FSC Controlled Wood Risk Assessment - Global Forest … · interpretation of annex 2b of the...

Forest Stewardship Council®

FSC® Brasil

1

FSC-CW-RA-020-BRA V1-1 FSC Brasil · Rua Luis Coelho, 320 - Cj.82 · Consolação · 01309-000 · São Paulo · SP · Brasil T +55 (11) 3884-4482 · Fax +55 (11) 3884-4482 · [email protected] · br.fsc.org · FSC® F000204

FSC Controlled Wood Risk Assessment

SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

INTERPRETATION OF ANNEX 2B OF THE STANDARD FOR COMPANY EVALUATION OF FSC CONTROLLED WOOD FOR BRAZIL

(FSC-STD-40-005 V-2.1)

Version: FSC-CW-RA-020-BRA V1-1

Approval date:

Effective date:

12 January 2015

12 January 2015

National Approval: 9 July, 2014

International Approval FSC International Center: Policy and Standards Unit

Contact Person: Fabíola Zerbini

Email address: [email protected]

Geographic scope: Brazil Types of forests: Native forests and plantations Control Wood categories: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Summary of risk NOTE: this document contains an additional, ‘specified’ risk category (see Section F Analysis approach). Until revision of this document according to the FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0 takes place, specified risk shall be considered as unspecified risk for the implementation of FSC-STD-40-005 V2-1.

Controlled Wood categories Risk level

1 Illegally harvested wood Unspecified

2 Wood harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights Differentiated1

3 Wood harvested in forests where high conservation values are threatened by

management activities

Unspecified

4 Wood harvested in forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use Differentiated1

5 Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted Low

1 Different risk designations at the mesoregion level and for different forest types


FSC® Brasil

2


CONTENTS

A SCOPE

B OBJECTIVES

C REFERENCES

D DOCUMENT REVIEW AND UPDATE

E HISTORY

F ANALYSIS APPROACH

G LIST OF APENDICES

H LIST OF FIGURES

I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PART I - RISK ASSESSMENT ON SOURCING OF WOOD FROM NATIVE FOREST

1. ILLEGALLY HARVESTED WOOD………………………………………………………………….... 8

2. WOOD HARVESTED IN VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS………………... 17

3. WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS IN WHICH HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES ARE

THREATENED BY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………..

28

4. WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS BEING CONVERTED TO PLANTATIONS AND NON-

FOREST USE…………………………………………………………………………………………...

34

5. WOOD FROM FORESTS IN WHICH GENETICALLY MODIFIED TREES ARE PLANTED….. 38

PART II - RISK ASSESSMENT ON SOURCING OF WOOD FROM PLANTED FOREST

1. ILLEGALLY HARVESTED WOOD………………………………………………………………….... 43

2. WOOD HARVESTED IN VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS………………... 50

3. WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS IN WHICH HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES ARE

THREATENED BY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………..

60

4. WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS BEING CONVERTED TO PLANTATIONS AND NON-

FOREST USE…………………………………………………………………………………………...

67

5. WOOD FROM FORESTS IN WHICH GENETICALLY MODIFIED TREES ARE PLANTED….. 71


FSC® Brasil

3


A Scope This document is the basis for risk assessment of Controlled Wood in Brazil by FSC certified organizations looking to avoid the sourcing of wood from sources that are unacceptable to FSC, according to Controlled Wood criteria. In line with FSC-STD-40-005 (V2-1) FSC standard for company evaluation of FSC Controlled Wood, this document should be applied to risk assessment of a non-certified portion of a product group (herein denominated wood) in manufacturing, processing and marketing of forest products bearing the FSC label for mixed products2. This document (see Criteria and Indicators in Appendix 1) shall be used for risk assessment by Organizations that implement their own verification program, according to the Controlled Wood normative framework. This document also shall be applied to the uncertified part of a product group (herein referred to as wood) in the manufacturing, processing, transformation and trade of forest products carrying the FSC label for mixed products. It shall also be applied by FSC chain of custody certified traders who wish to supply FSC Controlled Wood to FSC chain of custody certified operations for the purpose of mixing with FSC certified materials. The standard may also be applied to non-timber forest products (herein referred to as wood).

B Objectives The NRA has as its immediate objective is to provide risk designation for sourcing of Controlled Wood, and will serve as an instrument to the certification holders to the implementation of their verification programs of Controlled Wood. It is, therefore, a document of great importance and relevance, despite the extensive territorial condition of the country and lack of reliable, secure and updated data.

C References

FSC-DIR-40-005 EN FSC directive on FSC Controlled Wood;

FSC-STD-40-005 (V2-1) FSC standard for company evaluation of FSC Controlled Wood;

FSC-PRO-60-002a (V1-0) List of approved national and regional Controlled Wood risk assessments.

2 To consult the complete list of certified Organizations and their product groups, see info.fsc.org.


FSC® Brasil

4


D Document Review and Update As the normative system of Controlled Wood is undergoing complete revision in 2014, upon the approval of the new set of standards, FSC Brazil shall approve, jointly with FSC International, a schedule for revision of this document and inform stakeholders (certified organizations, certification bodies, social and environmental organizations, etc.) about the transition between standards, deadlines and responsibilities in accordance with FSC standards. The schedule will be prepared according to the requirements of FSC-PRO-60-002.

E History The process of preparation of the Brazilian National Risk Assessment (NRA) began in 2010 with the demand for greater uniformity and accuracy in the mechanisms that regulate the use of Controlled Wood by Certificate Holders. This demand did not originate only from the Brazilian players, but also from FSC International and major environmental organizations such as WWF and Greenpeace. In 2011 this proposal was internationally strengthened upon approval of Motion 51 at FSC's General Assembly (Malaysia, 2011), later elected as priority motion among all approved motions, which provided for the immediate development of National Risk Assessments in all countries of the FSC system, in order to ensure fairness, consistency and credibility in the application of Controlled Wood - also avoiding unnecessary waste of resources. In response to this scenario, Brazil - which was already designing the work plan to prepare its NRA since late 2010 in partnership with members of the board and certifying bodies - obtained the formal approval of FSC International to launch the national process in March 2012, proceeding to hire a consulting firm and forming a group of experts in the scope of FSC Brazil Standards Development Committee. The work was developed in four stages, as follows: STAGE I - Literature and document review in order to define the sources / concept of districts / methodological model.

This stage included the detailed reading of all relevant documents, in Brazil and worldwide, related to the use and adoption of Controlled Wood such as: standards and documents of FSC International; Risk Assessments in use by companies certified in the Brazil FSC system; and results of National Risk Assessments carried


FSC® Brasil

5


out in other countries as well as the conduction of two (2) face meetings with stakeholders of the universe of natural and planted forest, one in São Paulo on 28/06/2012, with the presence of about 40 participants, and another in Belém, on 05/07/2012, attended by about 15 participants, to define the first list of documentary sources to be used in the analytical matrix constructed from the perspective of macro-districts, at this time delimited by the organization of the Federated States of the Union. Such definitions: sources, macro-districts and analytical matrix model were approved at a meeting of the Standards Development Committee (SDC).

STAGE II - Preparation of Draft 1 (Macro-districts) for definition of Micro-districts

This stage included the preparation of the first draft of the NRA, based on the analysis of the sources then defined, under the logic of the Federated States (macro-districts) as a way of basing the definition on the final delimitation of districts organizing the study. Based on the results, the SDC met and defined the scale of the mesoregion (according to the classification of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), for the final structuring of the document, further improving the list of sources used.

STAGE III - Preparation of Draft 2 (Micro-districts)

Following the redefinition of the list of sources and visits made to businesses and non-governmental organizations for data collection and refinement, new analyzes were performed resulting in Draft 2, approved by SDC as a document to be submitted for public consultation in the next stage.

STAGE IV - Public Consultation and Draft 3 (Final)

Upon completion of three work stages, Draft 2 was submitted to public consultation through the website of FSC Brazil for a period of 60 days, from 22/11/2013 to 20/01/ 2014.Two public consultation meetings were also held - one to discuss the findings related to planted forests (São Paulo, on 10/12/2013,), and the other to discuss native forests (Belém, on 09/12/2013). In both meetings, stakeholders from the economic, social and environmental chambers were present, represented by private companies, governmental and non-governmental organizations and social movements. The comments received both in face and remote consultations were compiled and in great part incorporated in the final and definitive document (Draft 3), except for a few comments that were not relevant or which cannot be considered at this time of elaboration of the NRA, according to feedback included in the document.


FSC® Brasil

6


Draft 3 was analyzed and approved by the SDC prior to the approval of FSC IC.

F Analysis Approach The areas of origin of Controlled Wood in different regions of the country were analyzed based on the criteria and normative indicators, as well as public and private sources ratified by SDC, the Technical Committee and members of FSC Brazil’s 3 (three) chambers, along the entire process. Two dimensions of analysis were considered in this study during its conduction: firstly, the macro-districts (Brazilian States - Appendix 2) and later, the micro-districts (the mesoregions of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics - IBGE - Appendix 3), which organize the results of this study. The analysis was separate between planted forests (used here as synonymous of plantation) and native forests, according to a previous decision by SDC. According to the current Controlled Wood standard, and the incorporation of the concept of determined risk contained in the new set of standards under consultation of FSC IC, the risk was classified as:

Low risk ( ): the evidence found proves the existence of low risk of occurrence of

the situation mentioned by the category and the respective indicator of the standard, i.e., low risk is confirmed, which may be understood as negligible risk3;

Specified Risk ( ): the evidence found proves the existence of risk of occurrence of situation mentioned by the category and the respective indicator of the standard.

Unspecified Risk ( ): the evidence was insufficient to prove low risk and/or specify risk.

Until revision of this document according to the FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0 takes place, specified risk shall be considered as unspecified risk for the implementation of FSC-STD-40-005 V2-1. The section with risk classifications for individual mesoregions can be found in Appendix 4. Although the database has been supplemented at each new Stage of the risk

3 "Low" risk, as determined by FSC, is synonymous with "negligible" risk, as defined by (EU) Regulation No. 995/2010 of the European Parliament and Council, as of October 20, 2010, laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (known as the "European Union Timber Regulations").


FSC® Brasil

7


assessment process, several gaps with regard to the existence or legitimacy of data remained. Thus, considering data limitations, premises and methodological approaches were defined to ensure consistency. These were presented throughout the document and as follows: Data sources with national scope: if the source provided relevant information at a

national level indicating regionally/locally low or specified risk, for instance, the risk designation was assumed and allocated according to the source of information.

Data sources with regional scope: if the source provided relevant information at regional level, the risk designation was assumed and allocated according to the source of information.

Data sources with local scope: if the source provided relevant information at local level, the risk designation was assumed and allocated according to the source of information.

The evidence identified in the sources of information were georeferenced and mapped (on macro-districts level, whenever possible). The overlap of such with the group of mesoregions of IBGE determined risk by micro-district, i.e., for the mesoregion, is contained in the list of appendices. When sources did not allow classification as low risk or specific risk, the area was classified as unspecified risk. All information and evidence used to assess conformance with the criteria and indicators provided in this document have undergone review and validation by FSC Brazil (Board and Standards Development Committee), as well as public consultation. The document is divided into two main sections: Native Forests and Planted Forests. Each contains the assessment according to 5 Controlled Wood categories as per FSC-STD 40-005 (V2-1) with their evaluation. Each category brings the description of its indicator(s), followed by the Information Sources used in the compliance with each situation described, followed by its Classification. The final part of each category shows the map with the Evidence Overlay used in the classification of each indicator, followed by the Category Classification, which lists the low risk, specified and unspecified risk micro-districts. The precautionary principle was applied in the whole risk assessment process.


FSC® Brasil

8


Part I - Risk Assessment on Sourcing of Wood from Native Forests

For the purpose of this study, Native Forests are considered all areas covered by native vegetation in different successional stages, in any Brazilian state and / or biome not classified as planted forests. Planted forests were considered as the plantations of exotic tree species of Eucalyptus, Pinus, Acacia and Teak. And when information was found on native species planted for commercial purposes, such as araucaria pine, paricá, mahogany and guanandi, data on these plantations were also considered in this assessment and located on Appendix 5.

1. Illegally Harvested Wood

The district of origin may be considered low risk in relation to illegal harvesting when all the following indicators related to forest governance are present:

Evidence of enforcement of logging related laws in the district;

There is evidence in the district demonstrating the legality of harvests and wood purchases that includes robust and effective systems for granting licenses and harvest permits;

There is little or no evidence or reporting of illegal harvesting in the district of origin.

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.

1.1. Evidence of enforcement of logging related laws in the district

Conceptualization: This indicator analyzes the existence of laws related to logging in the district and the effectiveness of governmental organizations to ensure compliance due the ability to implement actions to prevent illegal logging operations. Logging related laws are defined by FSC’s ‘Minimum list of applicable laws, regulations and nationally-ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements’ provided in FSC-DIR-40-005-19. We sought to analyze the intersection of information between the legal system governing native wood logging in macro-districts and verification of compliance with the legislation. Thus, we assessed the result of interaction between that which is


FSC® Brasil

9


established by law, and the actual activities in the field, and their supervision by the institutions in charge of controlling harvests. Information Sources:

1. Notices of infraction disclosed through Public Consultation of Embargoed Areas of IBAMA. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/geo_sicafi/>

2. IBAMA's inspection structure. <http://www.ibama.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/cargos-e-responsaveis>

3. Forest Management Transparency Bulletin

<http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/transparencia-manejo-florestal> 4. Management plans for wood logging areas within sustainable use conservation

units. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/unidades-de-conservacao/planos-de-manejo/lista-plano-de-manejo.html?view=icmbioplanomanejo>

5. National Forests under Forest Concession <http://www.florestal.gov.br/concessoes-florestais/florestas-sob-concessao/tres-florestas-nacionais-abrigam-concessao-florestal>

6. Volumes of harvested native wood through licensing conducted by State OEMAS. <http://monitoramento.sema.pa.gov.br/sisflora/> e <http://www.sema.mt.gov.br/portalsisflora/>

7. Satellite Monitoring of Deforestation of Brazilian Biomes Project - PMDBBS. < http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/monitorabiomas/>

Classification: All macro-districts (States) have laws governing the native wood logging activity, as well as a supervisory body to prevent the occurrence of illegal logging. Evidence was identified of areas embargoed by illegal deforestation and irregularities in the conduct of authorized management, which proves prevention actions. However, evidence were also found of deficiencies in the monitoring system to ensure the prevention of native wood logging, which indicates risk of deforestation and illegal logging of native forests, particularly in the north region of Brazil. It is worth noting that several prevention tools were identified, in particular monitoring systems by satellite image4, developed by the National Institute for Space Research - INPE and the Institute for Men and the Environment - IMAZON, which contribute greatly to reduce illegal logging in the Amazon, as they are able to quickly identify deforestation areas and alert the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and

4 DETER - System of Deforestation Detection in Real Time from the National Institute for Space Research - INPE. PRODES - Deforestation Monitoring in the Legal Amazon Project of the National Institute for Space Research - INPE. SAD - Deforestation Alert System of the Institute of Man and Environment in the Amazon - IMAZON.

http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/geo_sicafi/

http://www.ibama.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/cargos-e-responsaveis


http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/transparencia-manejo-florestal

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/unidades-de-conservacao/planos-de-manejo/lista-plano-de-manejo.html?view=icmbioplanomanejo



http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/monitorabiomas/


FSC® Brasil

10


Renewable Natural Resources - IBAMA regarding supervision activities, contributing to the effectiveness of the system. However, technical limitations still exist. Currently, illegal deforestation has been changing its configuration and has been occurring in smaller areas, which makes it increasingly difficult to detect by monitoring via satellite images. According to INPE, it is estimated that only 40% of total deforestation that occurs in the Amazon is detected. Outside the limits of the Legal Amazon, IBAMA data showed that law enforcement in connection to the sale or harvest of native wood is still insufficient to ensure the halting of commercialization of such wood in various macro-districts. Such evidence shows that, in connection to native wood, there is risk of occurrence of illegal wood in the consumer market. Upon such evidence, the analysis concluded that there is relevant legislation, supervision and control structure at all macro-districts, but the actions of regulatory agencies are still short of the level deemed appropriate to prevent the occurrence of illegal deforestation. Spatialized data on this indicator as well as the risk classification by micro-district may be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 1 for evidence overlap and Figure 2 for risk designation. 1.2. There is evidence in the district demonstrating the legality of harvests

and wood purchases that includes robust and effective systems for granting licenses and harvest permits.

