to the Committee preparing a Citizen’s Alternate Budget
Prince Albert Hearings, December 8, 2021
Presented by Gerald Regnitter
In the Report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996),
Elder Juliette Duncan is quoted as saying: “The economic relations
embedded in traditional cultures emphasizes conservation of renewable
resources, limiting harvesting on the basis of need, and distributing
resources equitably within the community, normally through family
networks. Since families and clans owned rights to resources, and
since everyone was connected in a family, no one was destitute and
no one was unemployed. If hardship struck because of bad weather
or fluctuations in the supply of animals, everyone suffered equally.”
And in another place, Roy
Fabian, Executive Director Hay River Treatment Centre is quoted as
saying: “One of my elders told me a situation.
He said we can get rid of all the Dene people in Denendeh, we can all
die off for some reason, but if there was another human being came
stumbling along and came to Denendeh, the environment will turn him
into a Dene person. It's the environment and the land that makes us
I believe that these two
quotations are a fairly good basis of considering what is not right
with our society’s perspective on the land
and its creatures, especially in the forest lands of this province.
To be a person of the land
requires first of all, a reverence for the spirit of the land, the
gifts of the land, and the common relationship
we all have to each other and to the source of our life in the land.
Our government is peopled by elected citizens from the southern, and
largely urban regions of our land. They are people with little knowledge
of or connection to the land. Yet, from that vantage point, they engage
corporations from afar to come in and suck out the riches of the land,
with little or no regard for the people of the land today, much less
of seven generations in the future. The practices of successive governments
has been to entice large multi-national corporations to “exploit” the
resources of the land and, after providing them with many publically
funded incentives, to extract certain minimal resource royalties from
We have seen the outcomes of this practice, especially in our northern
forests. The forest is treated as a commodity to be stripped and exported,
mostly in the form of only one of its components, wood fibre, for pulp,
paper, some dimensional lumber and some manufactured wood products.
Vast areas have been assigned to exclusive access to one large corporate
interest, while smaller and local interests are removed from the picture
and are denied the potential benefits that are offered by a generous
Residents of the forested lands of our province rarely benefit from
the forest industry. Wood fibre is extracted and trucked to mills and
plants further south, and in the process all of the other gifts of
the forest lands are destroyed or denied to the potential benefit of
residents of the areas affected.
Herb Hammond, of the Silva
Forest foundation, which has done work nationally and internationally,
helping people and governments do “Ecosystem-Based
Forest Management Planning”, at a presentation in La Ronge a
few years ago, illustrated that the economic potential of non-wood
resources of the Boreal forest exceed the wood-fibre values, yet planning
usually only takes into account the value of wood extraction. And that
wood extraction for the creation of pulp and paper products is the
lowest-return use of that forest product. Clear-cut logging practices
leave vast forest areas with a very slow recovery rate which can be
as much as several hundred years, and the non-wood values of the forest
will also have been destroyed by the practices used for this clear-cut
Some of the non-wood forest values that are often cited for the Boreal
Plain and Boreal Shield are recreation and eco-tourism, essential oils
and medicinal and herbal harvesting, mushroom harvest, moss, lichen,
tree bark for the crafters’ supply industry, and hardwoods for
furniture and construction components. Saskatchewan has only begun
to recognize the significant commercial value of OSB (Oriented Stand
Board) and other manufactured wood construction components.
A neighbour of mine makes his living salvaging mosses , fungus outgrowths,
and birch bark tubes and selling them to the American Craft market.
When he requested permission to access areas designated for clear-cut
harvesting by Weyerhaeuser, he was refused access and is able to obtain
these materials only by illegal harvesting in these areas. It would
make sense that when access roads are inserted into the forest, that
they first be used to harvest these materials. Additionally, when Weyerhaeuser
finishes with an area, they leave as trash large diameter tops and
other wood ends that have a wide variety of potential commercial applications
to locally-based entrepreneurs.
A log-home construction
business in northern Saskatchewan is unable to get logs for their
operation because of the exclusive and absolute
access granted to Weyerhaeuser by the FMA’s, and are planning
to access aspen logs from out-of-province for their local Saskatchewan
A true “ecosystem-based forest management plan” would
factor in local residents, business and communities when planning forest
use. This is not happening to the detriment of current and future residents
of northern Saskatchewan. The foundational question that is asked by
sustainable “ecosystem-based planning” is “What must
I leave behind?” Followed by the secondary question : “What
can I take without damaging the ecosystem?”
