low *Indicator 2.4 and 2.5 only applicable when using Company 2.5 Unspecified Low Risk Assessment 3. Wood harvested from forests in which high conservation 3.0 Specified Low values are threatened by management activities 3.1 Un/specified Low Overall Risk Designation: Unspecified Low 3.2 Un/specified Low Control Measures per indicator (if applicable) 3.3 Specified Low Mandatory Control Measure utilized: CM 3.1 (CM 3.1a and CM 3.4 Specified Low 3.1b) 3.5 Specified Low
*Indicator 3.0 and 3.3 to 3.6 only applicable when using FSC 3.6 Specified Low (Centralized) National Risk Assessments 4. Wood harvested from areas being converted from forests and other wooded ecosystems to plantations or non-forest uses 4.1 Un/Specified Low Control Measures (if applicable)
5. Wood harvested from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted 5.1 Un/Specified Low Control Measures (if applicable)
Version 2-0 (January 2019) | © SCS Global Services Page 4 of 6 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.6882 www.SCSglobalservices.com
Stakeholder Consultation Summary
Summary of the consultation
process(es) performed according to
Annex B of FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1 N/A No stakeholder consultation conducted
Expert Engagement Summary N/A No expert engagement conducted Information on the engagement of one or more experts in the development of control measures in accordance with Annex C of FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1 The FSC US NRA specified mandatory Control Measures CM Note: For individual experts this 3.1 (CM 3.1a and CM 3.1b) are implemented (no additional includes the names of the experts, expert engagement was required to develop said Control their qualifications, their Measures) license/registration number (if applicable), and the scope of their services. For publically available expertise, the specific sources of information shall be cited.
Version 2-0 (January 2019) | © SCS Global Services Page 5 of 6 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main +1.510.452.6882 www.SCSglobalservices.com
Summary of Field Verification (undertaken as a control measure) N/A No field verifications conducted as control measures A summary of the organization’s findings from field verification undertaken as a control measure, and steps taken by the organization to address identified non conformities where they occurred, unless confidential. The organization shall provide a justification for the exclusion of confidential Field Verification was not used as a “Control Measure”. As information. specified above, FSC NRA Manditory Control Measure CM 3.1 (CM 3.1a and CM 3.1b) was utilized. Note: The confidential nature of the information may be determined by the legislation that the organization must be in compliance with. Commercially sensitive information, and the names of individual landholders may be treated as confidential.
Version 2-0 (January 2019) | © SCS Global Services Page 6 of 6 MS-006-2 Revised: 9/5/19
Page: 1 of 73
Sustainability MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence and Risk Assessment
Originally Prepared by Renewable Strategies, Inc. PO Box 185 Shoreham, VT 05770 Phone: (802) 989-0476 [email protected] Notice: Information presented is propriety to Renewable Strategies, Inc and Drax Biomass Inc. Do not reproduce.
I. Overview II. Summary III. Quality Management System IV. Findings A. Category 1. Illegally harvested wood B. Category 2. Traditional and civil rights C. Category 3. High conservation value forest D. Category 4. Conversion E. Category 5. GMO Trees V. Conclusion VI. Detailed Description of Specified Risks VII. FSC Mandatory Control Measures VIII. Supplementary A. Intact Forest Landscapes US/Canada B. Biodiversity Hotspots & At Risk Species Concentrations C. WWF Ecoregions D. WWF Global 200 Ecoregions
I. Overview
This document acts as a risk assessment and due diligence document for Drax
Biomass Inc (DBI) procurement of wood fiber in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, west-
central to northern Alabama, eastern Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, and western
Tennessee.
DBI owns and operates three pellet plants: Amite BioEnergy LLC (“Amite BioEnergy” or
Drax Biomass Inc. All documents on DBI’s PolicyTech website are under document control. Printed copies are instantly obsolete and are for use only when on-line access is not possible. Printed documents older than 30 days should be reprinted or checked against the official online document. All documents are Confidential and are for Internal Use Only.
CB review and approval date: SCS Global Services, 2000 Powell St STE 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 Approved: Month, Day 2017
SFI Marks are registered marks owned by Sustainable Forestry Initiative. FSC-C123692 Reproduced with the permission of the PEFC Council.
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 2 of 73
“ABE”) in Gloster, MS; Morehouse BioEnergy LLC (“Morehouse BioEnergy” or “MBE”)
near Beekman, LA; and LaSalle BioEnergy LLC (“LaSalle BioEnergy” or “LBE”) near
Urania, LA. DBI is using, and plans to continue to make use of, primarily southern
yellow pine with a minority component of southern mixed hardwoods. Fiber is sourced
directly from the forest as low-grade roundwood and in-woods chips (from low grade
and residual forest material) and as residuals from sawmills and other solid wood
manufacturing operations. The southern yellow pine species used in manufacturing
include loblolly (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), shortleaf (Pinus echinata),
and slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Hardwood, which primarily enters the supply chain
through sawmill residuals and a minor proportion of in-woods chip material, includes a mix of southern hardwoods such as white and red oak, sweetgum, maple, and hickory.
An extensive list of potential species is maintained internally at DBI and available upon
request.
This assessment is a requirement for DBI’s scope of certification for the relevant Forest
Stewardship Council® (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI) and Programme for
the Endorsement of Forest Certification™ (PEFC) Standards as currently applicable.
The FSC Controlled Wood Standard
The FSC Standard for Sourcing FSC Controlled Wood FSC-STD-40-005 (Version 3-1)
EN requires a Controlled Wood Risk Assessment for companies that buy wood from
non-FSC certified suppliers and wish to develop and implement their own Due Diligence
Program. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 3 of 73
The FSC Controlled Wood Standard requires that: For suppliers included in the
company’s due diligence system, Chain of Custody certified organizations shall avoid
material from unacceptable sources. Material from unacceptable sources cannot be
used in FSC Mix products. Unacceptable sources are outlined in Section A in
accordance with Annex A of this standard.
These five categories are:
1) Illegally harvested wood; 2) Wood harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights; 3) Wood harvested in forests where high conservation values are threatened by management activities; 4) Wood harvested in forests being converted to plantations or non- forest use; and 5) Wood from forests in which genetically modified tress are planted.
Within each FSC® category there are further indicators as noted and investigated.
These are detailed in the Results section below.
The PEFC Chain of Custody Standard
The PEFC Standard (PEFC 2002-2013 Chain of Custody Standard – Second Edition)
Requirements that “Material for which the risk of originating from controversial sources
has been minimized through the implementation of the PEFC Due Diligence System”.
The DDS is to be implemented for all input forest based materials that are to be covered
by DBI’s PEFC chain of custody (CoC). This is to be done in three steps relating to:
1) Gathering information; 2) Risk assessment; and 3) Management of significant risk supplies. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 4 of 73
This document fulfills the requirements for (2) by assessing the risk of DBI procuring wood based material that originate in controversial sources.
Controversial sources are defined in the PEFC CoC standard as:
“Forest activities which are:
a) not complying with local, national or international legislation, applying to forest related activities, in particular in the following areas:
• forestry operations and harvesting, including biodiversity conservation and conversion of forest to other use • management of areas with designated high environmental and cultural values, • protected and endangered species, including requirements of CITES, • health and labor issues relating to forest workers, • indigenous peoples’ property, tenure and use rights, • third parties’ property, tenure and use rights, • payment of taxes and royalties, (See Category 1, 2, and 3 below) b) not complying with legislation of the country of harvest relating to trade and customs, in so far as the forest sector is concerned, (See Category 1 below); c) utilizing genetically modified forest based organisms, (See Category 5 below); and d) converting forest to other vegetation type, including conversion of primary forests to forest plantations.” (See Category 4 below)
The SFI Chain of Custody Standard
The SFI 2015-2019 Chain of Custody Standard-Requirements specify that a Due
Diligence System (DDS) be operated to avoid controversial sources.
“To avoid controversial sources, the organization shall obtain and verify the scope of an MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 5 of 73
SFI Section 2 (SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Standard), Section 3 (SFI 2015-
2019 Fiber Sourcing Standard), Section 4 (SFI 2015-2019 Chain-of-Custody Standard), or other credible chain-of-custody standard certificate. Verification shall ensure that the facility and the purchased product(s) are directly associated with the certification. This can be achieved through the following:
a) On a valid SFI Section 2 (SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Standard), Section 3 (SFI 2015-2019 Fiber Sourcing Standard), Section 4 (SFI 2015-2019 Chain-of- Custody Standard), or other credible chain-of-custody standard certificate or appendix to the certificate. b) On a publicly available product group listing, or c) By other means of verification.
Where inspection of the certificate and other supporting evidence can demonstrate that the facility and product groups are within scope of the certificate, then the organization purchasing that product group can credibly conclude that the products being sourced are low risk of coming from controversial sources.
When forest-based products, excluding recycled content, are procured without a valid
SFI Section 2 (SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Standard), Section 3 (SFI 2015-
2019 Fiber Sourcing Standard), Section 4 (SFI 2015-2019 Chain-of-Custody Standard), or other credible chain-of-custody standard certificate, the organization shall collect information on the source of the forest-based product through a due diligence system to address the likelihood of sourcing from controversial sources.
The Organization’s Due Diligence System shall:
4.3.1 Conduct a risk assessment of sourcing forest-based products which are not in MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 6 of 73
compliance with applicable state, provincial, or federal laws, particularly as they may
relate to:
• conversion sources, • legally required protection of threatened and endangered species, • requirements of CITES (The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), • legally required management of areas with designated high environmental and cultural values, labor regulations relating to forest workers, • Indigenous Peoples’ property, tenure and legally established use rights.
The risk assessment shall be carried out at the national level and where risk is not
consistent, at the appropriate regional level.
4.3.2 Conduct a risk assessment of sourcing forest-based products from illegal logging
4.3.3 Conduct a risk assessment of sourcing forest-based products from areas without
effective social laws addressing the following:
a. workers’ health and safety; b. fair labor practices; c. Indigenous Peoples’ rights; d. anti-discrimination and anti-harassment measures; e. prevailing wages; and f. workers’ right to organize.
Where the risk assessment conducted determines other than low risk, the organization
shall implement a program to mitigate such risk and require a signed contract and/or
self-declaration that the supplied forest-based product does not originate from
controversial sources.
Compliance with each SFI® indicator as noted and investigated are detailed in the MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 7 of 73
Results section below.