This indicator examines the government's ability to license and control forest logging, and purchase of wood. The analysis included the federal legislation covering licensing of forestry activities, the state system for granting wood logging, sale and transportation licenses, as well as the federal system of control of transportation and sale of native wood. Based on this information, we analyzed whether the control systems available and active in state and federal levels are able to ensure the legality of forest operations in the states. Information Sources:

1. Environmental permitting and environmental management instruments established by Federal Law No. 6.938/81. < http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L6938.htm>

2. Environmental coordination of licensing <http://www.mma.gov.br/governanca-ambiental/portal-nacional-de-licenciamento-

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L6938.htm

http://www.mma.gov.br/governanca-ambiental/portal-nacional-de-licenciamento-ambiental/contatos/coordenadores-de-licenciamento-nos-oemas



FSC® Brasil

11


ambiental/contatos/coordenadores-de-licenciamento-nos-oemas> 3. DOF system - compulsory Document of Forest Origin required by IBAMA.

<http://www.ibama.gov.br/publicadas/ibama-lanca-publicacao-sobre-documento-de-origem-florestal-dof>e <http://servicos.ibama.gov.br/ctf/manual/html/160000.htm>

Volumes of harvested native wood through licensing conducted by State OEMAS. <http://monitoramento.sema.pa.gov.br/sisflora/> e http://www.sema.mt.gov.br/portalsisflora/

4. Evaluation of Wood Logging Licensing and Control System <http://intranet.gvces.com.br/cms/arquivos/relatorio_sobre_sisflora_e_simlam_pa_-_imazon_nov_2007.pdf>

5. Likelihood of illegal wood harvester being punished in Brazil - World Bank. <http://www.onu.org.br/probabilidade-de-madeireiro-ilegal-ser-punido-no-brasil-e-baixa-revela-estudo-do-banco-mundial/>

6. Notices of infraction disclosed through Public Consultation of Embargoed Areas of IBAMA. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/geo_sicafi/>

7. ImazonGeo: Imazon database of legal harvests authorized in the Amazon region. < http://www.imazongeo.org.br/imazongeo.php>

8. Risk of deforestation in municipalities, protected areas, settlements, private areas, unoccupied areas or areas undergoing land tenure conflicts, from August 2011 to July 2012 - Imazon. <http://www.imazongeo.org.br/imazongeo.php>

9. IBAMA's supervision structure. <http://www.ibama.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/cargos-e-responsaveis>

10. Wood harvest concentration areas in the Amazon - IMAZON and SFB. <http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/livretos/a-atividade-madeireira-na-amazonia-brasileira>

Classification: The macro-districts show evidence of control over licenses granted to the harvest, transportation and sale of native wood. However, despite the great advances in the improvement of state and federal control systems, the information point to fragilities that fails to ensure sufficient robustness to prevent the movement of illegal wood in the market. A search conducted in IBAMA's Shared System of Environmental Information - Siscom, for the past five years brought evidence of illegal logging, native forest exploration without management plan, forging or lack of permits for transportation, receipt, storage and sale of native wood. Moreover, in general, it became evident that


http://www.ibama.gov.br/publicadas/ibama-lanca-publicacao-sobre-documento-de-origem-florestal-dof

http://www.ibama.gov.br/publicadas/ibama-lanca-publicacao-sobre-documento-de-origem-florestal-dof

http://servicos.ibama.gov.br/ctf/manual/html/160000.htm

http://www.sema.mt.gov.br/portalsisflora/

http://intranet.gvces.com.br/cms/arquivos/relatorio_sobre_sisflora_e_simlam_pa_-_imazon_nov_2007.pdf

http://intranet.gvces.com.br/cms/arquivos/relatorio_sobre_sisflora_e_simlam_pa_-_imazon_nov_2007.pdf

http://www.onu.org.br/probabilidade-de-madeireiro-ilegal-ser-punido-no-brasil-e-baixa-revela-estudo-do-banco-mundial/



http://www.imazongeo.org.br/imazongeo.php




http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/livretos/a-atividade-madeireira-na-amazonia-brasileira

http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/livretos/a-atividade-madeireira-na-amazonia-brasileira


FSC® Brasil

12


licensing of wood in State Environment Agencies (OEMAS) is undergoing transition and adaptation in relation to management of control of forest products sales. For states that have already established more advanced operating systems such as Environmental Monitoring and Licensing Integrated System - SIMLAM and Sale and Transportation of Forest Products System - SISFLORA, it was found that these systems still face many operational barriers, thus debilitating wood logging licensing and control activities. Studies show that the state environmental management systems used, even when automated, have no communication with external systems, such as data from IBAMA, DETER and PRODES. In general, the macro-districts inserted in the Legal Amazon were unable not prove the robustness of its control systems applied to logging and transport of native wood. And macro-districts located outside the Legal Amazon, which are the main consumers of native wood in the country, were unable to prove the non-occurrence of failures to control distribution and sourcing of illegal native wood. Spatialized data on this indicator, as well as the risk classification by micro-district, can be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 1 for evidence overlap and Figure 2 for risk designation.

1.3 There is little or no evidence of reporting of illegal logging in the district of origin

Conceptualization: This indicator considers whether there is occurrence of illegal logging of native wood in the districts. The analysis of this indicator was based on data from official sources on native forest areas fined and / or embargoed for illegal logging, and satellite tracking systems on illegal deforestation. The data analysis for this indicator only included fines for illegal deforestation in areas exceeding 50 ha. Information Sources:

1. Notices of infraction disclosed through Public Consultation of IBAMA's Embargoed Areas. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/geo_sicafi/>

2. Concentrations of deforestation and degradation in the Legal Amazon - INPE <http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/sisprodes2000_2011.htm> and <http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=2545>

3. Detection of deforestation in real time in the Legal Amazon INPE. <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/nuvens.php>


http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/sisprodes2000_2011.htm

http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=2545

http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219

http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf

http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/nuvens.php


FSC® Brasil

13


4. Monitoring of Deforestation of Brazilian Biomes by Satellite Project. <http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento>

5. Deforestation Risk Bulletin (August 2011 to July 2012) <http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/risco-de-desmatamento/boletim-risco-de-desmatamento-agosto-de-2011-a-julho-de-2012>

6. Articles on deforestation published by WRM <http://wrm.org.uy/browse-by-subject/deforestation/>

7. Operation Corcel Negro - combating illegal charcoal production in Minas Gerais and Bahia <http://mp-ba.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2782764/operacao-corcel-negro-combate-producao-ilegal-de-carvao-no-oeste-baiano> and <http://mp-ba.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2784207/operacao-interrompe-atividade-de-criminosos-que-transformavam-o-cerrado-e-a-caatinga-em-carvao>

Classification: Based on data from IBAMA from the last five years, with search restricted to illegal suppression in areas exceeding 50 ha, virtually all macro-districts were fined for illegal deforestation. In addition to data from IBAMA, the analysis incorporated information on deforestation from the Monitoring of Deforestation of Brazilian Biomes by Satellite Project, which selected the twenty cities that most deforested their respective biome, and INPE and IMAZON georeferenced data on illegal deforestation. Spatialized data on this indicator as well as the risk classification by micro-district may be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 1 for evidence overlap and Figure 2 for risk designation. 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

Conceptualization: The FSC-DIR-40-005 standard defines the corruption index based on Transparency International as a national risk parameter. This assessment included the analysis of specific information on the perception of corruption in the forest sector. Information Sources:

1. Perceived level of corruption in Brazil according to Transparency International. <http://www.transparency.org/country#BRA_DataResearch>

http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/risco-de-desmatamento/boletim-risco-de-desmatamento-agosto-de-2011-a-julho-de-2012

http://www.imazon.org.br/publicacoes/risco-de-desmatamento/boletim-risco-de-desmatamento-agosto-de-2011-a-julho-de-2012

http://mp-ba.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2782764/operacao-corcel-negro-combate-producao-ilegal-de-carvao-no-oeste-baiano

http://mp-ba.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2782764/operacao-corcel-negro-combate-producao-ilegal-de-carvao-no-oeste-baiano

http://mp-ba.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2784207/operacao-interrompe-atividade-de-criminosos-que-transformavam-o-cerrado-e-a-caatinga-em-carvao



http://www.transparency.org/country#BRA_DataResearch


FSC® Brasil

14


2. Likelihood of illegal wood harvester being punished in Brazil - World Bank. <http://www.onu.org.br/probabilidade-de-madeireiro-ilegal-ser-punido-no-brasil-e-baixa-revela-estudo-do-banco-mundial/> and <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf>

Classification: According to FSC-DIR-40-005 standard, this indicator will only be considered low risk if the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) in the country is equal to or greater than 50. According to the latest results of the Transparency International, released in 2013, the Corruption Perception Index in Brazil is 42. As no official data source was found that dealt specifically with the perception of corruption for forestry activity, offering quantifiable information to arrive at a classification, the CPI index was used as a proxy to assess the states for this indicator. In this sense, Brazil is classified as unspecified risk for the perception of corruption in connection to the granting or issuing of permits for native wood logging and trade. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 1 for evidence overlap and Figure 2 for risk designation.



http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf


FSC® Brasil

15


Evidence Overlap - Category 1

Figure 1. Evidence Overlap for Illegally Harvested Wood – Native Forest


FSC® Brasil

16


Risk Classification – Category 1

Figure 2. Risk Classification for Illegally Harvested Wood5 - Native Forest

5 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4A.


FSC® Brasil

17


2. Wood Harvested in Violation of Traditional and Civil Rights

Civil rights are those granted to any individual within a society, for example, to be treated with equality, to be able to vote and work. These rights are expressed in the Federal Constitution of Brazil. Traditional rights are the rights that result from a long series of habitual or routine actions, which by repetition and continuing consent acquired the force of law within the boundaries of a particular geographical or sociological unit. The district of origin may be considered low risk in relation to the violation of traditional, civil and collective rights when all the following indicators are present:

There is no UN Security Council ban on timber exports from the country concerned;

The country or district is not designated a source of conflict timber (e.g. USAID Type 1 conflict timber);

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

There are recognized and equitable processes5 in place to resolve conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining to traditional rights including use rights, cultural interests or traditional cultural identity in the district concerned6;

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.

2.1 There is no UN Security Council ban on timber exports from the country concerned

Conceptualization: This indicator assesses whether the country has embargoes from the UN Security Council on timber export. The analysis took into consideration the control system applied to exports of native timber in Brazil and records related to timber embargoes from the UN Security Council. Information Sources:

1. Records of Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. < http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions10.htm >

2. IBAMA Exports DOF. <http://observatorio-

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions10.htm

http://observatorio-eco.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2541217/ibama-implanta-novo-controle-de-exportacao-de-madeira


FSC® Brasil

18


eco.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2541217/ibama-implanta-novo-controle-de-exportacao-de-madeira>

3. PL 2994/1997 <http://camara-dos-deputados.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2795858/camara-aprova-proibicao-de-exportacao-de-madeira-nao-beneficiada>

4. European Parliament approves legislation that prohibits wood without legal proof of origin, harvest and trade. <http://www.cartacapital.com.br/carta-verde/madeira-ilegal-com-os-dias-contados/>

Classification: There is no record of vetoes on exports of Brazilian timber issued by the United Nations Security Council. Brazil is classified as a low-risk country for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 3 for evidence overlap and Figure 4 for risk designation. 2.2 The country or district is not designated a source of conflict timber (e.g.