The low-labour, highly mechanized fibre-extraction process employed
today has gutted the forest land within an economically viable trucking
distance of the processing plants. This has left a forest floor, clear-cut,
and depleted of valuable elements needed for its own renewal. Local
peoples and local economies have been left out and future generations
will not have access to the potential gifts of the forest that would
have been there on a sustaining basis if the forest lands would had
been treated with respect and with a valid concern for the sharing
of the riches of the land with all of the people of the community.
Economically this makes no sense for the future, and not even for the
short term. Why would we allow the destruction of a valuable resource
for many generations and expect to gain only minimal, one-time benefits?
The economic potentials of the Boreal forests of Saskatchewan have
been destroyed and the economic potentials exported off-shore along
with the profits of the multi-national companies given exploitation
access to this public resource.
Saskatchewan has not done well in the past, but the land can be forgiving
if treated with renew respect, and if we use the opportunity that still
remain with us to do better for the future.
lands are nearly all under Crown management, and if we take that
in its proper sense, are still owned by the collective
for the benefit of the collective society. We can still apply the principle
described by Elder Juliette Duncan to our forest lands, and this and
future generations may be able to reestablish a proper relationship
so that we can all become citizens of Denendeh, where the spirit of
the earth is recognized as the same spirit that gives life to its human
Some years back the “Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition” (FFCC)
(See Attachment Note 1) became involved with the issue of proper management
of our forest lands, and looked at the issues involved with Forest
Management Certification Programs. Weyerhaeuser, understood that certification
of forest management practices would be a good marketing tool, and
could be part of the “branding” of its products in the
international market place. They selected to acquire certification
with the CSA (Canadian Standards Association) certification. When one
member of the Weyerhaeuser team was asked why CSA was selected rather
than another, more widely recognized Forestry Certification Plan, the
reply was quite candid in saying that CSA Certification was very easy
to get and would not require any real changes in their practices.
Forestry Division has worked for and acquired ISO certification for
the forests of Saskatchewan that are under crown
management. In the judgement of the members of the Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition
at the time, the ISO requirements are even less effective than CSA
in protecting the forest ecosystems in northern Saskatchewan. In selecting
CSA and ISO standards for forest management practices, industry and
government have avoided looking at Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
certification. Having been a small part of the process of establishing
Canadian Boreal Forest criteria for the 10 FSC Principles, we were
convinced that FSC, working in conjunction with the government and
people of Saskatchewan, could create a unique and powerful system of
managing and protecting our forest resources so that the land and the
people would be the true beneficiaries of what we do in our boreal
forest lands. We prepared a brief and presented it for consideration
to the FSC of Canada and to the Saskatchewan Government and to Saskatchewan
We believe that the arguments
we made a few years ago are even more valid today, and with the pending
closure / sale of Weyerhaeuser’s
Prince Albert operations, we, as citizens, have an opportunity, as
the owners of the resource, to establish new rules for its use to bring
about a healing of the land and better economic support of its inhabitants.
These are the arguments we made and still make:
FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL OF CANADA (FSC) FOREST OPERATION CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM AND SASKATCHEWAN; A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION BY FSC AND GOVERNMENT
(See Attachment Note 2 for FSC Criteria)
The FSC Criteria and Indicators provide a sound basis for forest certification
across Canada and in Saskatchewan. The National Boreal Standards
Process has invited regional involvement in the development of the
Canadian version of Criteria, Indicators and Verifiers for the FSC
Program of third party forest certification.
A study of the May 21, 2022 “Forest Stewardship Council of Canada
Working Group, NATIONAL BOREAL STANDARD Discussion Draft” document
has led a group of Saskatchewan reviewers to propose the following
general considerations for Saskatchewan.
1. In Saskatchewan nearly all of the forest eligible for certification
by FSC standards is held by the Crown on behalf of the public of Saskatchewan.
2. Commercial use of Saskatchewan’s
forests is by way of various FMA lease agreements between the Government
of Saskatchewan and various
3. While some of these enterprises are large operations such as Weyerhaeuser
Canada, other forest operations are small scale.