II. Summary
The assessment for Drax Biomass Inc. (DBI) has determined that all areas from which
DBI procures wood have been determined to be “Low Risk”, with the exception of FSC
Category 3, Wood harvested in forests where high conservation values are threatened
by management activities”. This was determined from three primary and many
secondary sources. The three primary sources used were the FSC US Controlled Wood
National Risk Assessment (US NRA) the 2008 Seneca Creek report commissioned by
the American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC), “Assessment of Lawful Harvesting &
Sustainability of US Hardwood Exports” and the last posted entries of the Global Forest
Registry. Note that the Global Forest Registry was retired by NEPCon this year and is
no longer available.
FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment
The FSC International and US Board of Directors have approved and implemented the
FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment (US NRA). The US NRA is the
primary source of information for DBI’s risk assessment. The US NRA has designated
the entire US Low risk for Category 1, 2, and 5, illegally harvested wood, wood
harvested in violation of traditional human rights, and wood from forests in which
genetically modified trees are planted. Risks for Category 3, wood harvested from
forests in which high conservation values are threatened by management, and Category MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 8 of 73
4, have been recognized for specific areas in the United States. Drax Biomass is not in
the region where conversion (Category 4) has been identified as a risk but has
recognized specified risk associated with HCVs (Category 3) present in the sourcing
area. More details about the risk designation for each indicator resides in the body of
this document.
Global Registry
The FSC Global Forest Registry was a key resource used for assessing and avoiding
material deemed unacceptable to FSC. The information contained in the Registry mirrored information captured in all FSC National Risk Assessments. The Global Forest
Registry is no longer functioning but the information that was listed continues to be a
source of “guidance” for company risk assessments. DBI’s risk assessment contains
references to the Global Forest Registry information. Again, detailed findings are
provided in the body of the document.
AHEC Seneca Creek Report
The 2008 Seneca Creek report on the Assessment of Lawful Harvesting & Sustainability
of US Hardwood Exports represents a very thorough review of risks associated with
sourcing hardwood. AHEC commissioned a review of this report, Assessment of Lawful
Sourcing and Sustainability U.S. Hardwood Exports, 2017, to ensure the conclusions
remain relevant and up-to-date. The report considers both the FSC and PEFC
Standards and reports that the US hardwood-producing region can be considered low MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 9 of 73 risk for illegal and non-sustainable hardwood sourcing. Results and key findings of the analysis are presented in the body of this document.
Methodology
The first step in determining the risk for companies is to determine the procurement area from which wood is sourced. DBI determines its sourcing via a track and trace system reviewed by third party auditors. In the case of DBI, the sourcing areas include counties within the States of:
1. Arkansas, 2. Louisiana, 3. Mississippi 4. west-central to northern Alabama 5. east Texas 6. southeast Oklahoma 7. Western Tennessee
These include the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ecoregions of:
• NA0404 Central US Hardwood Forests, • NA0409 Mississippi Lowland Forests, • NA0412 Ozark Mountain Forests, • NA0413 Southeastern Mixed Forests, • NA0523 Pine y Woods forests, • NA0529 Southeastern Conifer Forests, and • NA0701 Western Gulf Coastal Grasslands • NA0804 Central forest-grasslands transition • NA0402 Appalachian mixed mesophytic forests
The following sources were used to come to the conclusions stated in this risk assessment: MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 10 of 73
• FSC US NRA - https://us.fsc.org/en-us/certification/controlled-wood/fsc-us- controlled-wood-national-risk-assessment-us-nra • Global Forest Registry, formerly housed at - http://www.globalforestregistry.org • Assessment of Lawful Harvesting & Sustainability of US Hardwood Exports (AHEC/Seneca Creek Study) - https://www.illegal- logging.info/sites/files/chlogging/uploads/AHECRISKASSESSMENT.pdf • Assessment of Lawful Sourcing and Sustainability U.S. Hardwood Exports, 2017 https://www.decorativehardwoods.org/sites/default/files/2018- 04/SenecaCreekKeyFindings.pdf • Weyerhaeuser Company Limited public Controlled Wood Risk Assessment - http://fsc.force.com/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=00P3300000etleSEAQ • The Global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global Conservation - http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/356/files/original/The_Global_200_Prio rity_Ecoregions_for_Global_Conservation.pdf?1345735162 • Intact Forest Landscapes - http://www.intactforests.org/world.map.html • Conservation International Biodiversity Hotspots - http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Pages/default.aspx • Global Forest Change Map - http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science- 2013-global-forest • Laws and Policies noted for relevance to forest management in the US - https://us.fsc.org/download.us-laws-and-policies-relevant-to-forest- management.98.pdf (copy and paste link into browser) • National Report on Sustainable Forests 2010 - http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/docs/national-reports/2010/2010- sustainability-report.pdf • Society of American Foresters “The State of America’s Forests” - http://www.nelma.org/wp-content/uploads/StateOfAmericasForests1.pdf • DBI is a participant in the Sustainable Biomass Program. Evidence cited in the Consolidated Supply Base Evaluation as required by SBP should serve as axillary evidence to support the conclusion of this risk assessment.
The following section assess the specific requirements certification schemes as cited in the introduction section.
III. Quality Management System
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 11 of 73
Company Contact Information & Role:
Named management representative is responsible for all conformity with all applicable requirements of the FSC standards and serves as the main contact responsible for addressing complaints.
Sustainability
Name, Title Kyla Cheynet, Sustainability Manager
Date of Entry 04/24/2017
Primary activity Central office sustainability functions
Phone 404-229-8847
Email [email protected]
Document Management
DBI maintains all records and documents, related to this management system, for a minimum of five years.
Publicly Available Information
DBI provides the following information publicly regarding the DDS
1. At a minimum, a written summary of DBI’s DDS shall be provided to the certification body. DBI reserves the right to publish the entirety of the DDS.
2. General description of DBI’s supply area: Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, east- Texas, east-Oklahoma, west-central to northern Alabama, western Tennessee. Risk designation for all indicators except FSC Category 3 are “Low”. Detailed results are provided section IV.
Complaints Procedure MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 12 of 73
DBI is committed to providing our suppliers, customers and other interested parties with
exceptional service, and therefore we have created a process to handle any concerns or
complaints related to our certified work. DBI recognizes that complaints ma
In the case that there is a complaint related to Controlled Wood, Drax Biomass Inc. will
respond using the following steps:
1. Assess the evidence provided from the complaint within 2 weeks of its receipt; 2. When evidence is considered relevant, conduct investigation and propose actions in response within (2) months after its receipt; and 3. Exclude the supply and supplier from the Drax Biomass Inc’s controlled material category if any non-compliance with the FSC Controlled Wood requirements is found and reinstate supply only after the supplier has proven that it complies with FSC Controlled Wood requirements.
• If more time than (2) months is needed to complete the investigation, the complainant and certification body shall be notified.
• Records of all complaints received, and actions taken will be maintained in DBI’s internal complaint tracking system.
• DBI will notify the FSC US National Office and their CB of non-compliance instances with FSC Controlled Wood requirements in areas considered as low risk. If there are frequent non-compliances with the FSC Controlled Wood requirements in areas deemed to be low risk, a review of the current DBI risk assessment will be performed.
Stakeholder Input and Complaints
Stakeholder consultations are completed by DBI’s certification body. While following stakeholder consultation processes outlined by each applicable standard, the certification body presents currently published DDS results to stakeholders from a cross section of contacts from across the industry and supply base prior to annual external audits. Additional review of DBI’s sustainability programs are completed through SBP stakeholder consultations. Stakeholders are notified of this conclusion and evidence MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 13 of 73 presented through consultation. No stakeholder feedback to date has influenced the risk ratings as previously concluded.
IV. Risk Assessment Findings
The findings of the assessment are detailed below by the five FSC Categories. The
PEFC and SFI forest activities are detailed within each category as noted.
A. Category 1. Illegally harvested wood
The FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment has determined there is a “low risk” of illegally harvested wood. The risk assessment for Category 1 was originally completed by a consultant on behalf of FSC International. It was approved following a public consultation and then formally published as part of a Centralized National Risk
Assessment (CNRA) for the entire United States. This risk analysis was accepted and incorporated directly into the US NRA. Category 1 remains the same as it was in the
CNRA. Details are available in the FSC US Controlled Wood Risk Assessment. A review of key evidence is also presented below.
FSC’s defines illegally harvested wood as “Wood that has been harvested in violation of any and all laws applicable to harvesting in that location or jurisdiction including the acquisition of the harvesting rights from the rightful owner; the harvesting methods used and the payment of all relevant fees and royalties”. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 14 of 73
In determining risk FSC states that “An area shall be considered with unspecified risk when illegal harvesting is a threat to the forest, people and communities. Minor infractions and issues – such as minor geographical deviations from the allotted area of
harvesting, filing of paperwork late, or small infractions related to transport – should not
make an operation or district with unspecified risk. Illegal harvesting is unlikely to occur
systematically in areas where there is good forest-related governance.”
Governance-related criteria are therefore used to assess risk for illegal harvesting for a
given district. These criteria will initially include:
a) Perceived level of corruption related to forest activities b) Degree of transparency about information that is likely to reveal or reduce illegal harvesting if made public c) Degree to which key data and documents relevant to illegal harvesting exist and are of satisfactory quality d) Independent reports about illegal harvesting.
The main source used to verify a low risk designation for this category was the FSC US
US NRA.
The following review lists the applicable Standard’s criteria followed by evidence:
FSC 1.1) Evidence of enforcement of logging related laws in the district, PEFC a)
not complying with local, national or international legislation, applying to forest
related activities and SFI 4.3.1) Conduct a risk assessment of sourcing forest-based
products which are not in compliance with applicable MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 15 of 73
state, provincial or federal laws…
The FSC US NRA and AHEC notes that there is legislation in place to regulate forestry activities for all the United States. Each state has its own regulations that are adjusted to the regional conditions governing forestry and forest management. The exact penalties for legal violations are mostly determined on the state level, however evidence of law enforcement is generally found in all states. A minimum list of applicable laws for the use with controlled wood risk assessments (ADVICE-40-005-19) was released by
FSC® on 11/19/14 and further investigation of the federal and state laws applicable to
FSC® and PEFC™ requirements for this category are resulted in the list below.
Resources accessed were:
• http://www.illegal-logging.info website’s only references to the United States are in reference to U.S.-based companies operating in other countries and regarding the Lacey Act. • Assessment of Lawful Harvesting & Sustainability of US Hardwood Exports. The tables in Section 8 of AHEC give a comprehensive listing of applicable regulations as they pertain to hardwood producing States.
FSC 1.2) There is evidence in the district demonstrating the legality of harvests and
wood purchases that includes robust and effective system for granting licenses and
harvest permits, PEFC a) not complying with local, national or international legislation,
applying to forest related activities and SFI 4.3.2) Conduct a risk assessment of
sourcing forest-based products from illegal logging.