USAID Type 1 conflict timber)

Conceptualization: The links between timber exploitation and conflict are essentially of two broad types: first, revenues from the timber trade may be channeled towards activities that perpetuate conflict, such as the purchase of weapons. Thus, “conflict timber” is defined as “timber that has been traded at some point in the chain of custody by armed groups, be they rebel factions or regular soldiers, or by a civilian administration involved in armed conflict or its representatives, either to perpetuate conflict or take advantage of conflict situations for personal gain. Conflict timber is not necessarily illegal” (Global Witness 2002 cited in Le Billon 2003). Conflict Timber Type II arises from disputes over the ownership and / or use of land in fields and forests. The first category was addressed on this indicator while the second type of conflict is dealt on indicator 2.4. The information sources was based on the assessment carried out by FSC International in the context of the Centralized National Risk Assessment for category 2, as well the risk determination for this indicator.



http://camara-dos-deputados.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2795858/camara-aprova-proibicao-de-exportacao-de-madeira-nao-beneficiada



http://www.cartacapital.com.br/carta-verde/madeira-ilegal-com-os-dias-contados/



FSC® Brasil

19


Information Sources:

1. Forest and Conflicts - USAID <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE290.pdf>

2. World Bank (WB): Worldwide Governance Indicators: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports

3. The World Bank Harmonized List of Fragile Situations:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLICUS/Resources/511777-1269623894864/HarmonizedlistoffragilestatesFY14.pdf

4. Global Witness <www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/environment/forests>

5. CIFOR studies on Forest and conflict <http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_conflict.htm>

Classification: According to the WB, in 2012 Brazil scores on the indicator political stability and absence of violence place 103 out of 215 economies with the lowest place being the best score and neither is on the list of fragile situations. Also, despite being classified by Global Witness as the most dangerous place to defend rights to land and the environment, with 448 killings [between 2002 and 2013], followed by Honduras (109) and the Philippines (67), this type of violence is not considered ‘armed or violent conflict’. Although several types of violence were reported, these cannot be classified as ‘armed conflicts’. The analysis of the sources led to the following conclusions: (1) Brazil is not a source of conflict timber; AND (2) The country is not covered by a UN security ban on exporting timber; AND (3) The country is not covered by any other international ban on timber export; AND (4) Operators in the area under assessment are not involved in conflict timber supply/trade; AND (5) Other available evidence does not challenge ‘low risk’ designation. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 3 for evidence overlap and Figure 4 for risk designation.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE290.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports



http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/environment/forests

http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_conflict.htm


FSC® Brasil

20


2.4. 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

Conceptualization: This indicator assesses the existence of child labor or infringement of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defined by the International Labor Organization in forest areas. Information on forced and child labor were collected and analyzed through the inspection operations of the Ministry of Labor and Employment in native wood logging and processing sites. It is worth noting that the analysis of the working conditions in the production of charcoal was not included in this assessment, as it belongs to a stage that is subsequent to the production chain of natural wood, which is the object of this analysis. Information Sources:

1. Eradication of forced labor - SIT / MTE <http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/> and <http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/portaria-do-mte-cria-cadastro-de-empresas-e-pessoas-autuadas-por-exploracao-do-trabalho-escravo.htm>, <http://portal.mte.gov.br/data/files/8A7C816A308E140C013099AA320A62A2/est_resultado_quadro_trabescravo2010.pdf> and <http://www.oitbrasil.org.br/sites/default/files/topic/labour_inspection/pub/trabalho_escravo_inspecao_279.pdf>

2. Black List of Slave Labor. - ILO, Instituto Ethos and Repórter Brazil. <http://www.brasil.gov.br/noticias/arquivos/2012/04/13/stf-valida-lista-suja-do-trabalho-escravo> and <http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/>e<http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/resultado.php>

3. Evidence of child labor - SITI - TEM. < http://sistemasiti.mte.gov.br/> and < http://sistemasiti.mte.gov.br/main_report.aspx>

4. Conflicts in Brazil in 2011 - CPT

<http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43>

http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/

http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/portaria-do-mte-cria-cadastro-de-empresas-e-pessoas-autuadas-por-exploracao-do-trabalho-escravo.htm


http://portal.mte.gov.br/data/files/8A7C816A308E140C013099AA320A62A2/est_resultado_quadro_trabescravo2010.pdf


http://www.oitbrasil.org.br/sites/default/files/topic/labour_inspection/pub/trabalho_escravo_inspecao_279.pdf


http://www.brasil.gov.br/noticias/arquivos/2012/04/13/stf-valida-lista-suja-do-trabalho-escravo


http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/

http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/resultado.php


http://sistemasiti.mte.gov.br/

http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43



FSC® Brasil

21


Classification: Evidence found proved the risk of occurrence of slave labor in eleven macro-districts and child labor in ten macro-districts in areas of native forest extraction and / or native wood processing. Records of slave labor occurrences were connected to illegal logging activities in natural forest areas. Evidence of child labor was repeatedly found in native wood sawmills. It is important to note that the occurrence of forced and child labor in charcoal plants were not computed in this analysis. The macro-districts where no reports were found on cases of forced labor and / or child labor for this indicator were classified as low risk: Distrito Federal, Paraíba, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, São Paulo, Roraima, Acre, and Sergipe. Spatialized data on this indicator, as well as the risk classification by micro-district, can be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 3 for evidence overlap and Figure 4 for risk designation. 2.5. 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

Conceptualization: As methodological choice to the risk assessment it was assumed that, this indicator assesses the existence of laws relating to the protection of traditional communities' rights in the district and the effectiveness of governmental organizations and other organizations responsible for ensuring compliance with such laws. The existence of legal protection related to use rights, cultural rights or cultural traditional identity rights of peoples and communities was analyzed; as well as the respective structure of organizations responsible for ensuring compliance with legislation. Based on this survey, the recorded evidence of conflicts were crossed, enabling the assessment of the balance between the demands for conflict resolution and the effectiveness in meeting such demands in the disputes for tenure and use of land involving traditional communities. This analysis took into consideration the magnitude of conflicts (number of people involved) and also the number of occurrences of government omission in connection


FSC® Brasil

22


to land regularization, violence against the person and lack of assistance for basic needs. The search for evidence of conflict was based on data from lawsuits involving regularization of land and records of conflicts with violence in natural forest areas. We analyzed whether such conflicts involve traditional communities and indigenous peoples, affected in their rights of use and ownership of land in natural forest areas. This indicator assesses whether there are conflicts of tenure or use of land in natural forest areas, whether or not involving affected traditional peoples and communities. It also considers whether such conflicts are encouraged and funded by the logging of native timber, with the risk of timber originated from such conditions being sold in the consumer market. Conflicts registered in the conflict resolution system of FSC Brazil were not considered in this version of the document, as this area is still in its pilot stage of development in the country. Information Sources:

1. Distribution of FUNAI and INCRA offices. <http://www.funai.gov.br/home/Coordenacoes/CoordRegMapa.html#asolimoes>

2. Federal Decree n. 6040 as of 2007 defining Tribal Groups. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm>

3. Convention 169 - ILO. <http://www.socioambiental.org/inst/esp/consulta_previa/?q=convencao-169-da-oit-no-brasil/a-convencao-169-da-oit>

4. Organizations and Institutions connected to the study and protection of Brazilian Traditional Peoples and Communities. <http://www.bocaina.org.br/mosaico-bocaina/comunidades-tradicionais >

5. Representatives of the Attorney General's office for indigenous peoples and minorities in the Brazilian states. <http://6ccr.pgr.mpf.mp.br/institucional/composicao >

6. Representatives of the Attorney General's office in the Brazilian states for Environment and Cultural Heritage matters. < http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/institucional/composicao/representantes-estados >

7. National Initiatives to eradicate slave labor. <http://portal.mte.gov.br/fisca_trab/resultados-das-operacoes-de-fiscalizacao-para-erradicacao-do-trabalho-escravo.htm >

8. Quilombola areas with lawsuits involving land dispute regularization released by CPI - SP. < <http://www.cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/resultados.aspx?LinkID=14 >

http://www.funai.gov.br/home/Coordenacoes/CoordRegMapa.html#asolimoes

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm

http://www.socioambiental.org/inst/esp/consulta_previa/?q=convencao-169-da-oit-no-brasil/a-convencao-169-da-oit


http://www.bocaina.org.br/mosaico-bocaina/comunidades-tradicionais

http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/institucional/composicao/representantes-estados

http://portal.mte.gov.br/fisca_trab/resultados-das-operacoes-de-fiscalizacao-para-erradicacao-do-trabalho-escravo.htm


http://www.cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/resultados.aspx?LinkID=14


FSC® Brasil

23


9. Report on Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil - CIMI. <http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/publicacoes/1309466437_Relatorio%20Violencia-com%20capa%20-%20dados%202010%20(1).pdf>

10. Actions against the authority of the federal government were filed in six states of the Amazon region - MPF. <http://www.prac.mpf.gov.br/news/incradesmate>

11. Conflicts in Brazil in 2011 - CPT <http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43>

12. Map of Environmental Injustice in Brazil - FIOCRUZ, FASE and Department of Environmental Health and Occupational Health of the Ministry of Health. <http://www.conflitoambiental.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php?pag=selecao>

13. Indigenous lands in Brazil - Legal status and compilation of news about conflicts <http://ti.socioambiental.org/#!/terras-indigenas>

14. Title deeds to quilombola communities. <http://www.cpisp.org.br/terras/html/por_que_as_titulacoes_nao_acontecem.aspx>

Classification: In Brazil, the judgment of conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining to the rights of traditional peoples and communities including use rights, cultural rights and traditional identity rights are passed on to the Ministry of Justice and Federal Prosecutor's Office, which are then passed on to the Attorney General's Office, and directed to sectoral coordination bodies, such as: Environment and Cultural Heritage, and Brazilian Traditional Communities and Indigenous Peoples. Based on the evidence found, it is possible to conclude that all macro-districts have recognized means to resolve conflicts involving traditional communities and peoples. It should be considered that the existence of such means does not necessarily guarantee that conflicts are resolved within the appropriate deadlines and expectations. At this point, as assumption to the analysis, we considered that the difficulty in the prevention and resolution of conflicts involving traditional communities and peoples demonstrate deficiencies in seventeen macro-districts. Records found on conflict occurrences were related to possessory invasions and illegal exploitation of natural resources involving traditional communities and indigenous peoples who live in natural forest areas. Moreover, records of conflicts involving land disputes and deforestation in native forests were also found. The following macro-districts did not present a significant volume (under 20) of occurrences of omission of public authorities in the demand for conflict resolution, and were classified as low risk for this indicator: Alagoas, Amapá, Ceará, Distrito

http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/publicacoes/1309466437_Relatorio%20Violencia-com%20capa%20-%20dados%202010%20(1).pdf


http://www.prac.mpf.gov.br/news/incradesmate



http://www.conflitoambiental.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php?pag=selecao

http://ti.socioambiental.org/#!/terras-indigenas

http://www.cpisp.org.br/terras/html/por_que_as_titulacoes_nao_acontecem.aspx


FSC® Brasil

24


Federal, Espirito Santo, Goiás, Paraíba, Piauí, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio Grande do Norte. Risk designation related to conflict related to wood logging or ownership and use of land according to the data sources consulted, the only areas where occurrences of were not found are the states of Paraná, Alagoas and Distrito Federal, which are thus classified as low risk. Spatialized data on this indicator, as well as the risk classification by micro-district, can be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 3 for evidence overlap and Figure 4 for risk designation. 2.6. There is no evidence of violation of ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous

and Tribal Peoples taking place in the forest areas in the district concerned

Conceptualization: This indicator analyzes the lack of occurrence of conflicts that violate the fundamental rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. The collection of evidence for this indicator was based on the definition of Tribal Groups set forth in Federal Decree No. 6040 as of 2007, aiming to find, on official sources, evidence of conflicts involving traditional peoples and communities, in violation of Convention 169 of the ILO. Evidence proving the absence of conflicts connected to native forest areas for commercial purposes and indigenous peoples and traditional communities were sought. Information Sources: 1. Federal Decree No. 6040 as of 2007

<http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm> 2. Convention 169 - ILO.

<http://www.socioambiental.org/inst/esp/consulta_previa/?q=convencao-169-da-oit-no-brasil/a-convencao-169-da-oit>

3. Indigenous lands in Brazil - Legal status and compilation of news about conflicts - ISA <http://ti.socioambiental.org/#!/terras-indigenas>


5. Quilombola areas with lawsuits involving land dispute regularization- CPI -SP. <http://cpisp.org.br/acoes//upload/arquivos/Terras%20de%20Quilombo%20com







http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/upload/arquivos/Terras%20de%20Quilombo%20com%20Ações%20Judiciais.pdf


FSC® Brasil

25


%20Ações%20Judiciais.pdf> e <http://www.cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/resultados.aspx?LinkID=16>

6. Map of Environmental Injustice in Brazil - FIOCRUZ, FASE and Department of Environmental Health and Occupational Health, of the Ministry of Health. <http://www.conflitoambiental.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php?pag=selecao>

7. Conflicts in Brazil in 2011 - CPT <http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43>

8. Endangered indigenous languages in Brazil. < http://treinamento.folhasp.com.br/linguasdobrasil/>

9. Map of conflicts caused by environmental racism in Brazil. <http://www.justicaambiental.org.br/projetos/clientes/noar/noar/UserFiles/17/File/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20MAPA_DO_RACISMO_AMBIENTAL_NO_BRASIL.pdf>

Classification:

In the analysis performed only with data provided by the Indigenous Missionary Council - CIMI (2010 and 2011) and by the Pastoral da Terra Council - CPT (2011), records were found, in all macro-districts, of conflicts involving indigenous and tribal groups, involving possessory invasions, illegal exploitation of natural resources, various damages to cultural heritage and property, claims of territorial rights, violence against the person, among others. Such conflict situations are deemed violation of ILO Convention 169 that covers a wide range of issues, including land rights and access to natural resources. For this reason, it was not possible to guarantee low risk throughout Brazil in this indicator, with most micro-districts classifying as specified risk. Spatialized data on this indicator, as well as the risk classification by micro-district, can be found at the end of this section.

Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 3 for evidence overlap and Figure 4 for risk designation.

http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/upload/arquivos/Terras%20de%20Quilombo%20com%20Ações%20Judiciais.pdf





http://treinamento.folhasp.com.br/linguasdobrasil/

http://www.justicaambiental.org.br/projetos/clientes/noar/noar/UserFiles/17/File/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20MAPA_DO_RACISMO_AMBIENTAL_NO_BRASIL.pdf




FSC® Brasil

26


Evidence Overlap – Category 2

Figure 3. Evidence Overlap for Wood Harvested in Violation of Traditional and Civil and Collective Rights – Native Forest


FSC® Brasil

27


Risk Classification – Category 2

Figure 4. Risk Classification for Wood Harvested in Violation of Traditional, Civil and Collective Rights 6 – Native Forest

6 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4B.