4. Only the very largest commercial lease holders could be expected
to meet the certification Criteria and Indicators required by FSC Canada,
and as a consequence, only part of the forest operations are likely
to meet these FSC standards with the subsequent benefits to the businesses,
to the community and to the environment.
5. The Government of Saskatchewan, through its Forest Management Area
Land Use Planning Committees and Environment and Resource Departments,
is already engaged to a significant degree in much of the work required
to meet FSC certification standards.
6. It appears to be a reasonable consideration for Saskatchewan, through
its governmental processes, to strive to meet FSC certification standards
on all of its crown forest lands, and then to require all lease holders
to comply with these criteria as a condition of becoming a licenced
operator in the forest. In addition any lease holder on Crown forest
lands should be obligated to follow the same quality of forest operation
on all of their non-crown forest operations within Saskatchewan. This
latter consideration would, in effect, extend the same kind of forest
protection to a majority of privately held forest lands since many
of these parcels are harvested by companies that also operate with
leases on Crown lands.
7. Such a “global approach” would
ensure forest practices in all of the Boreal Plain and Boreal Shield
in Saskatchewan that meet
the strict and desirable standards of the FSC, instead of a piece-meal
process where initiatives to meet certification standards are left
to individual commercial lease holders. With the variety of forest
certification standards available to the forest industry, we could
not expect any uniform high level of environmental, economic and socially
desirable standards to be applied.
8. Without a uniform certification standard that applies to ALL Saskatchewan
forest products, Saskatchewan forest producers will fail to gain the
universal recognition for high production standards that would be able
to be achieved by a consistent and universal certification applied
to all Crown forests. The international recognition of high quality
forest practices that comes with FSC Certification, generates economic
benefits and environmental benefits that are much more likely to survive
the impacts of changing governments and changing political and short-term
9. Much of the certification data collection and background work is
already underway by different Saskatchewan Government agencies, and
it would be logical for this to be brought to completion with the aim
of meeting FSC requirements. This would be to the gain of all forest
operators, to the forest communities, and to the whole provincial community.
The people of Saskatchewan depend on healthy forests and sound forest
operations for so much of the quality of life we experience and for
much of our economic base.
10. We urge FSC Canada to rethink its traditional approach of encouraging
the certification of individual commercial forest operations (which
makes sense where forests are privately owned as they are in much of
the world), and to work to encourage the government of Saskatchewan
to act as the sole owner/steward of these forests, and to seek certification
of the entire public forest area of Saskatchewan. (Since FSC standards
require effective consultation with, and support of Aboriginal and
other affected communities, a FSC certification process would respect
the claims and concerns of these communities.) This would be a significant
win / win / win situation for the FSC, for the forest industries in
Saskatchewan, and for the Saskatchewan public interest.
This document represents
the general conclusions reached by members of the Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition and the Prince Albert
Earth Advocates who are members of the Saskatchewan Eco Network, whose
good services facilitated our involvement in the FSC document study.
Comments relative to specific Criteria, Indicators or verifiers will
follow in a separate communication from the Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition.