The US NRA and AHEC note that harvesting without legal right for doing so is MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 16 of 73
prohibited by Federal and state laws. In most states, the timber buyers and/or harvesting companies have to be licensed in order to conduct their business. Evidence indicates that major violations are prosecuted and legal liability is enforced. The Global
Forest Registry determined legality to be of “low risk” all across the United States.
Additional resources accessed were:
• www.illegal-logging.info website’s only references to the United States are in reference to U.S.-based companies operating in other countries and regarding the Lacey Act. • https://eia-international.org/ website’s only references to the United States are in reference to U.S.-based companies operating in other countries and regarding the Lacey Act. https://eia-global.org/initiatives/legality-policies • http://www.defenders.org/publications/state_forestry_laws.pdf. This publication provides a listing of all applicable State laws for forestry within each State. This includes Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Texas is not included in this publication. Texas does have forestry laws as noted. • Assessment of Lawful Harvesting & Sustainability of US Hardwood Exports. The tables in Section 8 of AHEC give a comprehensive listing of applicable regulations as they pertain to hardwood producing States.
FSC 1.3) There is little or no evidence or reporting of illegal harvesting in the district
of origin, PEFC a) not complying with local, national or international legislation,
applying to forest related activities and SFI 4.3.2) Conduct a risk assessment of
sourcing forest-based products from illegal logging.
The AHEC report notes that there is no evidence suggesting that illegal logging is a
wide scale problem in this United States. The US NRA determines legality to be of “low
risk” all across the United States. Commonly used terms for violations in US are timber
theft, tree poaching and unlawful logging. Minor cases of theft do occur occasionally,
however the share of illegal felling is much smaller than 1% according to study MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 17 of 73 conducted by AHEC. It is logical to conclude that similarly illegal logging is not a major problem for softwoods in US.
Additional resources accessed were:
• www.illegal-logging.info website’s only references to the United States are in reference to U.S.-based companies operating in other countries and regarding the Lacey Act. • https://eia-international.org/ website’s only references to the United States are in reference to U.S.-based companies operating in other countries and regarding the Lacey Act. https://eia-global.org/initiatives/legality-policies • A Nationwide Survey of Timber Trespass Legislation. Hicks, Timothy. Master of Forestry Thesis March 2005 PSU School of Forest Resources. http://www.mediafire.com/view/zxzclxnq9le/TimberTrespassThesis.pdf. The thesis by Hicks provides a list of forestry laws regarding legal trespass that includes Arkansas (has timber trespass statutes), Louisiana (has timber trespass statutes), Mississippi (has timber trespass statutes), Texas (has timber trespass statutes) and Alabama (has timber trespass statute).
FSC 1.4) There is a low perception of corruption related to the granting or issuing of
harvesting permits and other areas of law enforcement related to harvesting and
wood trade, PEFC a) not complying with local, national or international legislation,
applying to forest related activities and SFI 4.3) risk of sourcing forest-based
products from areas without effective social laws
According to past FSC® directive (FSC-DIR-40-005) and current Controlled Wood
Standard this indicator can be considered as low risk only if the Corruption Perception
Index (CPI) for the given country is equal to or above 50. According to the latest (2018) evaluation results from Transparency International
(https://www.transparency.org/country) the CPI for the United States was 71. This was MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 18 of 73
drop from previous years but is still well above FSC’s threshold of 50. The U.S. ranked
9th out of 177 countries assessed in 2013, 16th out of 168 countries assessed in 2015,
18th out of 176 countries in 2016, and 16th out of 180 countries in 2017, and 22 out of
180 countries in 2018.
The World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators
(http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home) report on six broad
dimensions of governance for 215 countries. The following as a whole, strongly indicate
that the U.S. is perceived as a country with a high regard for the rule of law, an effective environmental, labor and public welfare regulatory environment, and a low level of corruption. The findings for the United States in 2014-2017 were:
1) Voice and Accountability 81-84th percentile. This indicator captures perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media. 2) Political Stability and Absence of Violence 59-67th percentile. This indicator measures perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including politically-motivated violence and terrorism. 3) Government Effectiveness 89-92nd percentile. This indicator captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies. 4) Regulatory Quality 88-92nd percentile. This indicator captures perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. 5) Rule of Law 89-91th percentile. This indicator captures perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 19 of 73
6) Control of Corruption 88-89th percentile. This indicator captures perceptions regarding corruption among public officials, and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector.
Assessment of Lawful Harvesting & Sustainability of US Hardwood Exports notes that:
“There have been international assessments of illegal logging from the World Wildlife
Fund (WWF), Seneca Creek Associates, and Wood Resources International. These organizations have identified the areas where they have evidence of systematic illegal logging. These areas do not include the United States.” “Illegal logging in this country is of such small magnitude or frequency that it cannot be considered to be systematic in any areas of the United States In addition, any illegal logging that does occur is often MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 20 of 73
prosecuted or the rightful owner has means to remedy the situation.”
The FSC updated the FSC Directive on Controlled Wood (FSC-DIR-40-005 EN) on
October 10, 2014 with a revised ADVICE-40-005-19 dealing with Applicable National and Local Laws and Regulations for Controlled Wood risk assessments and due diligence programs. This guidance is also included in the latest FSC Controlled Wood
Standard, Annex A-Table A.
Companies conducting risk assessments according to Annex A of FSC- STD-40-
005 shall use the “Minimum list of applicable laws, regulations and nationally-
ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements” (below) for the
identification of logging related laws in the district under evaluation.
Where the CNRA contains an FSC® approved list of applicable laws for a
country, it is mandatory to use this list.
The FSC US office released on 11/19/14 an FSC-US – Minimum List of Applicable
Laws for use with Controlled Wood Risk Assessments. This list was developed by
FSC-US in coordination with other FSC stakeholders in the United States. It is a
minimum list of applicable laws at the national level in the US, and is not intended to be
a comprehensive list of all laws pertaining to forest management in the United States.
As of July, 2016 the FSC Controlled Wood standard incorporated the minimum list of
laws into the standard. Therefore, DBI utilized the minimum list and supplemented with
known laws, regulations and treaties that require consideration to operate its business. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 21 of 73
The list of laws is incorporated into DBI’s Biomass Sustainability Program and is available upon request.
At a national level, the U.S. has many federal laws relating to the minimum list of the
FSC Directive. These laws provide the overarching mandates within which more local laws operate. Note that the following list also demonstrates conformance with PEFC a) not complying with local, national or international legislation, applying to forest related activities, and b) not complying with legislation of the country of harvest relating to trade and customs and SFI 4.3.1) Conduct a risk assessment of sourcing forest-based products which are not in compliance with applicable state, provincial or federal laws…
International Treaties and Agreements to Which the U.S. is a Signatory: • Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, DC, 1940). • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, Iran, 2 Feb 1971). • United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) (Stockholm, Sweden, June 1972). • Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; (Paris, France, 16 Nov 1972). • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Washington DC, 1973). • International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) (1979 Revised Text) (Rome, Italy, 1979). • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, Germany, 23 Jun 1979). • Amendment to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Art.XI) (Bonn, Germany, 23 Jun 1979). • Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, Finland, 1991). • Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean (Moscow, Russia, 11 Feb 1992). • Agenda 21, United Nations Convention on Environment & Development UNCED, (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992). • Forest Principles (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992). MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 22 of 73
• Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 5 Jun 1992). • Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992). • Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,1992). • International Tropical Timber Agreement (Geneva, Switzerland, 1994). • Withdrawn, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto, Japan, 1997).
United States Federal Acts include:
• Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 • Clean Air Act of 1970 • Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act of 1972 • Coastal Zone Management of 1972 • Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, Office of Science & Technology (1986) • Endangered Species Act of 1973 • Energy Policy Act of 2005 • Executive Order (EO) 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994) • Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 • Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 2002 • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (amended 1996) • Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) (amended 1972) • Federal Plant Pest Act of1957 • Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 • Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 • Forest Conservation & Shortage Relief Act of 1990 • Forest & Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 • Lacey Act of 1900 (amended 2008) • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918, 2006) • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 • National Forest Management Act of 1978 • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 • National Trails System Act of 1968 • National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 • Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 • Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 • Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 23 of 73
• Renewable Resource Extension Act of 1978 • Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (1976, 1984). • Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890 • Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act/Superfund Act of 1980 • Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 • US Farm Bill (every 5 years). • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 • Wilderness Act of 1964 • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (amended 1994) • Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 • Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 • Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 • Native American Languages Act of 1990 • Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
Plus, Federal policy on income taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, reforestation tax credits, and other relevant taxes and Federal business practices law.
Treaties with Tribes:
• Varied treaties with American Indian Nations, Tribes, and Bands in the United States. Particular note should be made of treaties which established off- reservation treaty rights.
In addition to these Federal Acts, Federal responsibility is noted for CITES where the responsibility is shared between US Customs and Border Protection (Customs), the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for enforcing CITES trade controls. USFWS is the official U.S. CITES management authority. The Federal government also retains responsibility for trade.
Each state in the DBI sourcing area has a forestry agency, department, or division whose collective responsibilities include providing services and outreach, land management, and forest practices oversight. Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the AHEC report go MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 24 of 73 into great detail on Federal and State authorities and regulations as well non-regulatory initiatives that go far beyond what is currently listed in the Global Risk Registry. These were reviewed for the States listed above as well as their employment and environmental/natural resources departments.
State Laws and Policies may include:
• Forest practices acts • Endangered species acts • Environmental quality acts • Wildlife laws • Water quality protection laws • Water resources laws • Land use laws • Cultural protection acts • Business practices laws • Fire practices laws • River compacts and wild and scenic rivers acts • Natural communities conservation acts
Local Policies may include:
• County rules or guidelines regarding particular habitat types • County land use policies, including general plans (or their functional equivalents) and zoning ordinances (or their functional equivalents) • Regional (multi-county) land use policies. • County building codes. • County tax policies, including policies for income taxes, property taxes, and special assessment districts.
The CNRA suggested additional precaution to be taken at the subnational level for this indicator, therefore DBI compiled a list of known laws, regulations and treaties/conventions/agreements to supplement the minimum list required by FSC. The administrative responsibility, enforcement and effectiveness of the list of laws are periodically reviewed internally and audited by third party to determine risk on a sub- national scale. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 25 of 73
In addition to the evidence cited in all indicators, DBI has implemented a “Commitment
to Sustainable Forestry” in line with the parent company’s Environmental and
Sustainability policies. These policies along with third-party certifications demonstrate
DBI’s commitment to these values within the company culture. The commitment is
communicated to all employees and biomass providers.