FSC® Brasil

28


3. Wood harvested in forests where High Conservation Values are Threatened by Management Activities

Currently, there is no difference in the definition of HCV and their different categories between the FSC Principles and Criteria and the FSC Controlled Wood standards. The main difference relates to the objectives of both standards. While the FSC Principles and Criteria require the maintenance and enhancement of high conservation value attributes at the forest management unit level, the Controlled Wood Standard requires the company to avoid timber coming from forests where high conservation values are being threatened by management activities at the ecoregional level. At the national level there is no official interpretation of HCV. 3.1. Forest management activities in the relevant level (eco-region, sub-eco-

region, local) do not threaten eco-regionally significant high conservation value

Conceptualization: Considering the extensive territorial area under analysis, the complexity of the topic and the variety of sources defining eco-region/eco-regionally significant high conservation value suggested in FSC-STD-40-005 V2-1 for category 3 and at the same time the lack of a national interpretation of HCV, was not possible to identify other HCV than the officially located on full protection and sustainable use conservation units at Federal (see the references for Conservation Units in the Appendices 6, 6A and 6B), State and Municipal levels, according to information provided by the MMA and IBGE, including indigenous lands and quilombolas lands. Determination whether HCVs are present in the remaining area was not possible due the lack of data. Therefore, indicator 3.2 applies to whole Brazil taking into account precautionary approach. Information Sources:

1. Common Guidance for the Identification of High Conservation Values.

<http://www.proforest.net/publication/bibliog.2013-10-09.9070543115>

2. Good practice guide for assessment of areas of high conservation value <http://www.proforest.net/objects/publications/guia-de-boas-praticas-para-avaliacoes-de-altos-valores-para-conservacao-portoguese >

3. Analysis of deforestation in federal conservation units in the Amazon Análise do desmatamento nas unidades de conservação federais na Amazônia.

http://www.proforest.net/objects/publications/guia-de-boas-praticas-para-avaliacoes-de-altos-valores-para-conservacao-portoguese

http://www.proforest.net/objects/publications/guia-de-boas-praticas-para-avaliacoes-de-altos-valores-para-conservacao-portoguese


FSC® Brasil

29


<http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/comunicacao/avaliacaodesmatamentoucsicmbio.pdf>

4. Map of deforestation concentration and embargoed areas in Brazil, published by IBAMA and INPE. <http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=2545>

5. Deforestation Detection in Real Time - DETER - INPE. <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219> e <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf>

6. Fighting illegal deforestation. <http://www.brasil.gov.br/cop/panorama/o-que-o-brasil-esta-fazendo/combate-ao-desmatamento/print>

7. Deforestation in Federal and State Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands inserted in the Amazon Biome - IMAZON. <http://www.imazongeo.org.br/imazongeo.php#>

8. Deforestation in Conservation Units inserted in the Cerrado Biome in the period 2002-2008 -

<http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/201/_arquivos/ppcerrado_201.pdf>

9. Satellite Monitoring of Deforestation in Brazilian biomes - MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento>

10. Priority Areas for Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing of Brazilian Biodiversity. Update of MMA Ordinance No. 9 as of January 23, 2007. <http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/chm/_arquivos/biodiversidade31.pdf>

11. List of priority municipalities for prevention and control actions in the Legal Amazon - MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/ascom/ultimas/index.cfm?id=3872>

12. Priority areas for prevention and control actions disclosed by MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/plano-de-a%C3%A7%C3%A3o-para-amaz%C3%B4nia-ppcdam/lista-de-munic%C3%ADpios-priorit%C3%A1rios-da-amaz%C3%B4nia>

13. Atlas of Areas Susceptible to Desertification in Brazil - MMA.

<http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sedr_desertif/_arquivos/129_08122008042625.pdf>

14. Distribution of conservation areas for sustainable use and full protection - MMA / ICMBio. <http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm> e <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/downloads.html>

15. Conservation Units in the Brazilian Amazon - ISA <http://uc.socioambiental.org/>

16. CONAMA Resolution No. 428, as of December 17, 2010 < http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=641>

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/comunicacao/avaliacaodesmatamentoucsicmbio.pdf





http://www.brasil.gov.br/cop/panorama/o-que-o-brasil-esta-fazendo/combate-ao-desmatamento/print



http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/201/_arquivos/ppcerrado_201.pdf

http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento

http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento

http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/chm/_arquivos/biodiversidade31.pdf

http://www.mma.gov.br/ascom/ultimas/index.cfm?id=3872

http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/downloads.html

http://uc.socioambiental.org/

http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=641


FSC® Brasil

30


Classification: Official evidence proving the risk posed by native forest management activities to high conservation values considered in the conceptualization assumptions of this category were not found. Sources of MMA, IMAZON, INPE, IBAMA and ICMBio were consulted. However, the sources did not enable the correlation of native forest management activities to HCV considered in the analysis. Based on data covering areas embargoed by IBAMA, illegal logging of native timber was found within CUs and in protective zones in all Brazilian states. However, these data do not necessarily correlate to the management of native forests. Thus, it was not possible to measure the threat posed by native forest management to HCV areas, due to the lack of official data linking native forest management activities in Brazil to the risk of interference to areas considered as HCV. Therefore, this indicator is deemed unspecified for all macro-districts, due to lack of evidence for low risk. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 5 for evidence overlap and Figure 6 for risk designation. 3.2. A strong system of protection (effectively protected areas and

legislation) is in place that ensures survival of the HCVs in the ecoregion

Conceptualization: The analysis of this indicator considered the scope of legislation covering the nature protection (on eco-regional, sub-eco-regional and local level, i.e. on this study, the whole country by full protection and sustainable use conservation units at Federal, State and Municipal levels, according to information provided by the MMA and IBGE, including indigenous lands and quilombolas lands), as well as effectiveness of protection for maintenance of high conservation values . Information Sources:

1. Cross-referencing of georeferenced information: mapping of Federal, State and Local Conservation Units and Monitoring of deforestation of Biomes by INPE and MMA.

2. Amazon Protected Areas Project - ARPA - Deforestation and Climate Change

<http://d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/desmatamento_e_mudanca

http://d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/desmatamento_e_mudancas_climauticas.pdf


FSC® Brasil

31


s_climauticas.pdf > 3. State Plans for Prevention and Control of Deforestation.

<http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/planos-estaduais>

4. Management plans for wood logging areas within sustainable use conservation units. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/unidades-de-conservacao/planos-de-manejo/lista-plano-de-manejo.html?view=icmbioplanomanejo>

5. Environmental Monitoring Center - IBAMA / INPE / MMA. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/>

6. Deforestation in Conservation Units of the Legal Amazon. <http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodesuc.php>

7. ARPA - Deforestation and Climate Change <http://d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/desmatamento_e_mudancas_climauticas.pdf >

8. Analysis of deforestation in federal conservation units located in the Amazon. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/comunicacao/avaliacaodesmatamentoucsicmbio.pdf>

9. DETER Legal Amazon - INPE. <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219> e <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf>

10. Fighting illegal deforestation. <http://www.brasil.gov.br/meio-ambiente/2010/11/combate-ao-desmatamento>

11. IBAMA's supervision structure. <http://www.ibama.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/cargos-e-responsaveis>

12. Legal compilation related to Conservation Units. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/publicacoes.html>

Classification: It was not possible to state that a strong system of protection is in place to ensure survival of the HCVs, thus the whole Brazil was classified as unspecified risk due the following reasons:

Records of notices of infraction and IBAMA's embargoed areas, for direct and indirect damage to Conservation Units and their protective zones;

Lack of official data showing the effectiveness of supervision in the protection of Conservation Units in areas where no records of occurrence of illegal wood logging were found.



http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/planos-estaduais

http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/planos-estaduais




http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/

http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodesuc.php









http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/publicacoes.html


FSC® Brasil

32



Figure 5. Evidence Overlap for Wood Harvested in Forests where High Conservation Values are threatened by Management Activities – Native Forest


FSC® Brasil

33


Risk Classification– Category 3

Figure 6. Risk Classification for Wood Harvested in Forests where High Conservation Values are Threatened by Management Activities 7 – Native Forest

7 7 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4C


FSC® Brasil

34


4. Wood Harvested in Forests being Converted to Plantations or Non-Forest Uses

The district of origin may be considered low risk in relation to the conversion of forests to plantations or other non-forestry uses when the following indicator is contemplated:

4.1. 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

Conceptualization: In order to quantify the loss of biodiversity by deforestation of areas with native vegetation in national ecosystems, we used data obtained through the Satellite Monitoring of Deforestation in the Brazilian Biomes Program8, developed by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). According to MMA, this program consists of the systematic monitoring of the vegetation cover of the Cerrado, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest, Pantanal and Pampa, in order to quantify deforestation of areas with native vegetation to support actions and policies to prevent and control illegal logging in these biomes, in addition to supporting public policies to conserve biodiversity and mitigation of climate change. The information about converted area was used to calculate the net loss and significant rate of loss as per the indicator. Thus, municipalities with deforestation rates above 0.5% per year were considered as municipalities at risk for Category 4. The analysis was based on the information provided by the sources used. Some information was available on municipality level, other stated level. The risk designation is on a mesoregion level, even when the risk designation was addressed only on a municipality level. Information Sources:

1. Monitoring of deforestation in the Brazilian Biomes - MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/coletivas-de-imprensa >

8 Concept and Location of Brazilian Biomes can be found in appendices 7 and 8, respectively.

http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/coletivas-de-imprensa



FSC® Brasil

35


2. Deforestation in the Cerrado - Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Burnings - pg. 36. < http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/201/_arquivos/ppcerrado_201.pdf >

3. Environmental Monitoring Center for the protection and conservation of

Brazilian biomes / IBAMA, MMA and INPE. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/monitorabiomas/>

4. DETER in the Legal Amazon - INPE.

<http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf>

5. Forestry Statistics of Caatinga - MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/203/_arquivos/estatistica_florestal_1_203.pdf>.

Classification: Based on conceptualization of the indicator and evidence found for each biome, state and/or municipality (see the sources listed), the map of category 4 shows risk for municipalities with deforestation more than 0.5% of their areas between 2008 and 2009. It is worth noting that the indicator only represents municipalities that exceeded 0.5% of deforested areas; however, in absolute terms, data on conversion of areas showed that virtually all states posted deforestation rates above 100 km² per year. States such as Acre, Amazonas, Distrito Federal, Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Sergipe ranged from 100 to 600 km² of converted natural areas. The states of Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, Piauí, Rondônia and Tocantins posted losses ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 km². And the highest conversion rates were posted by the states of Maranhão, Mato Grosso and Pará, with losses between 3,000 and 7,000 km². Spatialized data on this indicator, as well as the risk classification by micro-district, can be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 7 for evidence overlap and Figure 8 for risk designation.



http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/


http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/203/_arquivos/estatistica_florestal_1_203.pdf



FSC® Brasil

36



Figure 7. Evidence Overlap for Wood Harvested in Forests being converted to Plantations or Non-Forest Use


FSC® Brasil

37



Figure 8. Risk Classification for Wood Harvested in Forests being converted to Plantations or Non-Forest Use9

9 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4D.


FSC® Brasil

38


5. Wood from Forests in which Genetically Modified Trees are Planted

The district of origin may be considered low risk in relation to wood originated from genetically modified trees when one of the following indicators is complied with:

a) There is no commercial use of genetically modified trees of the species

concerned taking place in the country or district concerned; or b) Licenses are required for commercial use of genetically modified trees and

there are no licenses for commercial use OR c) It is forbidden to use genetically modified trees commercially in the country

concerned. 5 a) There is no commercial use of genetically modified trees of the species

concerned taking place in the country or district concerned.

Conceptualization: This indicator examines whether there is an occurrence of forestry activity in the referred country or district that includes the commercial use of genetically modified trees in its production process. It was verified whether the commercial use of genetically modified trees is approved by the Brazilian government. Information Sources: 1. Official publication of the National Technical Commission on Biosafety of the

Federal Government on commercial approvals of GMOs. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12482.html>

2. Law No. 11.105, as of March 24, 2005 (Article 6 thereof). <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2005/lei/l11105.htm>.

3. WRM publications on genetically modified trees. <http://wrm.org.uy/browse-by-subject/tree-plantations/genetically-modified-trees/l>

http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12482.html

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2005/lei/l11105.htm

http://www.wrm.org.uy/temas/biotecnologia.html



FSC® Brasil

39


Classification: Issues concerning the commercial use of genetically modified trees are handled by Brazil at a national level and are managed by the National Biosafety Council - CNBS and the National Technical Commission on Biosafety - CTNBio. Based on the official disclosure of CTNBio, stating that Brazil is unauthorized to commercially use transgenic trees, and the lack of studies or initiatives related to transgenic trees of native Brazilian species, all states are considered low risk for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 9 for evidence overlap and Figure 10 for risk designation. 5 b) Licenses are required for commercial use of genetically modified trees and

there are no licenses for commercial use.

Conceptualization: It was examined whether there is a control system to license and control the deployment or the commercial use of genetically modified trees. Information Sources:

1. CTNBio statement on the planned authorization of genetically modified eucalyptus. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/4605.html>

2. Publications of CTNBio about releasing experiments with genetically modified trees.

a. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12191.html> b. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/4631.html> c. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/13276.html> d. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12439.html>

Classification: Brazil, through Law No. 11.105 as of March 24, 2005, prohibits the use, sale, registration, patenting and licensing of genetic technologies involving genetically modified organisms without the favorable technical opinion of CTNBio or without the approval of the National Biosafety Council - CNBS. And upon the lack of commercial







FSC® Brasil

40


approval for any species of genetically modified tree in Brazil, all Brazilian states are considered low risk for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 9 for evidence overlap and Figure 10 for risk designation.

5 c) It is forbidden to use genetically modified trees commercially in the country concerned.

Conceptualization: This indicator analyses the country's treatment of the commercialization of genetically modified trees. The existence of evidence of commercial approvals of genetically modified trees was sought. Information Sources:

1. Law No. 11.105 as of March 24, 2005 (Article 6 thereof) <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2005/lei/l11105.htm>

2. Disclosure of the National Technical Commission on Biosafety - CTNBio on commercial approvals prove that Brazil. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12482.html>

3. List of genetically modified species, 1988 to 1998.

<http://www.biotecnologia.com.br/revista/bio29/arvores.pdf > Classification: Currently, the commercial use of genetically modified trees is prohibited in Brazil. So far, there are some field trials of genetically modified Eucalyptus. Therefore, as there is no approval to commercial use of genetically modified trees, Brazil was considered low risk for this indicator.




http://www.biotecnologia.com.br/revista/bio29/arvores.pdf


FSC® Brasil

41


Evidence Overlap – Category 5 Figure 9. Evidence Overlap for Wood from Genetically Modified Trees - Native

Forests with overview of Plantation Areas and field trials location


FSC® Brasil

42



Figure 10. Risk Classification for Wood from Genetically Modified Trees - Native Forests 10 with overview of Plantation Areas and field trials location

10 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4E.


FSC® Brasil

43


Part II - Risk Assessment on the Sourcing of Wood from Planted Forests

The National Risk Assessment (NRA) on planted forests encompassed the analysis of the 5 CW categories outlined in FSC-STD-40-005 (V2-1). Planted forests were considered as the plantations of exotic tree species of Eucalyptus, Pinus, Acacia and Teak. And when information was found on native species planted for commercial purposes, such as araucaria pine, paricá, mahogany and guanandi, data on these plantations were also considered in this assessment. The location of forest plantations of Pinus and Eucalyptus in Brazil may be found in Appendix 5. The NRA of planted forests followed the same structure of the NRA of native forests, therefore the following sections present: the Assumption of each category, followed by the Conceptualization and Information Sources - used in the treatment of every situation of the indicator, followed by its Classification. At the end of the discussion of each category, the Evidence Overlap maps and the Final Classification by Macro and Micro-district are presented. 1. Illegally Harvested Wood

Please see the introduction to the CW category 1 on Part I. 1.1. Evidence of enforcement of logging related laws in the district

Conceptualization: This indicator analyzes the existence of laws related to logging in the district and the effectiveness of governmental organizations to ensure compliance due the ability to implement actions to prevent illegal logging operations. Logging related laws are defined by FSC’s ‘Minimum list of applicable laws, regulations and nationally-ratified international treaties, conventions and agreements’ provided in FSC-DIR-40-005-19.