It is our understanding that other Saskatchewan-based environmental
groups have not yet concluded their study of the FSC Draft Documents
and will not be ready to add their comments to this document in time
to meet FSC deadlines. As a consequence, this document is being forwarded
in its current form to the following:
Forest Stewardship Council of Canada, attention Marc Thibault, National
Boreal Standards coordinator firstname.lastname@example.org
Government of Saskatchewan, Minister Environment, Hon. Buckley Belanger
Government of Saskatchewan, Deputy Minister of Environment, Terry Scott
Saskatchewan Party Environment Critic, Carl Kwiatkowski,
Darryl Wiberg, Sask Party MLA for Sask Rivers, email@example.com
Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, Leader, David Karwacki , firstname.lastname@example.org
Jack Hillson, MLA Battlefords, email@example.com
New Green Alliance Party of Saskatchewan, Leader, Ben Webster, firstname.lastname@example.org
Submitted by Gerald Regnitter on behalf of the Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition,
The Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition, as a member of the Saskatchewan
EcoNetwork also made a presentation to the Deputy Minister of the Environment
a few years back and raised specific concerns about the Environmental
Assessment Act of Saskatchewan; concerns that arose from our experience
in trying to mitigate the impact of a high voltage power transmission
line from Prince Albert to Timber Cove. While the history of this struggle
to have southern engineers, corporate managers and politicians to act
with respect for the land and the forests in the southern transition
boreal forest area affected by the project, is too long to repeat here,
it has been documented, with key documents and arguments presented
on a website created in large measure as a communication mechanism
during this struggle with SaskPower. It can be accessed at www.friendlyforest.ca
The presentation to Saskatchewan Environment follows:
Issues arising from experience with the Environmental
Assessment Act and SaskPower’s “PA Rebuild”
1. A “Proponent” plans and proposes a project with very
little input from concerned and affected communities. Once a project
has been planned, efforts have to be directed to correct inappropriate
elements rather than having proper input at the outset to give it a
sounder initial direction. (Cf. Transmission Line Routing Review Panel’s
Report and recommendations)
2. The Proponent’s submission to SERM for review contains information,
study data and arguments for the project. In our experience with the
SaskPower submission to SERM, the submission contained significant
errors of fact and other arguments that did not stand the test of further
investigation. While the Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition was
able to bring a number of these considerations to the light of day,
Mr. Seguin’s efforts to pursue these matters led to the following
statement in the “Reasons for Decision” portion of the
SERM “Opinion regarding the PA8 Project: “Local concerns
have reflected the concerns of the technical reviewers and have also
challenged aspects of the proponent’s proposal. Some of these
challenges have required the proponent to restate / clarify / rectify
various statements. Their active involvement in the process has assisted
in clarifying their concerns over environmental change and focus mitigation
activity.” These corrections which led to the mitigation conditions
of the decision would likely not have surfaced without the independent
intervention from the FFCC. This leads to the concern: Who will challenge
the accuracy of proponent claims when there is no organized group of
concerned citizens? Who protects the public interest in this regard
if the SERM review process is unable or unlikely to uncover the errors
3. The Proponent was responsible for submitting most of the environmental
data submitted with the proposal. In this case, ERIN Consulting did
the work that was included in the submission. It is of interest to
note that the chief field biologist on this assignment from ERIN, Ms.
Michelle Williamson, has taken up a new role as a full time employee
of SaskPower and has been signing recent documents as a member of the
SaskPower Project team. While this change of employment immediately
after the completion of the ERIN role does not prove wrongdoing, it
certainly raises the question as to the integrity of the materials
submitted and the conclusions reached by ERIN. As long as SERM is required
to rely in part or in whole for environmental evaluations on agencies
hired by the proponent, the information provided must been seen as
suspect. Perhaps a better arrangement would be for the proponent to
fund the biological/environmental studies required, but that the contracting
and supervision of these people be done by SERM.
4. Throughout the process
there seemed to be too little support to protect the public interest,
and too much reliance on the integrity
of the claims and submissions of the proponent. We have no doubt that
if the FFCC had not undertaken its efforts, the SaskPower project would
have ripped through the forest as first planned for the winter or 1999
with none of the mitigation factors finally required by SERM. It is
of note that the mitigation factors identified in the SERM “Opinion” reflect
the issues raised by the FFCC, and have not been applied to Phase I
of the project, and apparently not to other parts of the forest beyond
the inhabited area. This is one continuous forest, and if the mitigation
is valid for one portion of the project, they are certainly also valid
for the remainder of the line. It is fact that the demonstrated public
concern for this portion of the line was able to protect some public
interests in this area, but how is the public interest served when
there is no citizen-based opposing group to mount a massive campaign
of concern and protest?
5. The mitigating conditions forced on SaskPower for this short corridor
through the forest do not satisfy the concerns of the FFCC because
it is still permitting a route that does massive and unnecessary damage
to this sensitive forest. If such mitigation was justified in this
case, they should also automatically apply to any similar developments
in the forest fringe and boreal forest zones of this province. Such
mitigations should be required as automatic restrictions on other projects
without the need for repeated interventions by citizen groups such
as the FFCC.