DBI is a participant in the Sustainable Biomass Program. An in-depth review of the
effectiveness and application of laws can be found in the Supply Base Evaluation
(Annex 1 of the Supply Base Report) required by SBP (see Drax Biomass Website for
copy of most recent Supply Base Reports -
https://www.draxbiomass.com/sustainability/).
Based on the FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment (US NRA), and
the evidence reviewed above, DBI’s sourcing area can be judged to be of LOW
RISK to FSC Indicator 1, LOW LIKELIHOOD RISK for PEFC forest-based activities and originate from non-controversial sources for SFI.
B. Category 2. Traditional and civil rights
The FSC Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment for the US has determined that there is a “Low Risk” of “wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights”.
See FSC US Controlled Wood Risk Assessment for detail information on findings. In MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 26 of 73
addition, the following evidence is provided to support this determination:
FSC 2.1) There is no UN Security Council ban on timber exports from the country
concerned and PEFC a) not complying with local, national or international legislation,
applying to forest related activities, and b) not complying with legislation of the country
of harvest relating to trade and customs.
There is no UN Security Council export ban for or within the United States.
Additional sources
Global Witness https://globalwitness.org/en/. The United States is not listed as a country
of interest on the Global Witness website.
FSC 2.2) The country or district is not designated a source of conflict timber (e.g.
USAID Type 1 conflict timber) and PEFC a) not complying with local, national or
international legislation, applying to forest related activities, and b) not complying with legislation of the country of harvest relating to trade and customs.
The United States is not associated with or designated as source of conflict timber according to latest available research.
The final report of the expert panel on illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2002, MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 27 of 73
Annexes I and III (S/2002/1146) (available at
http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/pdf/un_report_oct_03.pdf)
Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa Volume I Synthesis
Report (available at www.usaid.gov)
FSC 2.3) There is no evidence of child labor or violation of ILO Fundamental Principles
and Rights at work taking place in forest areas in the district concerned, PEFC a) not
complying with local, national or international legislation; and SFI 4.3.3) forest-based products which are not in compliance with applicable state, provincial or federal laws or from areas without effective social laws.
No evidence of child labor or violation of ILO fundamental principles on a remarkable scale is known to occur.
AHEC reports that: “Forest employment in the US is regulated under federal and state laws and codes, which prohibit child labor and are consistent with the ILO Fundamental
Principles and Rights at work.”
Other Resources Assessed:
Global Child labor trends 2000 to 2012. ILO (International Labour Office).
Global Child Labor Trends: 2000-2004
http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/viewProduct.do;?productId=2299 MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 28 of 73
Global Child Labor Trends: 2000-2004
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Informationresources/WCMS_IPEC_PUB_23015/lang--
en/index.htm
Note that the United States is a member of the ILO but has not yet ratified the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Country profile
documenting ratifications.
FSC 2.4) There are recognized and equitable processes in place to resolve conflicts of
substantial magnitude pertaining to traditional rights including use rights, cultural
interests or traditional cultural identity in the district concerned, PEFC a) not complying
with local, national or international legislation, and SFI forest-based products which are
not in compliance with applicable state, provincial or federal laws or from areas without
effective social laws and SFI 4.3.3) forest-based products which are not in compliance with applicable state, provincial or federal laws or from areas without effective social laws
The US NRA and AHEC note that “Indigenous people in the US are a diverse group, encompassing 556 federally recognized tribes. There are many federally recognized
tribal organizations who have significant timberland resources. Assessment of Indian
forest management in the United States prepared for Intertribal Timber Council,
indicates that significant progress has been made toward closing the gaps between
tribal goals for their forests and the ways they are managed.”
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 29 of 73
There are no reservations with significant timberland resources within the DBI procurement area.
The US NRA and AHEC notes that “The legal system in the United States is generally considered fair and efficient in resolving conflicts pertaining to traditional rights including use rights, cultural interests or traditional cultural identity. There are different mechanisms or processes that allow Native American tribes, as well as any private citizen, to deal with disagreement and conflict related to decisions affecting natural resources, and forests in particular that are considered to be equitable.”
Note the list of Federal Acts at the end of Category 1.
FSC 2.5) There is no evidence of violation of the ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples taking place in the forest areas in the district concerned, PEFC a)
not complying with local, national or international legislation; and SFI 4.3.3) forest-
based products which are not in compliance with applicable state, provincial or
federal laws or from areas without effective social laws…
Note that the United States is a member of the ILO but has not ratified ILO Convention
169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Country profile documenting ratifications.
The US NRA and AHEC note that “violation of ILO Convention 169 and the rights of
Indigenous and Tribal people is generally not known to be a problem in the United
States based on national and international sources and reports. While arguments do MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 30 of 73
occur, there are equitable processes and mechanisms in place that allow Native
American tribes, as well as any private citizen, to deal with disagreement and conflict
related to decisions affecting natural resources and forests.”
According to AHEC Seneca Creek Study: “National Forests in the US have a clear and
detailed process for conducting timber sales that includes consultation with all
potentially affected communities, tribal nations and other civil society groups. While
there may be conflict over these sales, the appeals process is transparent and available
to all parties.”
Note that within the DBI procurement area there may be Indian reservations as follows
based on official state and federal Department of Indian Affairs listings:
Alabama: Federally recognized: Poarch Band of Creeks State recognized: Cher-O-Creek, Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama, Cherokees of Southeast Alabama, Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Ma-Chis Lower Creek, Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians, Piqua Shawnee, Star Clan of Muscogee Creeks, United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation
Arkansas: None
Louisiana: Federally recognized: Coushatta, Chitimacha, Jena, Tunica-Biloxi. State recognized: Caddo, Biloxi-Chitimacha, Chocataw-Apache, Clifton-Choctaw, Four Winds Tribe, Louisiana Choctaw, Point-Au-Chien, United Houma
Mississippi: Federally recognized: Mississippi Band of Chocataw
Texas: None within the DBI procurement area Federally recognized: Alabama-Coushatta, Kickapoo, Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo State recognized: Lipan Apache Tribe, Texas Band of Yaqui Indians MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 31 of 73
Oklahoma:
No Reservation in DBI procurement area but the Cherokee and the Choctaw are active.
Federally recognized: Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Comanche Nation, Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Kaw Nation, Kialegee Tribal Town, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Sac & Fox Nation, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco and Tawakonie), Wyandotte Nation
State recognized: no additional state recognized tribes.
Tennessee:
There are no federally recognized Indian tribes in Tennessee today. The Chikamaka Cherokees is an unrecognized Indian tribe that is within DBI’s expanded sourcing area.
Note that DBI conducts periodic stakeholder consultations as prescribed by FSC and
SBP. These consultations include a cross section of potentially interested stakeholder groups including but not limited to indigenous peoples. Results of these consultations are publicly listed on the FSC and SBP certificate verification websites. The SBP Supply
Base Evaluations also addresses this indicator in more detail.
Based on the FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment (US NRA), and the evidence reviewed above, DBI’s sourcing area can be judged to be of LOW MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 32 of 73
RISK to Category 2 and LOW LIKELIHOOD RISK for PEFC forest-based activities
and originate from non-controversial sources for SFI.
C. Category 3. High conservation value forest
The FSC International and US Board of Directors have approved the FSC US
Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment (US NRA). DBI uses the US NRA as the
primary determination of specified risk Category 3 - High Conservation Value Forest.
See link to the FSC US NRA documents below:
• FSC US Controlled Wood Risk Assessment • Static maps of areas with specified risks • Static map of all HCV1 Critical Biodiversity Areas
In addition to the FSC US NRA the following resources were surveyed and employed by the company:
• World Wildlife Federation (WWF) Ecoregions: https://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes • Partnership for Southern Forestland Conservation’s Core Working Forest Areas Map places all aspects of HCVs into context for further analysis on a local basis: http://www.pfsfc.org/
• Nature Serve and supporting State Natural Heritage Agencies, Protective Areas Database of the US: Sources of feedstocks are filtered and assessed based on a risk determination against pertinent databases.
• Regions identified by Conservation International as a Biodiversity Hotspot, or ecosystems and communities that are explicitly identified by Conservation International as a key component of a Biodiversity Hotspot. http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/North-and-Central- America/Pages/default.aspx
• Low Access and Remaining Frontier Forests: The objective of the analysis reported was to provide a coarse-scale picture of the location of North American forests (excluding Mexico) that have been only minimally disturbed by recent human MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 33 of 73
activity, such as logging, other commercial scale activities, or development-induced fragmentation
Findings:
I. Specified Risks - five specified risks are recognized in DBI’s sourcing area. These are specified risks designated in the FSC CWRA: 1. Native Longleaf Pine Systems 2. Late Successional Bottomland Hardwoods 3. Dusky Gopher Frog 4. Southern Appalachian Critical Biodiversity Area 5. Central Appalachian Biodiversity Area
These risks are reviewed in detail in the Specified Risk Review section below.
II. Low Risk - other high conservation value considerations were reviewed which did not trigger Specified Risk designation: • There are no intact forests as per Greenpeace • There are no High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas per Conservation International. • There are no regions identified by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as a Centre of Plant Diversity. However, the IUCN has recently added longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) to their red list. DBI is aware of this and has been in contact with IUCN and longleaf pine advocates. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39068/0 • There are no regions identified by the World Resources Institute as a Frontier Forest or as a Low-Access Forest tract larger than 500km2. However, about three- quarters of low-access woodlands and forests in the lower 48 are in tracts smaller than 100 km2. • There is one WWF Global 200 region that falls within the DBI procurement area. • There are two WWF terrestrial ecoregions in DBI’s souring area that were flagged by the AHEC Seneca Creek Study as containing concentrations of High Conservation Values (HCVs) that may require further analysis • There is one WWF aquatic region (Southeastern Rivers and Streams) of concern that falls within DBI’s sourcing area. • Conservation International has identified one Biodiversity hotspot; the North American Coastal Plain (NACP). • Nature Serve and state level data. Federally threatened and endangered species and species/natural communities ranked G1 and G2 do occur within the sourcing area.
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 34 of 73
Evidence for low-risk determination of these high conservation considerations is provided in the Low-Risk Evidence Review section immediately following the review of Specified Risks.
I. Specified Risks Review
FSC US has identified two key ecosystems (HCV3) as “specified risk” - Late
Successional Bottomland Hardwoods (LSBH), and Native Longleaf Pine Systems
(NLPS), and three HCVs specifically related to Species Diversity (HCV1), the Central
Appalachian Biodiversity Area, the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Area, and the
Dusky Gopher Frog. These specified risks are described in detail in section VI of this
document. DBI recognizes these as specified risks and implements the mandatory
Control Measures defined in the FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment
(Section VII of this document). As specified by the mandatory Control Measures, DBI
implements mitigation actions identified during the collaborative dialogue at the
Controlled Wood Regional Meetings and detailed in the Controlled Wood Regional
Meeting Report, available at: https://us.fsc.org/en-us/certification/controlled-wood/fsc-
us-controlled-wood-national-risk-assessment-us-nra.