FSC® Brasil

44


We sought to analyze the intersection of information between the legal system governing planted forest logging in macro-districts and verification of compliance with the legislation. Information Sources:

1. Brazilian legislation waives control over logging of planted exotic forests - MMA Normative Instruction No. 3 as of September 8, 2009 <http://www.mpro.mp.br/documents/29224/168050/MMA-INSTRU%C3%87%C3%83O+NORMATIVA+No-+3%2C%20DE+8+DE+SETEMBRO+DE+2009.pdf/c48470d1-daf4-46bd-9fcb-c8f12e1531d1?version=1.0>

Classification: Brazil, based on Normative Instruction No. 3/2008 of the Ministry of the Environment, exempts logging of exotic wood in forests planted for commercial purposes from supervision. Although some macro-districts require special authorization for the removal of old plantations from areas that are now considered permanent preservation, it was considered that eventual illegal harvests in such areas would not be able to feed a market for illegal timber, as those are not numerous and very small areas, usually below 2 ha. Due to the above, low risk is assigned for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 11 for evidence overlap and Figure 12 for risk designation. 1.2. There is evidence in the district demonstrating the legality of harvests

and wood purchases, including robust and effective systems to granting licenses and harvest permits

Conceptualization: This indicator examines the government's ability to license and control forest logging as well as supervise and monitor the transportation and purchase of wood in the consumer market. Federal and state legislation covering licensing of forestry activities and the state system for granting wood logging, sale and transportation licenses was researched. Based on the information found, it was analyzed whether


FSC® Brasil

45


the control systems available and active in state and federal levels are able to ensure the legality of forest operations in the states. Information Sources:

1. Joint Resolution SEMAD / IEF No. 1775/2012 < http://www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=248330>

2. Harvest of exotic species in Paraná, SEMA Resolution No. 28/1998 < http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/Legislacao_ambiental/Legislacao_estadual/RESOLUCOES/resol_028_98.pdf>

Classification: Some Brazilian states require an informative document from the producer to the environmental agency concerning the logging and transport of wood from planted forests. This document, known as "logging information or statement", is connected to the control of fee payment and invoice issuance to regulate the transportation of timber. Therefore, it is not connected to the authorization to logging, the object of analysis of this category. Due to the absence of law, as presented at indicator 1.1 and / or authorization to logging exotic wood for commercial purposes in the country, low risk is assigned for this indicator in this study. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 11 for evidence overlap and Figure 12 for risk designation. 1.3. There is little or no evidence of reporting of illegal harvesting in the

district of origin

Conceptualization: This indicator examines whether there is occurrence of illegal logging in the states, according to the existence of laws governing wood logging. In the case of plantations located in Permanent Preservation Areas (PPA), a special permit for the removal of wood and the submission of a recovery plan for such areas are required. Therefore, unauthorized harvests of exotic species within PPA areas

http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/Legislacao_ambiental/Legislacao_estadual/RESOLUCOES/resol_028_98.pdf

http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/Legislacao_ambiental/Legislacao_estadual/RESOLUCOES/resol_028_98.pdf


FSC® Brasil

46


are understood as illegal timber. Evidence proving low risk of harvest of exotic species planted for commercial purposes in PPA was sought. Information Sources:

1. Notices of infraction disclosed through Public Consultation of IBAMA's Embargoed Areas. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/geo_sicafi/>

Classification: A large portion of illegal harvest records found is connected to native species harvested without permission from state environmental agencies, due to deviations from the designated logging area and / or harvest of old plantations. Despite the negligible volume of commercial supply of wood originated from unauthorized harvests in PPA, there is a risk related to logging in areas and / or logging of old plantations. Therefore, based on precautionary approach, this indicator was classified as unspecified. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 11 for evidence overlap and Figure 12 for risk designation. 1.4. There is 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

Conceptualization: This indicator analyzes the degree of perception of corruption related to the granting or issuing of logging permits and other areas of law enforcement related to wood logging and trade. Information Sources: No official data sources addressing the corruption of logging and logging of planted wood for commercial purposes were found.



FSC® Brasil

47


Classification: Due to the CPI (Compare Part I), as well as the lack of evidence about corruption in the logging of planted forest, this indicator was classified as unspecified.



FSC® Brasil

48



Figure 11. Evidence Overlap for Illegally Harvested Wood 11 - Forest Plantations

- No official data source found -

11 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4F.


FSC® Brasil

49



Figure 12. Risk Classification for Illegally Harvested Wood 12 - Forest Plantations

12 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4F.


FSC® Brasil

50


2. Wood Harvested in Violation of Traditional and Civil Rights

Please see the introduction to the CW category 2 on Part I. 2.1. There is no UN Security Council ban on timber exports from the country

concerned

Conceptualization: This indicator assesses whether the country has embargoes from the UN Security Council on timber export. In the analysis, we considered the control system of timber exports in Brazil and records related to timber embargoes issued by the UN Security Council. Compare Part I. Information Sources:

1. United Nations Security Council < http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions10.htm >

2. European Parliament approves legislation that prohibits wood without legal proof of origin, harvest and trade. <http://www.cartacapital.com.br/carta-verde/madeira-ilegal-com-os-dias-contados/>

Classification: There is no record of ban on exports of Brazilian timber issued by the United Nations Security Council. Brazil is classified as a low-risk country for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 13 for evidence overlap and Figure 14 for risk designation. 2.2. The country or district is not designated a source of conflict timber (e.g.

USAID Type 1 conflict timber)

Conceptualization: Compare Part I.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions10.htm




FSC® Brasil

51


Information Sources:

1. Forest and Conflicts - USAID <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE290.pdf> 2. World Bank (WB): Worldwide Governance Indicators:


3. The World Bank Harmonized List of Fragile Situations:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLICUS/Resources/511777-

1269623894864/HarmonizedlistoffragilestatesFY14.pdf

4. Global Witness <www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/environment/forests>

5. CIFOR studies on Forest and conflict

<http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_conflict.htm>

Classification: Classification of the risk for this indicator is aligned with Part I: According to the WB, in 2012 Brazil scores on the indicator political stability and absence of violence place 103 out of 215 economies with the lowest place being the best score and neither is on the list of fragile situations. Also, despite being classified by Global Witness as the most dangerous place to defend rights to land and the environment, with 448 killings [between 2002 and 2013], followed by Honduras (109) and the Philippines (67), this type of violence is not considered ‘armed or violent conflict’. Although several types of violence were reported, these cannot be classified as ‘armed conflicts’. The analysis of the sources led to the following conclusions: (1) Brazil is not a source of conflict timber; AND (2) The country is not covered by a UN security ban on exporting timber; AND (3) The country is not covered by any other international ban on timber export; AND (4) Operators in the area under assessment are not involved in conflict timber supply/trade; AND (5) Other available evidence does not challenge ‘low risk’ designation. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 13 for evidence overlap and Figure 14 for risk designation. 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

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE290.pdf




http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/environment/forests

http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_conflict.htm


FSC® Brasil

52


Conceptualization: This indicator assesses the existence of child labor or infringement of the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defined by the International Labour Organization in planted forest areas. Evidence of slave and child labor registered by the mobile inspection operations of the Ministry of Labour and Employment were collected and analyzed, in order to search for possible records of exploitation of workers, adolescents and children involved in planting, logging and / or processing wood from planted forests. It is worth noting that the analysis of the working conditions in the production of charcoal was not included in this assessment, as it belongs to a stage that is subsequent to the production chain of natural wood, which is the object of this analysis. Information Sources:

1. Black List of Slave Labor. ILO / Instituto Ethos / Repórter Brasil. <http://www.brasil.gov.br/noticias/arquivos/2012/04/13/stf-valida-lista-suja-do-trabalho-escravo> <http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/>e<http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/resultado.php>

2. Eradication of slave labor through fiscal actions - SIT / MTE. <http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/> and <http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/portaria-do-mte-cria-cadastro-de-empresas-e-pessoas-autuadas-por-exploracao-do-trabalho-escravo.htm> and <http://portal.mte.gov.br/data/files/8A7C816A308E140C013099AA320A62A2/est_resultado_quadro_trabescravo2010.pdf> and <http://www.oitbrasil.org.br/sites/default/files/topic/labour_inspection/pub/trabalho_escravo_inspecao_279.pdf>

3. Information System on Child Labor Areas - evidence of child labor - SITI / MTE. <http://sistemasiti.mte.gov.br/>

4. Conflicts in Brazil - CPT. <http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43>

Classification:



http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/



http://portal.mte.gov.br/trab_escravo/












FSC® Brasil

53


The evidence found proved the risk of occurrence of slave labor in five macro-districts and child labor in eleven macro-districts in forest plantations13 for commercial purposes and / or wood processing areas. The macro-districts where no reports were found on cases of forced labor and / or child labor for this indicator were classified as low risk: Acre, Alagoas, Amazonas, Ceará, Distrito Federal, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rondônia, Roraima, São Paulo and Sergipe. Spatialized data on this indicator, as well as the risk classification by micro-district, can be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 13 for evidence overlap and Figure 14 for risk designation. 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.

Conceptualization: Information regarding this indicator provided in Part I are relevant for planted forest as well. The analysis of this indicator included the search and verification of legal protection of use rights, cultural rights or cultural traditional identity rights of traditional communities; and the structure of the organizations responsible for ensuring compliance with legislation for plantations areas, as showed in the map. Based on this analysis, evidence of conflict was cross-checked in order to assess the effectiveness of resolution processes. Brazil presents a context of conflicts involving planted forest ventures that often falls within conflicts arising from dispute of land ownership and/or use. In this regard we sought to find evidence of conflicts over land dispute in planted forest areas for commercial purposes, involving traditional communities and indigenous peoples affected in their original right of use and tenure.

13 Planted forests were considered as the plantations of exotic tree species of Eucalyptus, Pinus, Acacia and

Teak. And when information was found on native species planted for commercial purposes, such as araucaria pine, paricá, mahogany and guanandi, data on these plantations were also considered in this assessment. Above was considered in list of the sources relevant for Parts I and II. The location of forest plantations of Pinus and Eucalyptus in Brazil may be found in Appendix 5.


FSC® Brasil

54


Conflicts registered in the conflict resolution system of FSC Brazil were not considered in this version of the document, as this area is still in its pilot stage of development in the country. Information Sources:

1. Distribution of FUNAI and INCRA offices. <http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/coordenacoes-regionais> and <http://www.incra.gov.br/index.php/regionais-incra-nos-estados>

2. Federal Decree n. 6040 as of 2007 defining Tribal Groups. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm>

3. Organizations and Institutions connected to the study and protection of traditional peoples and communities of Brazil. <http://www.bocaina.org.br/mosaico-bocaina/comunidades-tradicionais>

4. Representatives of the Attorney General's office in the Brazilian states for indigenous peoples and minorities in such states. <http://www.bocaina.org.br/mosaico-bocaina/comunidades-tradicionais>

5. Representatives of the Attorney General's Office in the Brazilian states for Environment and Cultural Heritage matters <http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/institucional/composicao/representantes-estados>

6. National Initiatives to eradicate slave labor. <http://portal.mte.gov.br/fisca_trab/resultados-das-operacoes-de-fiscalizacao-para-erradicacao-do-trabalho-escravo.htm>.

7. Term of Conduct Adjustment (TAC) - MPF / PGR <http://www.prba.mpf.mp.br/paraocidadao/pecas-juridicas/termos-de-ajustamento-de-conduta>

8. Term of Conduct Adjustment (TAC) Aracruz. <http://6ccr.pgr.mpf.mp.br/atuacao-do-mpf/extrajudicial/tac-docs/terras-indigenas/TAC%20ARACRUZ%20X%20GUARANI.pdf>

9. Meeting in the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office assesses agreement signed by Aracruz Celulose. < http://www.ecolnews.com.br/acordo_mpf_aracruz_celulose.htm >

10. Quilombola areas with lawsuits - CPI - SP. < http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/page.aspx?LinkID=20>

11. Violence due to Absence of Public Power - CIMI. <http://www.cimi.org.br/pub/publicacoes/1309466437_Relatorio%20Violencia-com%20capa%20-%20dados%202010%20(1).pdf>

12. Map of Environmental Injustice - FIOCRUZ / FASE / DESAST / Ministry of Health. <http://www.conflitoambiental.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php?pag=selecao>

13. Conflicts in Brazil in 2011 - CPT. <http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43>

http://www.incra.gov.br/index.php/regionais-incra-nos-estados





http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/institucional/composicao/representantes-estados



http://www.ecolnews.com.br/acordo_mpf_aracruz_celulose.htm

http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/page.aspx?LinkID=20









FSC® Brasil

55


14. Map of conflicts caused by environmental racism in Brazil - RBJA < http://www.justicaambiental.org.br/projetos/clientes/noar/noar/UserFiles/17/File/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20MAPA_DO_RACISMO_AMBIENTAL_NO_BRASIL.pdf >

15. The impacts of cultivation of eucalyptus and pinus in Brazil - Repórter Brazil - <http://www.observatorioeco.com.br/index.php/2012/01/publicacao-mostra-impacto-do-monocultivo-de-eucalipto-e-pinus/>

16. Cross-reference of conflicts found in the above-mentioned sources and MPE / MPF.

Classification: In Brazil, judgments of conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining to the rights of traditional peoples and communities including use rights, cultural and traditional identity rights, are passed on to the Ministry of Justice and Federal Prosecutor's Office, and subsequently passed on to the Attorney General's Office and directed to sectoral coordination bodies, such as: Environment and Cultural Heritage, Traditional Communities and Indigenous Peoples of Brazil. With respect to the planted forest sector, it has been observed that repossession suits in defense of traditional peoples and communities are being won. Records were found indicating repossession and right of use of land for the benefit of traditional peoples and communities in planted forest areas for commercial purposes, which proves that there are adequate procedural tools in place in order to meet claims, with balance among parties. It is important to notice, however, that the delay in the resolution of conflicts due to deficiencies of the country's judicial structure or other factors is detrimental to both parties, and therefore was not considered as a reason to justify conflict imbalance. Based on the evidence found, it was not possible to ensure low risk of occurrence of conflicts involving areas with planted forests for commercial purposes and traditional communities in nine macro-districts: Amapá, Bahia, Espírito Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul, Maranhão, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Pará and Rio Grande do Sul. The records of occurrence of conflicts that were found mainly refer to claims of land use and ownership rights by traditional communities and indigenous peoples in forest plantation areas. The macro-districts that carried no records of conflicts in the consulted sources were classified as low risk. Spatialized data on this indicator as well as the risk classification by micro-district can be found at the end of this section.