6. Because this project
/ development also creates a cleared forest corridor adjacent to
private holdings and through other sections of
private forests, it has raised the consideration of what happens on “private
lands” which also has significant impact on a larger area and
the larger environment. We have seen the ineffectiveness of a municipal
bylaw prohibiting clear cutting on private forest lands in the RM of
Lakeland, and the subsequent difficulties of the RM when it tried to
reinforce the nature of its supervision of forestry development in
the RM’s private lands. There is something very much awry when
the idea of private property rights are able to override the environmental
impact considerations of the larger community as represented by the
Rural Municipality. There should be a reexamination of the authority
exercised by municipalities or exercised by municipalities in conjunction
with SERM to effectively protect the environmental interests of the
large area and the larger community. While we have witnessed this unhealthy
situation in a forest area, we are sure that it is equally a concern
in other eco-regions in Saskatchewan. “Private” property
considerations in our legislation may have been written considering
the private land owner as a local resident who would have some level
of community responsibility and some level of community control by
virtue of being a continuing resident of the community. We have seen
absentee owners and corporate owners with no links or commitments to
the local community exercising “private rights” to the
great expense and detriment of the local environment and community.
In the 21'st century our legislation should reflect these new understandings
of responsibility to the common good of the larger community.
Attachment Note 1:
The Forest Fringe Citizens’ Coalition history is presented here
in a document originally prepared for information to the Sierra Club
and was published on their web site:
Members of the Forest Fringe
Citizens’ Coalition, a coalition
of area residents, wood lot operators and local farmers, have been
fighting to save a unique pocket of transition boreal forest, just
south, and continuous with the Prince Albert National Park which is
in the Boreal Forest Upland region of the Province of Saskatchewan.
In July 1999, SaskPower, a monopoly Provincial Power Corporation,
announced a plan to upgrade an existing 72kVolt line that runs 240
km from Prince Albert to La Ronge. SaskPower proposed to create a new
and very destructive corridor , 70 to 80 m (230+ feet) wide through
the forest, ignoring the advice of area residents that the line should
go over low-sensitivity, already opened lands, several kilometres to
the east. This route would also be at least 500 m from any homes.
And so the struggle began.
In August 1999 over 100 families and individuals formed the Forest
Fringe Citizens’ Coalition (FFCC), hoping to
be heard by SaskPower and political leaders.
Goals and principles were established which urged routing through
low impact lands in a way that would respect forest, homes and people.
The principles emphasized that forest lands should be avoided as much
as possible because of the significantly greater damage to forest environments
compared to lands with habitats already completely altered by agricultural
Over the past two years SaskPower did everything that large corporations
can do to crush opposition.
SaskPower divided the project into two parts. The northern portion,
running exclusively through public forest lands, received Government
approval and is already completed. The southern portion, through private
lands, was to receive further study by a firm of Consulting Biologists
(ERIN Consulting), and by the Transmission Line Routing Review Panel,
set up to advise SaskPower about its routing procedures .
SaskPower held “Open House” sessions at which they advised
landowners of their plans. These sessions included a lot of engineering
detail and other technical information-overload. The review of SaskPower’s
procedures by the Review Panel, declared these “Open House” sessions
to be designed by SaskPower to assess the degree of opposition to their
plans, rather than to facilitate any kind of two-way communication.
SaskPower officials made comments to landowners along one route proposal
which seemed to be pitting one resident against someone living along
another route. SaskPower used expressions and provided information
in a manner that often hid the true impact of their statements.
The ERIN Consulting report
declared that the forest routes were the most sensitive to damage
by a power line corridor. SaskPower’s
proposed corridors crossed the largest mature conifer forest area in
the Boreal Upland Forest in this region. This forest is the region
with 12 different rare and endangered species sightings. This report
further indicated that line routing through this general area could
minimize damage only by avoiding the areas of continuous forest.
Based on this assessment
by SaskPower’s own “experts”,
the members of the FFCC felt that an acceptable route could be selected.
However, in June 2001, SaskPower announced that two of three options
they were looking at ploughed directly through the most sensitive forest
lands in the region.
In mid August 2001, SaskPower announced its chosen route, which in
this area of the project, goes completely through the forest, affects
the most private property, comes closer to more homes and does the
most environmental damage!
SaskPower had no intention
of ever listening to anyone who opposed their original intentions
of building the line on the highest ground
(near the highway), and in as direct a manner as possible, regardless
of the impact on the area and on people. SaskPower has effectively
manipulated their political “masters” to get what they
wanted. They are used to getting their way by political influence or
by the use of expropriation powers.