The following describes DBI’s procedures and mitigation actions implemented for primary and secondary feedstock sourcing.
Primary Feedstock Sourcing
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 35 of 73
Only two of the specified risks are relevant to DBI’s primary sourcing of roundwood and in-woods chips, NLPS and LSBH. LSBH is a very small risk due to the fact that DBI sources primarily southern yellow pine with a fraction of in-woods chips material which may contain hardwood. Current procurement procedures and processes mitigate the risk of sourcing fiber in a manner that would threaten NLPS and LSBH forests. These primary feedstock controls embedded in DBI’s internal processes are subject to monitoring and internal audit. DBI has integrated the FSC HCV maps into its GIS system and Rapid Risk Assessment process and actively screens all tracts for sensitivities. In addition, DBI requires comprehensive forest cover type and species information be provided during source set-up which allows stands to be assessed for the potential of sourcing from longleaf pine or hardwood systems. If a risk is identified then DBI has an opportunity provide educational mitigation materials and to identify management requirements which will protect the integrity of the system. DBI also reserves the right to refuse purchase of fiber if the harvesting method and/or the subsequent management plans will threaten the integrity of these high conservation value forests.
*Note - a further safeguard for the protection of LSBH is the commitment that DBI has made to not utilize material from cypress tupelo ecosystems in the production of wood pellets.
Secondary Feedstock Sourcing MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 36 of 73
DBI does not have line of sight to individual tracts that provide fiber to secondary and tertiary feedstock suppliers, therefore the following mitigations will be applied:
For the Dusky Gopher Frog, FSC identifies two small areas at the extreme south of
DBI’s sourcing area which are only of relevance to residual sourcing. These areas are under Federal Critical Habitat protections. FSC has identified education and outreach as a mitigation option for the DGF. DBI will provide educational materials to the suppliers which have the potential to source from the FSC identified risk areas.
Educational materials will be informed by the best available science and adapted as new information and/or approaches become available. The desired outcome of these communications is engaging landowners, foresters, and loggers in conservation of DGF populations.
Late Successional Bottomland Hardwoods (LSBH) are primarily an issue for residual suppliers who use hardwoods or are proximate to LSBH areas. The areas that potentially have LSBH have been mapped by FSC and integrated into DBI’s GIS system and RRA procedures. For residual suppliers, outreach and education is the chosen mitigation tool. The educational materials are intended to help expand recognition of the value of late successional bottomland hardwood systems, reduce further landscape level loss, and point landowners towards resources that can be used to manage this valuable forest type.
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 37 of 73
DBI has engaged the Forest Stewards Guild in the development of educational materials. DBI is also supporting the Forest Stewards Guild’s new project which focuses on improving bottomland hardwood forest management (to benefit wildlife) in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
Native Longleaf Pine Systems (NLPS)
For NLPS, the areas at risk have been identified by FSC at county/parish level.
Education and outreach will be the primary mitigation for residual suppliers who’s sourcing area intersects FSC identified risk areas. The desired outcome of these communications is engaging landowners, foresters, and loggers in conservation of
Native Longleaf Pine systems.
DBI has engaged the Longleaf Alliance in the development of educational materials.
DBI also supports the annual Longleaf Alliance conference. Plans are to distribute additional educational materials the Longleaf Alliance has already developed and investigate other opportunities for engaging in regional LL conservation initiatives including landowner workshops.
Southern and Central Appalachian Critical Biodiversity Area (CACBA & SACBA respectively)
As of 2019 DBI now recognizes the Central and Southern Appalachian Critical
Biodiversity Areas as specified risks within the supply area. These two specified risks only affect DBI’s residual sourcing due to the distance from existing pellet mills. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 38 of 73
Education and outreach will be the mitigation tool employed. As described for the risks above, these materials will be developed according to best available science and be adapted as new information and approaches come available (i.e. through FSC CW
Regional meetings). This educational material will be aimed at increasing awareness of the sensitivities and unique nature of these CBAs in hopes of increasing conservation of these highly biodiverse areas.
Control Measures and Mitigation Options adequate to reduce risk
DBI’s implementation of the FSC Control Measures and associated approved mitigation options combined with the existing procedural safeguards described above and contractual requirements to follow best practices, use trained loggers, and follow the law, are sufficient to bring the risk of non-compliance with this requirement to “low” for all feedstocks.
Findings from Field Verification and Internal Audit
Internal audit reveals current controls in place for primary sourcing are adequate to
reduce the risk related to FSC Category 3 to low. Mitigations have been rolled out to all
secondary suppliers which are in the footprint of the above mentioned FSC risks. DBI is MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 39 of 73 monitoring suppliers use and understanding of these mitigation materials. To date there is no evidence that sourcing is causing a negative impact of the specified risks identified.
II. Low-Risk Evidence Review The following additional high conservation value considerations are reviewed below:
• WWF Global 200 Ecosystem #75- The Southeastern Coniferous and Broadleaf Forest • 2 WWF terrestrial ecoregions – Southeastern coniferous Forest and Southeastern Broadleaf Forest • WWF aquatic region - Southeastern Rivers and Streams • Conservation International Biodiversity hotspot - the North American Coastal Plain • Nature Serve and state level data rare species/community data will be reviewed below.
These high conservation values are evaluated against the following Standard requirements:
FSC 3.1) Forest management activities in the relevant level (eco-region, sub-eco- region, local) do not threaten eco-regionally significant high conservation values.
Organizations are required to avoid material from forests where HCVs are being threatened at the ecoregional level;
FSC 3.2) A strong system of protection (effective protected areas and legislation) is in place that ensures survival of the HCVs in the ecoregion and PEFC a) not complying with local, national or international legislation; and
SFI 4.3.1) sourcing forest-based products which are not in compliance with applicable MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 40 of 73 state, provincial or federal laws, particularly as they may relate to legally required protection of threatened and endangered species… legally required management of areas with designated high environmental and cultural values.”
Federal and State Protections addressing all HCV 1 risks:
As previously reviewed for Category 1 risks, there are both Federal and State level legislation which addresses protection of HCVF areas. The high World Bank rating
(>=75%) in the World Bank “rule of law” index, USA is rated 91.39% demonstrates that there is a strong system of Federal and State regulation and protection. DBI maintains an extensive list of laws which is available upon request. Below is an excerpt of laws and treaties already reviewed in Category 1 of this document:
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act of 1972 • Coastal Zone Management of 1972 • Endangered Species Act of 1973 • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (amended 1996) • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 • Forest Conservation & Shortage Relief Act of 1990 • Forest & Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 • Lacey Act of 1900 (amended 2008) • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918, 2006) • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 • National Forest Management Act of 1978 • National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 • Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890 • Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 • Wilderness Act of 1964
State laws and policies also address native wildlife and endangered species, scenic rivers, land use, fire protection and a suite of other environmental considerations.
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 41 of 73
The forest areas which are located in National Parks, Wilderness Areas and on State
Park ownership are considered as being relatively well protected. DBI has incorporated
the Protected Area Database (PAD) into its GIS system and is aware of state and
federal lands within its sourcing area. Within the DBI procurement area, the following
Federal and State parks and wilderness areas exist:
Alabama Little River Canyon National Park, Sipsey Wilderness, William B. Bankhead National Forest,Tuskegee National Forest, Talladega National Forest, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Blowing Wind Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge, Chocktaw National Widlife Refuge 24 State Parks/State WMAs
Arkansas Hot Springs National Park Big Lake Wilderness, Black Fork Wilderness, Buffalo National River Wilderness, Caney Creek Wilderness, Dry Creek Wilderness, East Fork Wilderness, Flatside Wilderness, Hurricane Creek Wilderness, Leatherwood Wilderness, Poteau Mountain Wilderness, Balck Fork Mnt Wilderness, Richland Creek Wilderness, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Ozark National Forest, Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Cache National Wildlife Refuge, White River National Wildlife Refuge, Bald Knob NWR, Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge, Saint Francis National Forest 52 State Parks
Louisiana Cane River Creole National Historic Park and Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Breton Wilderness, Kisatchie Hills Wilderness, Lacassine Wilderness and twenty State parks
Mississippi No relevant National Parks Black Creek Wilderness, Gulf Islands Wilderness, Leaf Wilderness and twenty-four State parks
Texas No National Parks in DBI procurement area. Indian Mounds Wilderness, Turkey Hill Wilderness, and eight state parks
Oklahoma Oauchita National Forest, Hugo Lake State Park, Raymond Gary State Park, Beavers Bend State Park, Talimena State Park, Lake Wister State Park, Robbers Cave State MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 42 of 73
Park, and Clayton Lake State Park
Tennessee Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge,15 State Parks, 5 State Forests and 5 State WMAs State Wildlife Action Plans and state level rare species databases were also reviewed
Links to State Wildlife Action Plan and state Natural Heritage data are provided below:
State Wildlife Action Plans (link to all state wildlife action plans)
Alabama http://www.alnhp.org/ Forestry considerations: http://www.aces.edu/natural- resources/wildlife/endangeredspecies.php
Arkansas http://www.naturalheritage.com/research-data/rarespecies-search.aspx
Louisiana http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/species-by-parish?tid=All&type_1=All
Mississippi http://www.mdwfp.com/seek-study/heritage-program.aspx
Texas http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/
Oklahoma https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlife/wildlife-diversity/threatened-and-endangered https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/OK/ThreatenedEndangeredSpeciesby County.pdf
Tennessee http://www.tnswap.com/
The Southeastern Coniferous and Broadleaf Forest (WWF Global 200 Ecosystem #75):
The Southeastern Coniferous and Broadleaf Forest is comprised of two WWF
Terrestrial Ecosystems, the Southeastern Conifer Forest (NA0529) and the
Southeastern Mixed Forest (NA0413). Both of these ecosystems are considered MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 43 of 73
Critical/Endangered by the WWF. The Seneca Creek Study, commissioned by AHEC, flagged these ecosystems for containing high densities of high conservation values which therefore required further investigation (see screenshot of Seneca Creek report listing all ecosystems flagged for review). According to AHEC a “Through assessment of
CI Biodiversity Hotspots and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas, WWF Global 200
Ecoregions, Smithsonian/IUCN Centres of Plant Diversity, WRI/Global Forest Watch
Frontier Forests, and Greenpeace Intact Forest Landscapes, the ecoregions were tagged for containing high densities of high conservation values and, thus, were flagged for further investigation.” These ecoregions were then assessed for levels of protection and compliance with Criterion 3.2 of the FSC® Controlled Wood Standard.”