FSC® Brasil

56


Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 13 for evidence overlap and Figure 14 for risk designation. 2.5. There is no evidence of violation of ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous

and Tribal Peoples taking place in the forest areas in the district concerned

Conceptualization: For general description compare Part I. Evidence proving the absence of conflicts connected to planted forest areas for commercial purposes and indigenous peoples and traditional communities were sought. It was possible to precisely link the evidence with locations of plantations. Information Sources:

1. Federal Decree No. 6040 as of 2007 <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm>

2. Convention 169 - ILO <http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_100907.pdf >

3. Indigenous lands in Brazil - Legal status and compilation of news about conflicts - ISA <http://ti.socioambiental.org/#!/terras-indigenas>


5. Quilombola areas with lawsuits - CPI - SP. <http://cpisp.org.br/acoes//upload/arquivos/Terras%20de%20Quilombo%20com%20A%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20Judiciais.pdf> e <http://www.cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/resultados.aspx?LinkID=16>

6. Map of Environmental Injustice - FIOCRUZ / FASE / Department of Environmental Health and Occupational Health, Ministry of Health. <http://www.conflitoambiental.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php?pag=selecao>

7. Map of conflicts caused by environmental racism in Brazil. <

<http://www.justicaambiental.org.br/projetos/clientes/noar/noar/UserFiles/17/File/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20MAPA_DO_RACISMO_AMBIENTAL_NO_BRASIL.pdf>

8. Conflicts in Brazil, 2011 - CPT. Available at:



http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_100907.pdf

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_100907.pdf




http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/upload/arquivos/Terras%20de%20Quilombo%20com%20A%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20Judiciais.pdf

http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/upload/arquivos/Terras%20de%20Quilombo%20com%20A%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20Judiciais.pdf







FSC® Brasil

57


<http://www.cptnacional.org.br/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=23&view=finish&cid=274&catid=43>

9. Endangered indigenous languages in Brazil. < http://treinamento.folhasp.com.br/linguasdobrasil/>

Classification:

Conflicts reported involve basically possessory invasions, illegal exploitation of natural resources, various damages to cultural heritage and property, claims of territorial rights, violence against the person, among others. Such conflict situations are deemed violations of ILO Convention 169, which covers a wide range of issues, including land rights and access to natural resources. Records of conflicts involving traditional peoples and communities connected to planted forest activities for commercial purposes were found in eight macro-districts: Bahia, Espírito Santo, Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Paraná and Santa Catarina. The records found strictly pertained to land dispute, and were considered in indicator 2.2. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 13 for evidence overlap and Figure 14 for risk designation.



http://treinamento.folhasp.com.br/linguasdobrasil/


FSC® Brasil

58



Figure 13. Evidence Overlap for Wood Harvested in Violation of Traditional or Civil Rights - Forest Plantations


FSC® Brasil

59



Figure 14. Risk Classification for Wood Harvested in Violation of Traditional or Civil Rights 14 - Forest Plantations

14 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4G.


FSC® Brasil

60


3. Wood harvested in forests in which High Conservation Values are threatened by Management Activities

Please compare introduction in Part I. 3.1. Forest management activities in the relevant level (eco-region, sub-eco-

region, local) do not threaten eco-regionally significant high conservation value.

Conceptualization: This indicator assesses whether forest enterprises containing species planted for commercial purposes containing or located near HCV offer risk to the conservation and maintenance of these attributes. Considering the extensive territorial area under analysis, the complexity of the topic and the variety of sources defining eco-region/eco-regionally significant high conservation value suggested in FSC-STD-40-005 V2-1 for category 3 and at the same time the lack of a national interpretation of HCV, was not possible to identify other HCV than the officially located on full protection and sustainable use conservation units at Federal, State and Municipal levels, according to information provided by the MMA and IBGE, including indigenous lands and quilombolas lands. Determination whether HCVs are present in the remaining area was not possible due the lack of data. Therefore, indicator 3.2 applies to whole Brazil taking into account precautionary approach. For the analysis of this indicator, georeferenced data of conservation units, priority areas for conservation, indigenous lands, Quilombola and Traditional Communities were used and connected to the location of forest hubs. The analysis focused on planted forest activities developed for commercial purposes that presented a risk to conservation in these areas. Information Sources:

1. The High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit – Proforest / WWF <http://www.proforest.net/objects/publications/HCVF/hcvf-toolkit-part-1-final-updated.pdf>

2. Concentration of forestry production of planted forests: Pöyry Silviconsult database; Federal, State and Municipal Conservation Units: IBGE and TNC database;

http://www.proforest.net/objects/publications/HCVF/hcvf-toolkit-part-1-final-updated.pdf

http://www.proforest.net/objects/publications/HCVF/hcvf-toolkit-part-1-final-updated.pdf


FSC® Brasil

61


3. ARPA - Deforestation and Climate Change

<http://d3nehc6yl9qzo4.cloudfront.net/downloads/desmatamento_e_mudancas_climauticas.pdf >

4. Monitoring deforestation of Biomes - INPE / MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/index.php?ido=conteudo.monta&idEstrutura=182&idConteudo=10775>

5. Map of deforestation outbreaks and embargoed areas in Brazil - IBAMA / INPE. <http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=2545>

6. DETER in the Legal Amazon - INPE and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf>

7. Fighting illegal deforestation. < http://www.brasil.gov.br/cop/panorama/o-que-

o-brasil-esta-fazendo/combate-ao-desmatamento/print > 8. Deforestation of Federal and State Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands

inserted in the Amazon Biome - IMAZON. < http://www.imazongeo.org.br/imazongeo.php# >

9. Deforestation in Conservation Units inserted in the Cerrado biome in the period 2002-2008 - Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Burnings - pg. 40. < http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/201/_arquivos/ppcerrado_201.pdf>

10. Priority Areas for Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing of the Brazilian Biodiversity. Update of MMA Ordinance No. 9 as of January 23, 2007. <http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/chm/_arquivos/biodiversidade31.pdf>

11. List of priority municipalities for prevention and control in the Legal Amazon published by MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/ascom/ultimas/index.cfm?id=3872>

12. Priority areas for prevention and control - MMA. <http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/index.php?ido=conteudo.monta&idEstrutura=72&idConteudo=5454>

13. Atlas of Areas Susceptible to Desertification in Brazil - MMA <http://www.mma.gov.br/publicacoes/biomas/category/61-caatinga>

14. Distribution of sustainable use and full protection conservation areas released by MMA and ICMBio. <http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm> and < http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/downloads.html>

15. CONAMA Resolution No. 428, as of December 17, 2010 < http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=641>

16. Environmental Zoning of Forestry in Rio Grande do Sul <http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/biblioteca/zoneam_silvic.asp>

17. Protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon - ISA <http://uc.socioambiental.org/> 18. Quilombola areas with lawsuits - CPI - SP.

< http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/page.aspx?LinkID=20>



http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/index.php?ido=conteudo.monta&idEstrutura=182&idConteudo=10775








http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/chm/_arquivos/biodiversidade31.pdf

http://www.mma.gov.br/ascom/ultimas/index.cfm?id=3872



http://www.mma.gov.br/publicacoes/biomas/category/61-caatinga

http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/downloads.html


http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/biblioteca/zoneam_silvic.asp

http://uc.socioambiental.org/

http://cpisp.org.br/acoes/html/page.aspx?LinkID=20


FSC® Brasil

62


Classification: No official evidence was found proving the risk posed by planted forest management activities to high conservation values considered in the assumptions of this category's conceptualization. MMA, IMAZON, INPE, IBAMA and ICMBio sources were consulted. However, none of them enabled the correlation of planted forest management activities to HCV considered in the analysis. Based on data pertaining to areas embargoed by IBAMA, illegal logging of native timber within Conservation units was found. However, these data do not correlate the information directly to the management of planted forests. Records of irregularities in the planting of forest species for commercial purposes in the protective zones of CUs, which have regulations applied to the control of use or are undergoing such regulatory process, were also found. Thus, it was not possible to measure the threat of planted forest management for commercial purposes to HCV areas, due to lack of official data linking planted forests activities in Brazil to the risk of interference to areas deemed HCV. Therefore, this indicator is deemed unspecified for all macro-districts due to lack of information being applicable precautionary approach. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 15 for evidence overlap and Figure 16 for risk designation.

3.2 A strong system of protection (effectively protected areas and legislation)

is in place that ensures survival of the HCVs in the ecoregion

Conceptualization: Compare Part I. Information Sources:

1. Cross-reference of georeferenced information: mapping of Federal, State and Local Conservation Units, Monitoring of Biomes deforestation - INPE and MMA.

2. Identification of priority areas for conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing of biodiversity - MMA / CONABIO / ICMBio <http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/chm/_arquivos/dec5092.pdf>

http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/chm/_arquivos/dec5092.pdf


FSC® Brasil

63


< http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/portaria_mma_092007.pdf > 3. National System of Nature Conservation Units <

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm > 4. Management plans for wood logging areas within sustainable use

conservation units. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/unidades-de-conservacao/planos-de-manejo/lista-plano-de-manejo.html?view=icmbioplanomanejo>

5. Environmental Monitoring Center constituted by IBAMA, MMA and INPE for the protection and conservation of Brazilian biomes. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/>

6. Deforestation in Conservation Units of the Legal Amazon. < http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodesuc.php>

7. Analysis of deforestation in federal conservation units located in the Amazon. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/comunicacao/avaliacaodesmatamentoucsicmbio.pdf >

8. Detection of deforestation in real time in the Legal Amazon by INPE. Available at <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf>

9. Fighting illegal deforestation. <http://www.brasil.gov.br/cop/panorama/o-que-o-brasil-esta-fazendo/combate-ao-desmatamento/print >

10. IBAMA's supervision structure with office locations and the respective operational capabilities. < http://www.ibama.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/cargos-e-responsaveis >

11. Legislation pertaining to Conservation Units. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/publicacoes.html >

12. Legislation pertaining to Indigenous Lands. < http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/politicas-indigenistas/orgao-indigenista-oficial/funai> e<http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/iniciativas-indigenas/organizacoes-indigenas/historia>

13. CONAMA RESOLUTION No. 237, as of December 19, 1997 < http://portal2.tcu.gov.br/portal/pls/portal/docs/2054916.PDF> and RESOLUTION No. 428 AS OF 17 DECEMBER 2010 < http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=641>

14. Environmental Zoning of Forestry in Rio Grande do Sul <http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/biblioteca/zoneam_silvic.asp>

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/portaria_mma_092007.pdf

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm




http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/

http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodesuc.php









http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/comunicacao/publicacoes.html

http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/politicas-indigenistas/orgao-indigenista-oficial/funai

http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/politicas-indigenistas/orgao-indigenista-oficial/funai

http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/iniciativas-indigenas/organizacoes-indigenas/historia

http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/iniciativas-indigenas/organizacoes-indigenas/historia

http://portal2.tcu.gov.br/portal/pls/portal/docs/2054916.PDF


http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/biblioteca/zoneam_silvic.asp


FSC® Brasil

64


Classification:

Although Brazil has a strong legislation to protect areas considered as high conservation value, which can be evidenced by the legal framework related to the protection of Conservation Units and priority areas for conservation, unspecified risk was designed for the following reasons:

Records of notices of infraction involving deforestation in protective zones and Conservation Units in all Brazilian states, which prove the existence of threats and lack of control to prevent illegal logging; and

Lack of official data proving the effectiveness of inspection in the conservation of Conservation Units, with absence of records of occurrence of illegal logging.

In addition it was not possible to conclude that there is no threats to HCVs in planted forest areas thus, unspecified risk was assigned for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 15 for evidence overlap and Figure 16 for risk designation.


FSC® Brasil

65



Figure 15. Evidence Overlap for Wood Harvested in Forests Where High Conservation Values are Threatened by Management Activities - Forest Plantations


FSC® Brasil

66


Classification of Risk – Category 3

Figure 16. Risk Classification for Wood Harvested in Forests Where High Conservation Values are Threatened by Management Activities 15 - Forest Plantations

15 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4H.


FSC® Brasil

67


4. Wood Harvested in Forests being Converted to Plantations or Non-Forest Use

The district of origin may be considered low risk in relation to the conversion of forests into plantations or other non-forestry uses when the following indicator is contemplated: 4.1 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

Conceptualization: Compare Part I. By concept it was attempted to correlate deforestation to forest plantations activity in order to infer risk. Information Sources:

1. Monitoring of deforestation of Brazilian Biomes with deforestation rates by state. <http://www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-e-preven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento/coletivas-de-imprensa >

2. Deforestation in the Cerrado, by state, for the period 2002-2008 - < http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/201/_arquivos/ppcerrado_201.pdf >

3. Environmental Monitoring Center for the protection and conservation of Brazilian biomes / IBAMA, MMA and INPE. <http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/monitorabiomas/>

4. Detection of deforestation in real time in the Legal Amazon by INPE. <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/indexdeter.php?id=9219> and <http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/avaliacao/Avaliacao_DETER_2012_01_02.pdf>

5. Forestry Statistics of Caatinga - Ministry of the Environment. <http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/203/_arquivos/estatistica_florestal_1_203.pdf>.





http://www.obt.inpe.br/deter/






FSC® Brasil

68


Classification: Although conversion from plantation to non-forest use is not in the scope of Controlled Wood risk assessment, based on the classification assumption established in the conceptualization of the indicator, it was not possible to identify correlation of deforestation in the municipalities with deforestation rates above 0.5% per year (between 2008 and 2010, according to the sources consulted) with planted forest areas, thus unspecified risk is assigned. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 17 for evidence overlap and Figure 18 for risk designation.


FSC® Brasil

69



Figure 17. Evidence Overlap for Wood Harvested in Forests being converted to Plantations or Non-Forest Use - Forest Plantations


FSC® Brasil

70



Figure 18. Risk Classification for Wood Harvested in Forests being converted to Plantations or Non-Forest Use 16 - Forest Plantations

16 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4I.


FSC® Brasil

71


5. Wood from Forests in which Genetically Modified Trees are planted

Please compare introduction in Part I. 5 a) There is no commercial use of genetically modified trees of the species concerned taking place in the referred country or district concerned

Conceptualization: This indicator examines whether there is occurrence of forestry activity in the country that uses genetically modified trees in its production process. Commercial approvals of transgenic plants in Brazil published by the National Technical Commission on Biosafety - CTNBio were sought. Information Sources:

1. Official publication of the National Technical Commission on Biosafety of the

Federal Government on commercial approvals of genetically modified organisms - GMOs. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12482.html>

2. Law No. 11.105, as of March 24, 2005 (Article 6 thereof). <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2005/lei/l11105.htm>.

3. WRM publications on genetically modified trees. <http://wrm.org.uy/browse-by-subject/tree-plantations/genetically-modified-trees/l>

Classification: Issues related to the commercial use of genetically modified trees are handled nationally by the National Biosafety Council - CNBS and the National Technical Commission on Biosafety - CTNBio. Based on the CBNS' opinion, which states that the commercial use of transgenic trees is unauthorized in Brazil, all Brazilian states may be considered as low risk for this indicator. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 19 for evidence overlap and Figure 20 for risk designation.






FSC® Brasil

72


5 b) Licenses are required for the commercial use of genetically modified trees and there are no licenses for commercial use

Conceptualization: This indicator assesses whether there is a procedure in the country to control the release of the commercial use of genetically modified trees. In Brazil, Law No. 11,105 as of March 24, 2005 regulates this issue. Therefore, according to such law, regulations governing the use of genetically modified organisms in Brazil and license procedures issued by the Technical Commission on Biosafety - CTNBio were analyzed. Information Sources:

1. CTNBio statement on the planned release of genetically modified eucalyptus into the environment. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/4605.html>

2. CTNBio's disclosure on the release of experiments with genetically modified trees.

a. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12191.html> b. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/4631.html> c. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/13276.html> d. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12439.html>

Classification: Brazil, through Law No. 11.105 as of March 24, 2005, prohibits the use, sale, registration, patenting and licensing of genetic technologies involving genetically modified organisms without the favorable technical opinion of CTNBio or without the approval of the National Biosafety Council - CNBS. It is worth noting that experimental plantings of genetically modified eucalyptus trees were implanted in some macro-districts, upon prior authorization CTNBio. Such areas are small, not exceeding 20 ha, and have been monitored by CTNBio. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 19 for evidence overlap and Figure 20 for risk designation.







