Hungary has taken an important step forwards in the development of its National Forest Certification System with the launch of the national public consultation for the Hungarian sustainable forest management standard. There has been a growing demand among local stakeholders for a PEFC-endorsed forest certification system in the country since as far back as 2002. However, due to Hungary’s short history of private forest ownership, the country has lacked a strong association to take on the role of National Governing Body – a vital role for both the development and running of a national system.
The draft FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment for Alaska and Hawaii (US NRA-Part 2) is now available for public consultation. All stakeholders are invited to provide input on the draft NRA. Comments are due on December 23, 2019. Please find additional information on the consultation web page.
The previously approved FSC US National Risk Assessment (NRA) for the conterminous United States (Part 1) did not address the states of Alaska or Hawaii, or US territories. This ‘Part 2’ NRA mostly closes that gap by assessing the risk of ineligible materials entering the FSC system from forests in Alaska and Hawaii. FSC certificate holders that wish to control non-certified forest materials from Alaska and Hawaii (so that those materials may be mixed with FSC certified materials for use in certified products that carry the FSC Mix label) will be required to incorporate the approved version of the Part 2 risk assessment into their due diligence system.
This draft US NRA-Part 2 follows similar methodologies as the Part 1 risk assessment. When assessments within the Part 1 risk assessment were based on information and data applicable to the entire United States, the draft US NRA-Part 2 builds on those conclusions. However, as the contexts and additional information sources used are different, the conclusions of this draft US NRA-Part 2 are also different from those in the Part 1 risk assessment.
Additionally, the proposed approach to risk mitigation is different than that in the Part 1 risk assessment, as the US NRA-Part 2 Working Group concluded that the risk mitigation approach being implemented in the conterminous US would not be feasible or effective in the contexts of Alaska or Hawaii. Instead, the draft US NRA-Part 2 does not include mandatory control measures, providing certificate holders with the flexibility to develop their own approach to risk mitigation.
more at: https://us.fsc.org/en-us/newsroom/newsletter/id/1114