Results of AHEC Analysis of the Southern Coniferous Forest and the Southern Mixed
Forest are included below: MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 44 of 73
“Forest management in the Southeastern Conifer Forests ecoregion can be considered low risk because the major threats identified to the HCVs in the ecoregion have been identified as fire suppression, highway development; urban sprawl, suburban development, and introduced species. If the loss of natural forest cover due to conversion is a risk issue, it will be uncovered in the following section directly related to conversion. Forestry is not mentioned as a threat to ecoregional conservation values in the WWF assessment, and it could be argued that promoting forestry as a viable land use will help preserve the HCVs associated with forests.”
“A similar argument is presented for the Southeastern Mixed Forests ecoregion.
Conversion to agriculture for growing tobacco and peanuts was the primary threat to the ecoregional values when the forests were converted long ago. However, forestry was identified as a threat in the WWF assessment because there are few remaining natural forests, and most of the significant remaining forest blocks are in National Forests, where they are and can be subject to logging. However, due to the current climate of national forest management in the Southeastern Mixed Forests, wood coming from this ecoregion can be considered low risk.”
“The Southeastern Mixed Forests and Southeastern Conifer forests were classified as vulnerable through the protected areas assessment (less than critical or endangered).
WWF Identified threats to the Southeastern conifer forests include development, fire suppression, and exotic species and did NOT include forestry. Identified threats to the
Southeastern Mixed Forests included forestry due to the fact that the most noted remnants of native forest exist on National Forest Service land. Recent changes in MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 45 of 73
Forest Service management of these areas that are not captured in the referred to assessments indicate that wood coming from this ecoregion can be considered low risk to HCVs. Despite the Low Risk determination, threat can be further mitigated with guarded procurement from this ecoregion.”
WWF Southeastern Rivers and Streams Ecosystem
In addition to these terrestrial ecosystems, one WWF Aquatic Ecosystem of concern, the Southeastern Rivers and Streams ecosystem is located in DBI’s sourcing area.
This ecoregion lies within Southeastern North America, stretching from southern
Virginia west to Tennessee and south to Alabama and Florida. Integrity of aquatic habitat is the is the primary concern, with deforestation listed as one of the potential threats. Deforestation, driven primarily by development, is not a concern in the rural areas where DBI is sourcing. Streams are protected by implementation of state BMPs designed to meet the federal Clean Water Act. BMPs require retention of a Stream
Side Management Zone to protect water quality. States in DBI’s sourcing area have high rates of BMP implementation. In addition, in recent listing rules the USFWS has recognized that proper BMP implementation does protect habitat for aquatic species.
Conservation International Biodiversity Hotspot
DBI’s sourcing area is located within a recently designated Conservation International
Biodiversity Hotspot. The North American Coastal Plain was added as a Biodiversity
Hotspot on Feb, 2016. The entire Geologic Coastal Plain is considered the NACP global hotspot (1.13 million km2) by Conservation International. This area has received MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 46 of 73
the designation due to the high level of endemism. The area is very diverse, containing
forests, woodlands, grasslands, marshes and fire adapted savannas. Urban
development is considered a threat to this region. Restoring and maintaining dispersal
corridors and restoring or mimicking natural disturbances (fire and thinning) are key to
conserving the region’s biodiversity.
DBI plays a role in conservation of this unique system by supporting a healthy forest
economy and providing a market for low-grade fiber. With the majority of the land in this
region owned by private landowners, markets for timber products assure that land can
continue to be managed as productive forestland rather than sold into development.
Thinning is an important tool landowners can use to mimic natural disturbance and
create more open pine stands. DBI provides an additional market for low-grade and residual timber removed during thinnings.
http://www.cepf.net/news/top_stories/Pages/Announcing-the-Worlds-36th-Biodiversity-
Hotspot.aspx#.WRsLvGkrLX4
Nature Serve Data
Nature Serve data (Natural Heritage Data) and State Wildlife Action Plans indicate that
there are federally threatened and endangered species as well as species and
community types considered globally critically imperiled (G1) and globally imperiled
(G2) by the Nature Serve system. However, strong federal and state protection for T&E
species, state and federal management areas, conservation easements, and DBI’s MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 47 of 73
internal procurement due diligence procedures contribute to a low-risk classification of these hcv types. DBI is continually updating the database of species occurrences and working in partnership with state and federal agencies to identify and protect species and communities of concern.
Additional assessed resources:
Data Basin - https://databasin.org/datasets/23fb5da1586141109fa6f8d45de0a260
Intact Forests: www.intactforests.org
WWF Ecoregions: http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes
Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund: http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/North-
and-Central-America/Pages/default.aspx
Based on the information compiled above, the DBI sourcing area contains five
Specified Risks, Native Longleaf Pine, Late-successional Bottomland Hardwoods,
Southern Appalachian Critical Biodiversity Area, Southern Appalachian Critical
Biodiversity Area, and the Dusky Gopher Frog. Control Measures and mitigation
options employed as well as existing procedural protections reduce their risk to
LOW. Other high conservation values identified in the supply area were reviewed
and determined to be LOW RISK to FSC Category 3 and LOW LIKELIHOOD RISK
for PEFC forest-based activities and originate from non-controversial sources for
SFI.
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 48 of 73
D. Category 4. Conversion
The FSC Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment for the US has determined that
there is a “Specified Risk” for conversion portions of the southern US, however, DBI’s sourcing area is NOT within the identified conversion risk areas.
Relevant reference to conversion by Standard include:
FSC - 4.1 of the FSC CW Standard (FSC-STD-40-005 (Version 3-1) EN), the supply area can be considered low risk of conversion if “there is no net loss AND no significant rate of loss (> 0.5% per year) of natural forests and other naturally wooded ecosystems such as savannahs taking place in the eco-region in question”.
PEFC COC (PEFC 2002-2013 Chain of Custody Standard – Second Edition) –
Controversial sources (3.9) a (a) not complying with local, national or international
legislation, applying to forest related activities, in particular in the following areas: -
forestry operations and harvesting, including biodiversity conservation and conversion
of forest to other use AND 3.9 (d) converting forest to other vegetation type, including
conversion of primary forests to forest plantations.
SFI 4.3.1 Conduct a risk assessment of sourcing forest-based products which are not in compliance with applicable state, provincial or federal laws, particularly as they may relate to: conversion sources… MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 49 of 73
The FSC US NRA has determined that conversion risks are present in certain US
regions, however, DBI’s sourcing area is not in the risk area (see map below). DBI
accepts the results of the FSC CWNR as the primary risk assessment tool, and has
therefore determined the sourcing area to be low risk for conversion. However,
other a comprehensive review of other sources is also included below for reference.
US NRA and AHEC
The US NRA and AHEC notes that: “According to a 2007 FAO report (State of World's
Forests 2007) forest area annual net increase is 0.1% in average within United States, thus on whole country level the conversion is not a problem. However, there are significant differences between different areas of U.S. Study by AHEC and comments from FSC US suggest that there are two ecoregions where conversion is endangering forests and where loss of forest cover is greater than 0.5% annually (the threshold MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 50 of 73
defined by FSC). In the Everglades (located in Southern Florida) … and in the Pacific
Lowlands Mixed Forests (located in Western Washington and Oregon state). All other
areas of United States can be classified as low risk in relation to conversion as net loss
of natural forests is not occurring in a significant rate and is in all cases is below 0.5% annually.”
Note that DBI does not source wood from either the Everglades or Pacific Lowland
Mixed Forests.
According to the United States Forest Service in their Forest Resources of the United
States, 2007: “The South region, … had a 13-percent increase in total volume between
1997 and 2007.” The statistics from the Forest Resources of the United States, 2012
seems to confirm these findings. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/47322
FSC Q&A on “plantations” that specifically states that most planted pine areas are
managed as natural forests in the south.
Additional sources: State of the World's Forests 2007. FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations). 2007.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.htm
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015:
http://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/a-i4793e.pdf
Area Changes in U.S. Forests and Other Major Land Uses, 1982-2002, With Projections
to 2062, USFS PNW-GTR-815. This study indicates the greatest threat to conversion MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 51 of 73
from forest land to non-forest land in the south central states including Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and eastern Texas is due to urban and suburban development.
Forest Resources of the United States, 2012 http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/program-
features/rpa/docs/2012%20RPA_%20Review%20Draft%20Resource%20Tables%2002
-18-2014.pdf
Forest Resources of the United States,
2007http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo78.pdf
Based on the FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment (US NRA), and
the evidence reviewed above, DBI’s sourcing area can be judged to be of LOW
RISK to FSC Category 4 and LOW LIKELIHOOD RISK for PEFC forest-based activities and originate from non-controversial sources for SFI.
E. Category 5. GMO Trees
The FSC Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment for the US has determined that there is a “Low Risk” of sourcing “Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted”. The Category 5 risk assessment was completed by a consultant on behalf of FSC International. It was approved following a public consultation and then formally published as part of a Centralized National Risk Assessment (CNRA) for the entire United States (including Categories 1 and 5). The evidence provided for Category
5 of the US NRA remains exactly the same as it was in the CNRA. Details are MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 52 of 73 available in the FSC US Controlled Wood Risk Assessment (US NRA). A review of key evidence is also presented below.
FSC 5.a) There is no commercial use of genetically modified trees of the species
concerned taking place in the country or district concerned and PEFC c) utilizing
genetically modified forest based organisms.
The US NRA and AHEC note that: “According to the latest available Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) study ("Preliminary review of biotechnology in forestry, including genetic modification", 2004.
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae574e/ae574e00.htm), “There is no commercial usage of any genetically modified (GM) trees in the United States. Commercial usage of GM trees is only taking place in China (species Populus nigra) according to the FAO data.”
“At the same time it should be noted that the U.S. is most advanced country in laboratory experiments and field trials of GM species and thus the possibility that GM species will be commercially used in U.S. is realistic.”
Two publications since 2004, have indicated that there are no further commercial usage of GM trees. The FAO published a report Forests and Genetically Modified Trees that included a chapter on environmental concerns. In the chapter cited below, the authors wrote: “To date, more than 200 field trials with genetically modified forest trees have been documented worldwide. The majority of those were carried out to test herbicide and insect resistance, lignin reduction or developmental processes, and only few to MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 53 of 73 investigate biosafety issues such as sterility, transgene stability, or vertical and horizontal gene transfer. In North America, transgenic trees were tested mainly in relation to improvement of plantation forestry.” In the September 2013 issue of
Biotechnology Journal Haggman et al reported that: “To date, the only known approvals for commercial-scale cultivation of a forest tree species have been granted in China where two varieties of insect-resistant poplars have been planted since 2002 with one variety planted at eight sites in seven provinces.”