FSC® Brasil

73


5 c) It is forbidden to use genetically modified trees commercially in the country concerned

Conceptualization: Compare Part I. Information Sources:

1. Disclosure of the National Technical Commission on Biosafety - CTNBio on commercial approvals. <http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/12482.html>.

2. Law No. 11.105, as of March 24, 2005 (Article 6 thereof), available at: <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2005/lei/l11105.htm>

3. List of genetically modified species between 1988 and 1998 in Genetically Modified Trees used in Intensive Silviculture. <http://www.biotecnologia.com.br/revista/bio29/arvores.pdf >

Classification: Currently, the commercial use of genetically modified trees is prohibited in Brazil. So far, there are some field trials of genetically modified Eucalyptus. Therefore, as there is no approval to commercial use of genetically modified trees, Brazil was considered low risk for this indicator. 2012 spatialized data indicating the location of the field trials of genetically modified eucalyptus, previously authorized by CTNBio, can be found at the end of this section. Risk conclusion: Please see Figure 19 for evidence overlap and Figure 20 for risk designation.



http://www.biotecnologia.com.br/revista/bio29/arvores.pdf


FSC® Brasil

74


Evidence Overlap – Category 5 Figure 19. Evidence Overlap for Wood from Genetically Modified Planted Forests


FSC® Brasil

75



Figure 20. Risk Classification for Wood from Genetically Modified Planted Forests17

17 List of Risk Classification by Mesoregion can be found in Appendix 4J.


FSC® Brasil

Appendices

Appendix 1. Criteria and Indicators of FSC-STD-40-005

1. Il legally Harvested Wood2. 2. Wood Harvested in Violation of

Traditional and Civil Right

3. Wood harvested from forests in which High

Conservation Values are Threatened by

Management Activity

4. Wood Harvested from Areas being

Converted from Forests and other Wooded

Ecosystems to Plantations and Non-Forest

Uses

5. Wood from Forests in wich Genetically

Modified Trees are PlantedCriteria

The district of origin may be considered low

risk in relation to il legal harvesting when all

indicators related to forest governance have

been observed, ie upon verification of:


risk in relation to the violation of traditional,

civil and collective rights when:


risk in relation to threat to high conservation

values if:

a) indicator 3.1 is met; or

b) indicator 3.2 eliminates (or greatly

mitigates) the threat posed to the district of

origin by non-compliance with 3.1.


risk in relation to the conversion of forests to

plantations or other non-forestry uses when

the following indicator is contemplated:

Note: The alteration of plantation to other

type of soil use is not considered as

conversion.


risk in relation to wood originated from

genetically modified trees when one of the

following indicators is complied with:

Premise

1.1. Evidence of enforcement of logging

related laws in the district

2.1. There is no UN Security Council ban on

timber exports from the country concerned

3.1. Forest management activities in the

relevant level (eco-region, sub-eco-region,

local) do not threaten eco-regionally

significant high conservation value

4.1. 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

5.1. There is no commercial use of genetically

modified trees of the species concerned

taking place in the referred country or district

concerned

1.2. There is evidence in the district

demonstrating the legality of harvests and

wood purchases, including robust and

effective systems to granting licenses and

harvest permits

2.2. The country or district is not designated

a source of conflict timber (e.g. USAID Type 1

conflict timber)

3.2. A strong system of protection (effectively

protected areas and legislation) is in place

that ensures survival of the HCVs in the

ecoregion

5.2. Licenses are required for the commercial

use of genetically modified trees and there

are no licenses for commercial use

1.3. There is l ittle or no evidence of reporting

of i l legal harvesting in the district of origin

2.3. There is no evidence of child labor or

violantion of ILO Fundamental Principles and

Rights at Work taking place in forest areas in

the district concerned

5.3. It is forbidden to use genetically

modified trees commercially in the country

concerned

Indicators

1.4. There is 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

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

2.5. There is no evidence of violation of ILO

Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples taking place in the forest areas in the

district concerned


FSC® Brasil

FSC-CW-RA-020-BRA V1-0

Appendix 2. Brazilian States Used in the Dimension of Macro-Districts - IBGE

Sigla Unidade Federativa

AC ACRE

AL ALAGOAS

AP AMAPÁ

AM AMAZONAS

BA BAHIA

CE CEARÁ

DF DISTRITO FEDERAL

ES ESPÍRITO SANTO

GO GOIÁS

MA MARANHÃO

MT MATO GROSSO

MS MATO GROSSO DO SUL

MG MINAS GERAIS

PA PARÁ

PB PARAÍBA

PR PARANÁ

PE PERNAMBUCO

PI PIAUÍ

RJ RIO DE JANEIRO

RN RIO GRANDE DO NORTE

RS RIO GRANDE DO SUL

RO RONDÔNIA

RR RORAIMA

SC SANTA CATARINA

SP SÃO PAULO

SE SERGIPE

TO TOCANTINS


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 3. Mesoregions Used as Micro-Districts - IBGE


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4. Classification of Risk by Mesoregion The risk classification was divided into three possibilities:

Low risk ( ): the evidence found proves the existence of low risk of occurrence of the situation mentioned by the category and the respective indicator of the standard, i.e., low risk is confirmed, which may be understood as insignificant risk18;

Specified Risk ( ): the evidence found proves the existence of risk of occurrence of situation mentioned by the category and the respective indicator of the standard.

Unspecified Risk ( ): the evidence was insufficient to prove low risk and/or specified risk.

18 "Low" risk, as determined by FSC, is synonymous with "negligible" risk, as defined by (EU) Regulation No. 995/2010 of the European Parliament and Council, as of October 20, 2010, laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (known as the "European Union Timber Regulations").


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4A. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 1 – Native Forests

UF Mesoregiões Código Risco

GO Centro Goiano 5203

GO Leste Goiano 5204

GO Noroeste Goiano 5201

GO Norte Goiano 5202

GO Sul Goiano 5205

MA Centro Maranhense 2103

MA Leste Maranhense 2104

MA Norte Maranhense 2101

MA Oeste Maranhense 2102

MA Sul Maranhense 2105

MT Centro-Sul Mato-Grossense 5104

MT Nordeste Mato-Grossense 5102

MT Norte Mato-Grossense 5101

MT Sudeste Mato-Grossense 5105

MT Sudoeste Mato-Grossense 5103

MS Centro Norte De Mato Grosso Do Sul 5002

MS Leste De Mato Grosso Do Sul 5003

MS Pantanal Sul Mato-Grossense 5001

MS Sudoeste De Mato Grosso Do Sul 5004

MG Campos Da Vertentes 3111

MG Central Mineira 3106

MG Jequitinhonha 3103

MG Metropolitana De Belo Horizonte 3107

MG Noroeste De Minas 3101

MG Norte De Minas 3102

MG Oeste De Minas 3109

MG Sul / Sudoeste De Minas 3110

MG Triângulo Mineiro / Alto Paranaíba 3105

MG Vale Do Mucuri 3104

MG Vale Do Rio Doce 3108


AC Vale do Acre 1202

AC Vale do Juruá 1201

AL Agreste Alagoano 2702

AL Leste Alagoano 2703

AL Sertão Alagoano 2701

AP Norte do Amapá 1601

AP Sul do Amapá 1602

AM Centro Amazonense 1303

AM Norte Amazonense 1301

AM Sudoeste Amazonense 1302

AM Sul Amazonense 1304

BA Centro Norte Baiano 2903

BA Centro Sul Baiano 2906

BA Extremo Oeste Baiano 2901

BA Metropolitana De Salvador 2905

BA Nordeste Baiano 2904

BA Sul Baiano 2907

BA Vale São-Franciscano Da Bahia 2902

CE Centro-Sul Cearense 2306

CE Jaguaribe 2305

CE Metropolitana De Fortaleza 2303

CE Noroeste Cearense 2301

CE Norte Cearense 2302

CE Sertões Cearenses 2304

CE Sul Cearense 2307

DF Distrito Federal 5301

ES Central Espírito-santense 3203

ES Litoral Norte Espírito-santense 3202

ES Noroeste Espírito-santense 3201

ES Sul Espírito-santense 3204


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4A. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 1 – Native Forests (Continued)


MG Zona Da Mata 3112

PA Baixo Amazonas 1501

PA Marajó 1502

PA Metropolitana De Belém 1503

PA Nordeste Paraense 1504

PA Sudeste Paraense 1506

PA Sudoeste Paraense 1505

PB Agreste Paraibano 2503

PB Borborema 2502

PB Mata Paraibana 2504

PB Sertão Paraibano 2501

PR Centro Ocidental Paranaense 4102

PR Centro Oriental Paranaense 4105

PR Centro-Sul Paranaense 4108

PR Metropolitana De Curitiba 4110

PR Noroeste Paranaense 4101

PR Norte Central Paranaense 4103

PR Norte Pioneiro Paranaense 4104

PR Oeste Paranaense 4106

PR Sudeste Paranaense 4109

PR Sudoeste Paranaense 4107

PE Agreste Pernambucano 2603

PE Mata Pernambucana 2604

PE Metropolitana De Recife 2605

PE São Francisco Pernambucano 2602

PE Sertão Pernambucano 2601

PI Centro-Norte Piauiense 2202

PI Norte Piauiense 2201

PI Sudeste Piauiense 2204

PI Sudoeste Piauiense 2203

RJ Baixadas 3304

RJ Centro Fluminense 3303

RJ Metropolitana Do Rio De Janeiro 3306

RJ Noroeste Fluminense 3301

RJ Norte Fluminense 3302

RJ Sul Fluminense 3305

RN Agreste Potiguar 2403

RN Central Potiguar 2402

RN Leste Potiguar 2404

RN Oeste Potiguar 2401

RS Centro Ocidental Rio-Grandense 4303

RS Centro Oriental Rio-Grandense 4304

RS Metropolitana De Porto Alegre 4305

RS Nordeste Rio-Grandense 4302

RS Noroeste Rio-Grandense 4301

RS Sudeste Rio-Grandense 4307

RS Sudoeste Rio-Grandense 4306

RO Leste Rondoniense 1102

RO Madeira-Guaporé 1101

RR Norte De Roraima 1401

RR Sul De Roraima 1402

SC Grande Florianópolis 4205

SC Norte Catarinense 4202

SC Oeste Catarinense 4201

SC Serrana 4203

SC Sul Catarinense 4206

SC Vale Do Itajaí 4204


SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507

SP Itapetininga 3511

SP Litoral Sul Paulista 3514

SP Macro Metropolitana Paulista 3512

SP Marilia 3509

SP Metropolitana De São Paulo 3515

SP Piracicaba 3506

SP Presidente Prudente 3508

SP Ribeirão Preto 3502

SP São Jose Do Rio Preto 3501

SP Vale Do Paraiba Paulista 3513

SE Agreste Sergipano 2802

SE Leste Sergipano 2803

SE Sertão Sergipano 2801

TO Ocidental Do Tocantins 1701

TO Oriental Do Tocantins 1702


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4B. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 2 – Native Forests


















BA Sul Baiano 2907



CE Jaguaribe 2305















GO Sul Goiano 5205





























PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502






















RJ Baixadas 3304
























SC Serrana 4203



FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4B. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 2 – Native Forests (Continued)



SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507




SP Marilia 3509


SP Piracicaba 3506











FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4C. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 3 – Native Forests






PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502






















RJ Baixadas 3304
























SC Serrana 4203



















BA Sul Baiano 2907



CE Jaguaribe 2305















GO Sul Goiano 5205

























FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4C. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 3 – Native Forests (Continued)



SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507




SP Marilia 3509


SP Piracicaba 3506











FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4D. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 4 – Native Forests


















BA Sul Baiano 2907



CE Jaguaribe 2305















GO Sul Goiano 5205





























PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502






















RJ Baixadas 3304
























SC Serrana 4203



FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4D. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 4 – Native Forests (Continued)



SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507




SP Marilia 3509


SP Piracicaba 3506











FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4E. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 5 – Native Forests



















BA Sul Baiano 2907





CE Jaguaribe 2305












GO Sul Goiano 5205





























PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502

























RJ Baixadas 3304
















FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4E. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 5 – Native Forests (Continued)







SC Serrana 4203






SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Bauru 3504

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Piracicaba 3506

SP Campinas 3507


SP Marilia 3509

SP Assis 3510












FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4F. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 1 – Planted Forests






PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502






















RJ Baixadas 3304
























SC Serrana 4203



















BA Sul Baiano 2907



CE Jaguaribe 2305















GO Sul Goiano 5205

























FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4F. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 1 – Planted Forests (Continued)



SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507




SP Marilia 3509


SP Piracicaba 3506











FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4G. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 2 – Planted Forests



















BA Sul Baiano 2907





CE Jaguaribe 2305












GO Sul Goiano 5205





























PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502

























RJ Baixadas 3304
















FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4G. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 2 – Planted Forests (Continued)







SC Serrana 4203






SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Bauru 3504

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Piracicaba 3506

SP Campinas 3507


SP Marilia 3509

SP Assis 3510












FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4H. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 3 – Planted Forests






PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502






















RJ Baixadas 3304
























SC Serrana 4203



















BA Sul Baiano 2907



CE Jaguaribe 2305















GO Sul Goiano 5205

























FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4H. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 3 – Planted Forests (Continued)



SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507




SP Marilia 3509


SP Piracicaba 3506











FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4I. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 4 – Planted Forests






PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502






















RJ Baixadas 3304
























SC Serrana 4203



















BA Sul Baiano 2907



CE Jaguaribe 2305















GO Sul Goiano 5205

























FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4I. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 4 – Planted Forests (Continued)



SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Assis 3510

SP Bauru 3504

SP Campinas 3507




SP Marilia 3509


SP Piracicaba 3506











FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4J. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 5 – Planted Forests



















BA Sul Baiano 2907





CE Jaguaribe 2305












GO Sul Goiano 5205





























PA Marajó 1502






PB Borborema 2502

























RJ Baixadas 3304
















FSC® Brasil


Appendix 4J. Risk Classification by Mesoregion – Category 5 – Planted Forests (Continued)







SC Serrana 4203






SP Araçatuba 3503

SP Bauru 3504

SP Araraquara 3505

SP Piracicaba 3506

SP Campinas 3507


SP Marilia 3509

SP Assis 3510












FSC® Brasil


Appendix 5. Location of Eucalyptus and Pinus Plantations in Brazil


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 6. Full Protection and Sustainable Use Conservation Units

On July 18, 2000, the national system of nature conservation units, SNUC, was created by Federal Law No. 9985, which sets forth criteria and standards for the creation, implementation and management of conservation units. This law was regulated by Decree No. 4340 on August 22, 2002. Conservation units are managed at the federal level by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) and state conservation units are managed by the State Environmental Organizations (OEMAs), which coordinate the Conservation Units State System in state conservation units. Conservation units, as defined by SNUC, can be divided into two groups:

Full Protection Units, with the basic objective of preserving nature, the indirect use of their natural resources being admitted, except in cases provided for in the SNUC Law;

Sustainable Use Units, aiming at harmonizing nature conservation with the direct use of a portion of their natural resources, that is, allowing the exploitation of the environment, while maintaining local biodiversity and their renewable resources.