The Citizens’ Coalition
has been trying to get the power line routed in the way that does
the least damage to environment, and to
how people live in the forest. The Coalition has held public meetings,
conducted letter-writing campaigns to SaskPower and to politicians
at local and provincial levels, conducted e-mail campaigns, used a
website to share information and to share images of the affected area,
visited the Provincial Legislature, gathered a petition with over 1000
signatures, sent many fax messages, and made numerous phone calls to
many people involved in the decision-making process.
The Coalition has toured Provincial and local politicians through
this area so that they could see first-hand what is at stake, and has
met with the SERM Regulator to have him directly hear Coalition concerns
Throughout the past two years we have had media coverage. We have
received advice from David Suzuki and others on how to conduct our
SERM’s decision as
to whether this project is given a fast-track approval or needs further
study will be made in early November 2001.
A “Forest of Protest - Adopt-a-Tree” campaign
was started in late August 2001, and by the end of October has already
over 1600 trees adopted on private property through which SaskPower
is planning to build its line.
In the final stages, it
will be our political leaders who will authorize or alter this project
. We need your support to influence these political
leaders. You can do this by “adopting” a tree to stand
with your name as a living protest to this project and to other projects
in our communities that do major and needless damage to our environments.
Check Gerald Regnitter’s website at www.friendlyforest.ca to
find out how to contact the Premier of Saskatchewan and other political
leaders to express your opposition to this SaskPower plan.
Post-script: It was indeed the political leaders who authorized this
project as planned by SaskPower. The corridor of adopted tress that
represented the protest of people and the land to unnecessary and
wanton destruction was destroyed, and the practices used in this
place have been repeated in other SaskPower construction projects
in the boreal forests of Saskatchewan. With no citizens’s able
to mobilize in remote areas, no mitigating conditions have been applied.
If FSC certification standards applied to all of Saskatchewan’s
forest lands, even powerful corporations such as SaskPower, acting
under the excessive-and g0d-like powers of the Saskatchewan Power
Act of 1948, would be held to proper forest practices because of
the economic sanctions that come from violating FSC standards or
losing FSC certification. Where ethics alone is not enough to bring
compliance with good practices, economic pressures, when properly
applied, can often do so.
Attachment Note 2
FSC Principles and Criteria
After three years of extensive global consultation, 10 Principles
Criteria were agreed upon at the FSC's founding meeting in 1993. The
and Criteria are universal in nature and apply to tropical, temperate
and boreal forests.
They cover broad issues such as land tenure, the reduction of environmental
optimal utilization of forest products, and written management plans.
The Principles and
Criteria are used as a guiding framework for developing standards which
to social, ecological and economic conditions at national and/or regional
Principle #1. Compliance with Laws and FSC Principles
Forest management shall respect all applicable laws of the country
in which they occur, and international treaties and agreements to
which the country is a signatory, and comply with all FSC Principles
Principle #2. Tenure & Use Rights and Responsibilities
Long-term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources shall
be clearly defined, documented and legally established.
Principle #3. Indigenous Peoples' Rights
The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and
manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized
Principle #4. Community Relations and Worker's Rights
Forest management operations shall maintain or enhance the long-term
social and economic well-being of forest workers and local communities.
Principle #5. Benefits from the Forest
Forest management operations shall encourage the efficient use of the
forests multiple products and services to ensure economic viability
and wide range of environmental and social benefits.
Principle #6. Environmental Impact
Forest Management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated
values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and
landscapes, and, by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and
the integrity of the forest.
Principle #7. Management Plan
A management plan - appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations
- shall be written, implemented, and kept up to date. The long term
objectives of management, and the means of achieving them, shall be
Principle #8 Monitoring & Assessment
Monitoring shall be conducted appropriate to the scale and intensity
of forest management - to assess the condition of the forest, yields
of forest products, chain of custody, management activities and their
social and environmental impacts.
Principle #9 Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests
Management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain
or enhance the attributes which define such forests. Decisions regarding
high conservation value forests shall always be considered in the context
of a precautionary approach.
Principle #10 Plantations
Plantations shall be planned and managed in accordance with Principles
and Criteria 1-9, and Principle 10 and its Criteria. While plantations
can provide an array of social and economic benefits, and can contribute
to satisfying the world's needs for forest products, they should complement
the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration
and conservation of natural forests.
Forest Stewardship Council.