Sources:
Assessment of Lawful Harvesting & Sustainability of US Hardwood Exports, AHEC, available at: http://www.ahec-europe.org/
Genetically modified trees and associated environmental concerns. M. Fladung, H.-L.
Pasonen and C. Walter in Forests and Genetically Modified Trees FAO 2010 http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1699e/i1699e.pdf
Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk assessment Hely Häggman et al in Biotechnology Journal
Volume 11, Issue 7, pages 785–798, September 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12100/full#pbi12100-bib-0011
FSC 5.b Licenses are required for commercial use of genetically modified trees and
there are no licenses for commercial use
Not evaluated since information exists for criteria a.
FSC 5.c It is forbidden to use genetically modified trees commercially in the country MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 54 of 73
concerned
Not evaluated since information exists for criteria a.
Note: DBI uses primarily southern yellow pine as feedstock for pellet production. SYP
varietals are not GMOs nor regulated by USDA-APHIS as GMOs. Example:
http://www.arborgen.com/products-usa/
Presently, the US NRA designates FSC Category 5 as “low risk” but suggests that
future considerations will be needed due to the progressing science concerning GMOs.
Based on the FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment (US NRA), the
DBI sourcing area can be judged to be of LOW RISK for Category 5 and LOW
LIKELIHOOD RISK for PEFC™ forest-based activities and originate from non-
controversial sources for SFI.
V. Conclusion
Based on the information compiled above, the DBI sourcing area contains five
Specified Risks, Native Longleaf Pine, Late-successional Bottomland Hardwoods,
Southern Appalachian Critical Biodiversity Area, Southern Appalachian Critical
Biodiversity Area, and the Dusky Gopher Frog. FSC Categories 1,2,4, and 5 were found to be Low risk and there was a LOW LIKELIHOOD RISK for PEFC forest-
based activities and originate from non-controversial sources for SFI. MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 55 of 73
VI. Detailed Description of Specified Risks
Late Successional Bottomland Hardwoods (CW National Risk Assessment Text)
Bottomland Hardwoods are floodplain forests that are periodically inundated or saturated. Hydrology drives the entire ecosystem and means that even small changes can result in very significant effects on the system. Bottomland hardwoods in the Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Valley have some similarities, but also differ in some significant ways. Much of the original bottomland hardwood in the US has been cleared for agriculture, particularly so in the Mississippi valley, and much of the forest has been mismanaged – leaving very few examples of intact late successional forest. [135, 139, 141, 143]. ‘Bottomland Hardwoods’ as a category includes a number of different species associations that vary depending primarily upon the extent of flooding (e.g., permanently flooded cypress swamps vs slightly drier, temporarily flooded forests dominated by oak), but also soil characteristics, detrital decomposition rates, soil and water pH, nutrient availability and turnover rates, flood depth and water velocity, light intensity, and disturbance. Bottomland hardwoods do not have very distinct seral stages defined by significant changes in species composition, but instead maintain most of the same species, with slight shifts in composition. Therefore, a late successional stand is not defined by the species, as MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 56 of 73
much as by the structural composition (e.g., more stratification) and existence of large wood debris, including standing hollow trees – these changes occur at about 80 years in most Bottomland hardwood types and perhaps a little later in cypress swamps. While old Bottomland Hardwood stands are not particularly rare, the late successional stands, with characteristics as previously described, are quite rare, due to a history of selective clear-cutting and high-grading. Those that are a little drier (slightly higher up the banks are more rare than the permanently flooded cypress swamps, due to greater historical access for timber management and conversion to agriculture. However, even the wettest sites are now seeing increased harvest, due to increased demand for materials. [244,245; Experts: 29-33] For the purposes of this assessment, ‘late successional’ refers to bottomland hardwoods that are at least 80 years old and have the complex structural characteristics associated with late successional stands, but are not necessarily old growth (as defined by the FSC US Forest Management Standard) . [141,142]
Significant threats include development, changes to hydrology (droughts, water withdraws, ditching), incompatible forest management (results in changes to canopy age and structure, to hydrology and to available dead and down woody debris), pollution, fragmentation, climate change, invasive species (including spread that is exacerbated by logging activities),, and economic drivers that alter forest management goals (i.e., economic drivers that increase harvest rates and demands for materials, resulting in pressure to harvest in places/in ways that aren’t appropriate). [135, 139] Changes to the vegetative cover in these systems can significantly affect hydrologic flow, and therefore change the entire system [137, 138, 139, 141, 143; Expert: 33].
Forest management occurring within bottomland hardwoods is not necessarily in itself a threat, but how the management is applied, particularly in the context of the local landscape, is the most significant concern [135, 136, 140, 144]. The professionals responsible for managing these forests are frequently trained with a focus on upland silviculture, but those same techniques can have ecologically damaging effects when applied in bottomland hardwood system, due to the different disturbance regimes, ecosystem dynamics and regeneration needs. [135] As with the overall characteristics of the system, there are also some differences in threats between the Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In the Mississippi Valley, the river-driven seasonal flooding allows management activities to occur in relatively dry conditions, and silvicultural treatments can generate positive ecological and economic impacts. In contrast, bottomland hardwood forests in the Coastal Plain may not have the same opportunities for dependable, seasonable dry periods and are more often treated under challenging (wet) conditions than those in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley; therefore, clearcut silviculture (resulting in significant change to the vegetative cover) is more commonly implemented to meet economic and ecological goals. In the Coastal Plains, the systems are still not fully understood and it is not always known which silvicultural techniques are most appropriate in which situations, nor how decisions about forest management activities interact with other natural and human-derived threats. Whereas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, the demand for forest products can promote silviculture that does not achieve forest conditions desired for biodiversity and ecological function (i.e., size, structure and composition of forest vegetation, availability of dead and down woody debris). There is some evidence (and research is ongoing) that the size and location of openings, which species are retained, harvest method (equipment and techniques), past disturbance of hydrology and availability of red maple/sweet gum seed in the surrounding landscape all can have an impact on successful development of stands with the desired species MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 57 of 73 composition and habitat elements. Silviculture decisions should emphasize the geomorphic setting and hydrologic conditions of the site, while restoring or maintaining the species and structural diversity. [144 Experts: 21,29,31,33]
The above discussion of threats is generalized to all Bottomland Hardwoods; however, the same threats apply to the subset of these forests which has been identified as HCV – Late Successional Bottomland Hardwoods.
Native Longleaf Pine Systems (CW National Risk Assessment Text)
Once one of the most widespread forest types in the US, longleaf pine savannah has been reduced to 5% of its original range. In terms of proportion of original extent that remains, this makes this system one of the rarest in the world. They are associated with particularly high animal and plant diversity. [40, 42, 150] Characteristics of these fire-dependent systems include longleaf pine as the dominant tree, a conspicuous lack of midstory trees and shrubs, and a well- developed, diverse ground layer (dominated by bunch grasses and other flowering plants). At a landscape scale, naturally occurring longleaf systems typically exist as an uneven-aged mosaic of even-aged patches, which vary in size, shape, structure, composition and density depending upon the local conditions. This variability helps to drive the high biodiversity associated with them, with most of that biodiversity in the ground layer. [40, 147, 148, 149, 150]
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 58 of 73
Threats include altered stand structure (due to lack of fire), conversion to other forest types, conversion to other land uses (development), habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and modification of hydrological features threaten native longleaf pine systems. As a fiber-producing forest type, long-leaf cannot compete with loblolly or slash pine for short-term returns on . As a result, native longleaf is still being converted to other forest types [145,147,148,149,150, Experts: 20,22], and while these other forest types may provide an acceptable habitat for some species, their establishment is threatening the existing longleaf pine areas. The hydrology of a site is important for both establishment of longleaf pine systems, but also for the natural function of the wetlands (ephemeral and permanent) that typically occur within them. The hydrology of a site can be affected by both past and current silvicultural practices. [247,248].
Threats are different in different places, with lack of fire being the overall greatest concern, followed by conversion to other land uses (development) and incompatible forest management practices (conversion to other forest types). However, the interactions between these three threats compound the problems - it is much more difficult to implement fire as a management tool when near urban areas, and fire is suppressed in the typical management of loblolly or slash pine, so that even the ground layer plant diversity is lost.