The following tables provide an overview of the twelve categories of Conservation units established in SNUC.

Appendix 6A. Full Protection Conservation Units

Category Description

Ecological Stations

Public ownership and domain, aimed at nature preservation and conduct of scientific research. Public visitation is prohibited except with educational purposes. Scientific research is subject to prior authorization from the agency in charge.

Biological Reserves

Full preservation of biota and other natural attributes existing within their limits, without direct human intervention or environmental change, except for recovery measures involving modified ecosystems and management actions to restore and preserve natural balance, biodiversity and ecological processes.

National Parks

Their basic objective is the preservation of natural ecosystems of great ecological significance and scenic beauty, enabling the conduct of scientific research and the development of environmental education and interpretation activities, recreation in contact with nature and eco tourism.

Natural Monuments

Preservation of natural sites that are rare, unique or possessing great scenic beauty.

Getaway Wildlife Refuges

Their purpose is the protection of natural environments which provide conditions for the existence or reproduction of species or communities of local flora and resident or migratory fauna.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_Nacional_de_Unidades_de_Conserva%C3%A7%C3%A3o_da_Natureza#cite_note-categorias_icmbio-7


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 6B. Sustainable Use Conservation Units

Category Description

Areas of Relevant Ecological Interest

Usually small, those are areas with little or no human occupation, showing extraordinary natural features or harboring rare examples of regional biota, aiming to maintain the natural ecosystems of regional or local importance and regulate the permissible use of these areas in order to harmonize it with the nature conservation objectives.

Natural Heritage Private Reserves

Privately owned, in perpetuity, aiming to conserve biological diversity.

Environmental Protection Areas

Generally large areas, with a certain degree of human occupation, endowed with abiotic, biotic, aesthetic or cultural attributes that are particularly important for quality of life and well-being of human populations, and basically aimed at protecting biological diversity, disciplining the occupation process and ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources.

National Forests Areas with forest coverage of predominantly native species, the basic objective being the sustainable multiple use of forest resources and scientific research, with emphasis on methods for sustainable exploration of native forests.

Sustainable Development Reserves

Natural areas that harbor traditional populations whose existence is based on sustainable systems of exploration of natural resources, developed over generations, adapted to local ecological conditions, playing a key role in protecting nature and maintaining biological diversity.

Fauna Reservations

Natural areas with terrestrial or aquatic, resident or migratory animal populations of native species, suitable for technical and scientific studies regarding the sustainable economic management of wildlife resources.

Extractive Reserves

Used by local populations whose livelihood is based on extraction activities and, additionally, in subsistence agriculture and raising of small animals; the basic objective of areas within this category is to protect the livelihoods and culture of these populations, and to ensure the sustainable use of units' natural resource.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_Nacional_de_Unidades_de_Conserva%C3%A7%C3%A3o_da_Natureza#cite_note-categorias_icmbio-7


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 7. Characterization of Biomes

Amazon The Amazon biome totals approximately 6 million square kilometers and extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the eastern slopes of the Andes up to about 600 m altitude, covering territories from nine countries in South America. However, most of its extension (69%) belongs to Brazil, approximately 4 million square kilometers, or approximately 49% of the national territory. The Amazon biome comprises the states of Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Pará and Roraima, and part of the territories of Maranhão (34%), Mato Grosso (54%), Rondônia (98.8%) and Tocantins (9%). There are many ecosystems characterized by various vegetation types on its territory, such as dense solid ground forests, seasonal forests, permanently flooded forests, floodplains, wetlands, savannas, mountain refuges and pioneer formations. Typical Amazon forest formations are characterized by the formation of continuous canopy and the presence of several arboreal extracts harboring an enormous diversity of plant and animal species. However it is possible to find grasslands in poorer soils of the northern reaches of the Rio Branco basin, and scattered patches of Campinaranas on sandy soils along the Rio Negro basin. Isolated cerrado areas also occur, represented by savanna and grassland formations. Cerrado (Brazilian Savannah) Cerrado is the second largest Brazilian biome, covering an area of approximately 2 million square kilometers and extending along the central region of Brazil, representing nearly 25% of the national territory. The Cerrado occupies the whole of Distrito Federal and part of the territory of Goiás (97%), Tocantins (91%), Maranhão (65%), Mato Grosso do Sul (61%), Minas Gerais (57%), Mato Grosso (39%), Piauí (37%), Bahia (27%), São Paulo (32%), Paraná (2%), Rondônia (0.2%). It is possible to find patches of this biome in the Amazon, Caatinga and Atlantic Forest. The cerrado has varied faces. In areas with deeper soils and greater water availability, the cerrado has forest formations, known as Cerradões. In shallower soils, savanna formations predominate and present variations according to vegetation cover, ranging from grasslands devoid of woody vegetation, to dense, almost forested savannas. Along rivers and streams, there are gallery forests that form narrow strips of closed canopy and Veredas, characterized by the presence of Buriti palm and hygrophilous fields. Atlantic Forest The Atlantic Forest biome covers an area of approximately one million square kilometers and is constituted mainly by the band of forest along the coastline that runs from Rio Grande do Norte to Rio Grande do Sul, occupying approximately 12% of the national territory. The Atlantic Forest occupies the entire territories of Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro and Santa Catarina, and part of the territory of the states of Paraná (98%), São Paulo (68%), Alagoas (52%), Sergipe (51%),


FSC® Brasil


Minas Gerais (41%), Rio Grande do Sul (37%) Bahia (19%), Pernambuco (17%), Mato Grosso do Sul (14%), Paraíba (8%), Rio Grande do Norte (5%) and Goiás (3%). The Atlantic Forest Biome is one of the largest latitudinal extensions on the planet, in terms of forest formations. This causes great climatic variability throughout its distribution. Thus, it presents a great diversity of forest ecosystems with distinctive vegetation types that express soil and climatic characteristics of the region where they occur. However, the common element to all these vegetation types is the exposure to humid winds coming from the Atlantic Ocean, resulting in high annual rainfall averages. Thus, we find ombrophilous along the coastal forest formations, which are more subject to moisture from the ocean, and seasonal forests occurring further into the continent. Both types present dense and continuous forest formations. Further south, along the southern Brazilian highlands where the average altitude is above 500m, we find mixed ombrophilous forest, characterized by the presence of Araucaria pines. Caatinga The Caatinga covers approximately 9% of the national territory, occupying an area of about 800 thousand km ². It completely covers the state of Ceará and part of the territory of Rio Grande do Norte (95%), Paraíba (92%), Pernambuco (83%), Piauí (63%), Bahia (54%), Sergipe (49%), Alagoas (48%), Minas Gerais (2%) and Maranhão (1%). The caatinga is composed primarily of a vegetation type known as steppe savanna, which has a sparse and xerophytic tree cover as a result of the two annual draughts to which the biome is subject. However, in higher areas located closer to the coast, dry periods are milder and the availability of water is greater, and forest formations similar to Cerradão are found, however with smaller trees, not exceeding 7m in height. Pantanal The Pantanal, considered the largest alluvial plain of the planet, covers an area of almost 210 thousand square kilometers, and approximately 70% of this area, or approximately 150 thousand km ², is in Brazil, in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul (25%) and Mato Grosso (7%). The remaining 30% are distributed between Bolivia and Paraguay. This unique biome on the planet is a huge transition zone where it is possible to find the Brazilian Cerrado in the East, North and South, the Argentine Chaco in the Southwest, the Amazon in the North, the Atlantic Forest in the South and the Bolivian Bosque Seco Chiquitano in the Northwest. The biome is characterized by the insertion in a floodplain influenced by rivers that drain into the basin of the Rio Paraguai. The Pantanal plain is covered by predominantly open vegetation, which grows mainly in sandy soils. Due to the variety of micro-reliefs and the consequent variable flood regimes in the biome, several different vegetation types can be found.


FSC® Brasil


Pampas The Pampas are also called Southern Fields and Southern Grasslands, and occupy an area of about 170 thousand square km, which corresponds to approximately 2% of the national territory. In Brazil, the Pampa only occurs in Rio Grande do Sul, occupying 63% of that state. The biome is characterized by steppe vegetation, which has a large variety of grasslands where herbaceous vegetation predominates, with possible occurrence of low and isolated trees and shrubs. In the central region of Rio Grande do Sul state, it is possible to find pampa compositions meeting with biomes formed by Araucaria forests, and seasonal forest formations alongside rivers.


FSC® Brasil


Appendix 8. Location of Brazilian Biomes within the Legal Amazon Area


FSC® Brasil


G List of appendices

APPENDIX 1. CRITERIA AND INDICATORS OF FSC-STD-40-005

APPENDIX 2. BRAZILIAN STATES USED IN THE DIMENSION OF MACRO-DISTRICTS- IBGE

APPENDIX 3. MESOREGIONS USED AS MICRO-DISTRICTS – IBGE

APPENDIX 4. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION

APPENDIX 4A. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION - CATEGORY1 – NATIVE FORESTS

APPENDIX 4B. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 2 – NATIVE FORESTS

APPENDIX 4C. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 3 – NATIVE FORESTS

APPENDIX 4D. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 4 – NATIVE FORESTS

APPENDIX 4E. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 5 – NATIVE FORESTS

APPENDIX 4F. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 1 – PLANTED FORESTS

APPENDIX 4G. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 2 – PLANTED FORESTS

APPENDIX 4H. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 3 – PLANTED FORESTS

APPENDIX 4I. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 4 – PLANTED FORESTS

APPENDIX 4J. RISK CLASSIFICATION BY MESOREGION – CATEGORY 5 – PLANTED FORESTS

APPENDIX 5. LOCATION OF EUCALYPTUS AND PINUS PLANTATIONS IN BRAZIL

APPENDIX 6. FULL PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE USE CONSERVATION UNITS

APPENDIX 6A. FULL PROTECTION CONSERVATION UNITS

APPENDIX 6B. SUSTAINABLE USE CONSERVATION UNITS

APPENDIX 7. CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOMES

APPENDIX 8. LOCATION OF BRAZILIAN BIOMES WITHIN THE LEGAL AMAZON AREA


FSC® Brasil


H List of figures

FIGURE 1. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR ILLEGALLY HARVESTED WOOD…………………………………………..………….15

FIGURE 2. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR ILLEGALLY HARVESTED WOOD…………………………………………………....16

FIGURE 3. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL, CIVIL AND COLLETIVE RIGHTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….26

FIGURE 4. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL, CIVIL AND COLLETIVE RIGHTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………27

FIGURE 5. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS WHERE HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES ARE THREATENED BY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………….…………..….32

FIGURE 6. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS WHERE HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES ARE THREATENED BY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES……………………………………….………………………..….33

FIGURE 7. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS BEING CONVERTED TO PLANTATIONS OR NON-FOREST USE………………………………………………………………………….…......……………..….36

FIGURE 8.RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS BEING CONVERTED TO PLANTATIONS OR NON-FOREST USE…………………………………………………………………..………………………..……...37

FIGURE 9. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED TREES – NATIVE FORESTS WITH OVERVIEW OF PLANTATIONS AREAS AND FIEL TRIALS LOCATION…………….…………………………….……41

FIGURE 10. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED TREES - NATIVE FORESTS WITH OVERVIEW OF PLANTATIONS AREAS AND FIEL TRIALS LOCATION……………………………………………....42

FIGURE 11. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR ILLEGALLY HARVESTED WOOD………..…………………………………………..48

FIGURE 12. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR ILLEGALLY HARVESTED WOOD…………………………………………………..49

FIGURE 13. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL OR CIVIL RIGHTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..…58

FIGURE 14. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN VIOLATION OF TRADITIONAL OR CIVIL RIGHTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....59

FIGURE 15. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS WHERE HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES ARE THREATENED BY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………….…..….65


FSC® Brasil


FIGURE 16. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS WHERE HIGH CONSERVATION

VALUES ARE THREATENED BY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES………………………………………..…...…………………….66

FIGURE 17. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS BEING CONVERTED TO PLANTATIONS OR NON-FOREST USE………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…69

FIGURE 18. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD HARVESTED IN FORESTS BEING CONVERTED TO PLANTATIONS OR NON-FOREST USE……………….…………………………………………………….…………………..………….70

FIGURE 19. EVIDENCE OVERLAP FOR WOOD FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTED FORESTS...………74

FIGURE 20. RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR WOOD FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTED FOREST…………75


FSC® Brasil


I List of abbreviations

Abbreviations Meaning

HCV High Conservation Value

ANEEL National Agency for Electrical Energy

PPA Permanent Protection Area

ARPA Protected Areas of the Amazon Project

CIMI Missionary Indigenous Council

CNBS Biosafety National Council

CPI Pro-Indigenous Peoples Commission

CPT Pastoral da Terra Commission

CTNBio National Technical Commission on Biosafety

DESAST Environmental Health and Occupational Health Department

DETER Real Time Detection

DOF Forest Origin Document

ELP The Endangered Languages Project

FASE Federation of Social and Educational Assistance Agencies

FAVC High Conservation Value Forests

FIOCRUZ Fundação Oswaldo Cruz

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

FUNAI National Indian Foundation

IBAMA Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources

IBGE Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics

ICMBio Chico Mendes Institute of Biodiversity Conservation

IEB International Institute of Education in Brazil

IFT Tropical Forest Institute

IMAZON Institute of Men and the Environment of Amazon

IN Normative Instruction

INCRA National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform

INPE National Institute for Space Research

IPAAM Institute of Environmental Protection of the Amazon

ISA Socioenvironmental Institute

MAPA Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply


FSC® Brasil


Abbreviations Meaning

MCT Ministry of Science and Technology

MMA Ministry of the Environment

MPE State Public Prosecutor’s Office

MPF Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office

MTE Ministry of Labor and Employment

NR Regulatory Standard

OEMA Environmental State Agencies

OGM Genetically Modified Organisms

OIT International Labour Organization

PGR Attorney General’s Office

PNUD United Nations Development Programme

PRODES Deforestation Monitoring in the Legal Amazon Project

RBJA Brazilian Network of Environmental Justice

RL Legal Reserve

SEDH Human Rights Special Secretariat

SAD Deforestation Alert System

SBF Biodiversity and Forests Secretariat

SFB Brazilian Forestry Service

SIMLAM Licensing and Monitoring Integrated System

SISFLORA Sistema de Comercialização e Transporte de Produtos Florestais

SIT Labor Inspection Secretariat

SITI Information System on Child Labor

SNUC Conservation Unit National System

TAC Term of Conduct Adjustment

TI Indigenous Land

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WRM World Rainforest Movement

FSC Controlled Wood Risk Assessment - Global Forest … · interpretation of annex 2b of the...

Documents

Transcript of FSC Controlled Wood Risk Assessment - Global Forest … · interpretation of annex 2b of the...