Dusky Gopher Frog (CW National Risk Assessment Text)
+ The Dusky Gopher Frog historically occurred on the Coastal Plain from eastern Louisiana to the Mobile River delta in Alabama. Now, it is only known from one site in Harrison County and a couple of sites in Jackson County, MS, although there are also active efforts to reintroduce into MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 59 of 73
wetlands in Perry County. Critical habitat was designated in 2012 within four counties in Mississippi and one in Louisiana. Current populations are documented in two of the Mississippi Counties (Harrison and Jackson) and active efforts toward reintroduction are occurring in the third (Perry). The species has not been documented in Louisiana since 1967 and there is no evidence of active reintroduction efforts. Occurs in upland areas of sandy soils that were historically forested with longleaf pine and in the temporary wetland breeding sites that are embedded within the forested landscape. Major threats include population isolation, urbanization, disease, and a lack of suitable habitat. Habitat degradation is a significant factor, driven by multiple sources including, changes in forest type from longleaf pine to other forest types, forest degradation caused by grazing and the disruption of the natural fire regime, and land management practices that alter the soil horizon, forest litter, herbaceous community and the occurrence of down woody debris. Timber site prep and other forestry practices that alter temporary wetlands can damage breeding areas. [70, 72]
Southern Appalachians Critical Biodiversity Area (CW National Risk Assessment Text)
Southern Appalachians CBA1 Biodiversity values in the southern Appalachians are largely driven by exceptional aquatic biodiversity, but also by glade and montane longleaf pine habitats. Alabama’s Wildlife Action plan identifies the following as statewide conservation actions that are needed for aquatic
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 60 of 73 habitats: minimize nonpoint-source pollution in waterways, including from silvicultural sources; minimize disturbance to riparian zones, including from forestry, and minimize or better manage use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides near aquatic habitats (and forest practices were identified as a source for this threat). Implementation of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) are specifically mentioned for the first two as tactics for achieving the actions. [224] Additionally, three of the watershed/river basin plans that overlap this CBA include threats or conservation actions related to sedimentation from forestry or silvicultural activities [254,255,257]. The Cahaba plan identifies silviculture activities as the number two priority regarding significant contributions of sediment [254]. Threats to glades include grazing, non- native species, quarrying, root-digging, plant and animal collecting, removal of large rocks for landscaping, urban development, plowing for fire breaks, use as logging decks (resulting in soil/vegetation disturbance and soil erosion), conversion to other land uses, and ORV damage [37, 39]. No threats from forest management activities were identified. [Source 224, Expert 24] Montane longleaf pine biodiversity values can be adversely affected by forest management activities via conversion of longleaf to other pine types, and the use management techniques, including herbicide application that have the potential to inhibit native understory communities. Other threats include fire-suppression, urban development, forest conversion, non-native species, climate change [40, 41, 42, Experts 20,22]
Central Appalachians Critical Biodiversity Area (CW National Risk Assessment Text)
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 61 of 73
Central Appalachians CBA This CBA corresponds with the higher elevation portions of WWF’s ‘Appalachian Mixed Mesophytic Forest’ area, one of their Global 200 biodiversity areas. The region acted as a refuge for mesic species during drier eras and this in combination with the incredible topographic and soil diversity resulted in very high biodiversity, particularly within the diverse broadleaf forests and aquatic habitats. These types of areas occur predominantly with the FSC US Appalachian region (Annex B). Historically, timber harvests within these diverse forests have been a significant threat, as few are adapted for large-scale disturbance. Removal of overstory trees, both through clear-cut harvests and high-grading (where only the most valuable species were removed), resulted in changes to species composition and forest structure, and therefore the biodiversity adapted to them. Extensive fragmentation of intact forest landscapes has occurred. Over 95% of the Mixed Mesophytic Forest habitat has been converted or degraded, leaving a very small number of examples of old-growth and intact examples of these diverse forest types. Most of these remaining remnants occur within protected areas, or in places inaccessible for forest management. Conservation now focuses on ensuring the protection of these areas, restoration of other examples, and reforming more intact landscape-level forests. Other threats in the region include climate change, air and water pollution from mining, new highways and utility rights-of-way, off road vehicle (ORV) recreation, and over populations of deer [34,35,217,218,219,220] In addition to threats associated with agriculture, development, and mining, the following threats to aquatic habitats were associated with forest management: Hydrologic alteration partially due to forestry practices and conversion from hardwood forests to non-native planted pine (which may include ditching as a practice in wetter areas), reduced water quality partially due to loss of near-stream forested habitat and sedimentation associated with forestry practices and lack of BMP implementation, severe erosion of river banks. Three states that intersect the CBA have implementation rates of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are below the national average. [30,33,35,218,222] Summary: Within portions of the Central Appalachians CBA that occur within the FSC US Appalachian region and that are not effectively protected (as demonstrated by GAP Status 1 & 2 areas in the PAD-US6 dataset and USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas7), forest management activities are threatening the concentration of biodiversity associated with this CBA. Within the remainder of the CBA, there is a low risk of threats from forest management activities due to effective protections in place and/or lack of forested habitat with concentrations of biodiversity.
VII. Mandatory FSC Control Measures
If an organization wishes to source from a specified risk area, addressing the specified risk through implementation of the following Control Measure is mandatory (CM 3.1). If an organization finds that this control measure is inadequate to mitigate risk found in its specific operations, and the conditions established by Clause 4.13 of the Controlled Wood standard (FSC-STD-40-005 V3-1) apply, the organization may replace the following mandatory control measure with more effective control measures.
CM 3.1: The organization is required to implement both parts of this Control Measure (CM 3.1.a and CM 3.1.b) MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 62 of 73
CM 3.1.a: The Organization implements either CM 3.1.a.i or CM 3.1.a.ii for FSC US Regions relevant to the Organization’s supply area: CM 3.1.a.i: A representative of the Organization attends FSC US-coordinated Controlled Wood Regional Meetings when they occur. The meetings will include the following elements: • Collaborative dialogues including both certificate holders and stakeholders that result in identification of a focused set of actions for each specified risk issue in the region that if implemented by certificate holders will reduce the risk of sourcing materials from lands where the HCV(s) is being threatened by forest management activities and that, when appropriate, includes a range in the level of resource investment required for implementation • Sharing information , as requested by FSC US, to augment effectiveness verification of actions implemented as part of CM 3.1.b. NOTE: It is recognized that depending on the information requested, it may not be possible to share it at the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting, and in this situation the Organization shall share it as soon as possible following the meeting. NOTE: It is the intention of FSC US to strive for very diverse participation in the Controlled Wood Regional Meetings, including certificate holders, environmental organizations, social organizations, experts, academics, public agencies, and landowners who are not certificate holders. NOTE: If the collaborative dialogues do not successfully identify a focused set of mitigation actions for each specified risk issue, FSC US will implement a contingency plan as detailed below. NOTE: Following each Controlled Wood Regional Meeting, FSC US will produce a Report that includes: 1) A summary of information communicated in advance of, or at the meetings, regarding identified specified risk issues; 2) The outcomes of the collaborative dialogues; and 3) Details of information that has been requested of certificate holders to augment effectiveness verification. NOTE: The FSC US Board of Directors will review the outcomes of the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting collaborative dialogues (or contingency plan) for any significant risks to the system. It is the Board’s intention to endorse these outcomes unless a risk is identified, in which case the Board will approve a revised set of actions that will be published in the Report with rationale for any changes. Compliance Verification: The Organization demonstrates to their certification body that a representative of the Organization attended the meeting(s) held for the region(s) in which the Organization sources materials and the Organization shared the requested information.
CM 3.1.a.ii: The Organization reviews the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting Report(s) and associated information and provides the information requested in the Report. Compliance Verification: The Organization shall demonstrate to their certification body an understanding of all three elements of the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting Report and that the requested information was shared. CM 3.1.b: For each area of specified risk from which the Organization sources materials, the Organization implements one or more of the actions identified during the collaborative dialogue at the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting, as detailed in the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting Report. When options for action with differential levels of resource investment required for MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 63 of 73 implementation are identified, the action(s) implemented shall be commensurate with the scale and intensity of the Organization’s potential impact on the HCV. NOTE: The scale and intensity of the Organization’s potential impact on the HCV will be informed by: 1) the volume of materials that are being sourced by the Organization from the specified risk area, 2) the spatial extent of the specified risk area from which the Organization is sourcing materials, and 3) the potential for harm caused by the forest management activities typically required to produce the type of materials sourced from the specified risk area by the Organization. Compliance Verification: The Organization demonstrates when and how the action(s) identified was implemented and why that action(s) was selected.
Effectiveness Verification for Control Measure CM 3.1: The Organization shall provide input into the effectiveness verification process through its implementation of CM 3.1.b. An assessment of the effectiveness of actions implemented in reducing the risk of sourcing from lands where HCV are harmed by forest management activities shall be determined by FSC US, in consultation with stakeholders, by evaluating the outcomes from each of the three elements of the Controlled Wood Regional Meetings and comparing them with outcomes from previous meetings, in combination with other monitoring data shared by stakeholders. The results of this assessment will be incorporated into the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting Report and will be used to inform future revisions to the National Risk Assessment. NOTE: While effectiveness verification will be linked to the Controlled Wood Regional Meetings, which are expected to occur every 3 to 5 years, the Organization is still responsible for reviewing its Due Diligence System at least annually (as specified in FSC-STD- 40-005 V3-1, Clause 1.6) to determine if any new information is available that would indicate revisions to the Organization’s Due Diligence System are needed.
Contingency Plan for CM 3.1.a In the event that the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting collaborative dialogues do not come to a successful resolution, the following will be implemented in sequential order until a resolution has been achieved. 1. A small group of certificate holder and stakeholder representatives from the region is formed to build on the information and perspectives shared during the dialogue at the regional meeting. The participants in the group are identified at the regional meeting at the point when it is apparent that it will not be possible find agreement on a set of mitigation actions by the end of the meeting. The participants must have demonstrated an ability to represent the perspective of the chamber with which they are most aligned, an ability to be open to other perspectives and new ideas and an ability to compromise. This group will be asked to complete the process within a short timeframe. 2. If the small group participants are not successfully identified at the regional meeting, FSC US will solicit participants representing a diversity of perspectives and formalize a group in consultation with the FSC US Board of Directors. (with the same constraints on participation as detailed above). Similar to #1 above, this group will be asked to build on the dialogue held at the regional meeting and develop a set of mitigation actions. 3. If the small group in #1 or #2 above is unable to find agreement on a set of mitigation actions within 6 weeks of the Controlled Wood Regional Meeting, FSC US Staff will build on the dialogue held at the regional meeting and the discussions of the small group, and develop a draft MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 64 of 73 set of mitigation actions to be approved by the FSC US Board of Directors prior to being published in the regional meeting report.
VIII. Supplementary Maps
A. Intact Forest Landscapes US/Canada
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 65 of 73
Low access Forests
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 66 of 73
Frontier Forests
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 67 of 73
B. Biodiversity Hotspots – Conservation International
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 68 of 73
Open Spaces: Map concerning protected areas and at risk species concentrations: http://www.osiny.org/site/DocServer/06._TIMO_Core_Working_Forests_Map_-
_Copy.pdf?docID=11722&AddInterest=1382
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 69 of 73
C. WWF Ecoregions
DBI Locations and Potential Sawmill Residual Suppliers Amongst WWF Eco
Regions
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 70 of 73
Southeastern Conifer and Broadleaf Forests (in darker yellow)
Southeastern Mixed Forest
Southeastern Coniferous Forest
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 71 of 73
D. Global 200 Ecoregions
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 72 of 73
E. FSC Conversion Risk
MS-006-2 MS-006-2 Fiber Procurement Due Diligence Revised: 9/05/19 and Risk Assessment Page: 73 of 73
REVISION HISTORY:
Originated R. Date: 11/1/2014 By: Peberdy Revised R. Date: 5/1/2015 Reason: 2015 Annual Review By: Peberdy Revised R. Date: 5/1/2016 Reason: 2016 Annual Review By: Peberdy Revised D. Date: 6/1/2017 Reason: 2017 Annual Review By: James Major NC resolution adding complaints mechanism and Revised D. Date: 12/8/2017 Reason: contact reference in newly By: James created section II. Quality Management System Updating Risk Designations Revised K. Date: 10/30/18 Reason: and supply base expansion By: Cheynet into OK Revised K. Updating Supply Base and Date: 9/05/19 Reason: By: Cheynet Risk Designations
CAUTION: Many regulatory rules dictate what records must be kept and for what duration. This table should be consistent with those requirements, where applicable.