Sea Turtle Conservation Group

Every forest has some environmental and social value. The values it contains may include rare species, recreational sites or resources harvested by local residents. Where these values are considered to be of outstanding significance or critical importance, the forest can be defined as a High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF). Although the Forest Stewardship Council  provides the generic definition of HCVs, it is not easy to interpret this global definition in different forest types, locations and in different social circumstances. This solution focuses on defining and identifying HCVFs for the purposes of monitoring and managing them.

The key to the concept of HCVFs is the identification of High Conservation Values (HCVs): it is these values that are important and need to be protected. High Conservation Value Forests are simply the forests where these values are found, or, more precisely, the forest area that needs to be appropriately managed in order to maintain or enhance the identified values. Identifying these areas is therefore the essential first step in developing appropriate management for them.

The HCVF concept was initially developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for use in forest management certification and first published in 1999 (see Appendix 1). Under Principle 9 for FSC certification, forest managers are required to identify any High Conservation Values (HCVs) that occur within their individual forest management units, to manage them in order to maintain or enhance the values identified, and to monitor the success of this management.

 

This Toolkit is divided into three parts. The Introduction (Part 1) is intended for all users. Parts 2 and 3 of the Toolkit are similar to each other, but address the implementation of HCVF from two different perspectives: Part 2 is intended for groups that are developing national (or sub-national) definitions of HCVF, whereas Part 3 is aimed at forest managers who need to identify HCVF in the absence of such a national-level process. It is therefore intended that a Toolkit user will have to read either Part 2 or Part 3, but not both.

Part 1: Introduction. This gives a general introduction to the concept of HCVF and how different users can apply it.

Part 2: Defining High Conservation Value Forests at a national level. The ideal way of implementing the concept is by developing national (or sub-national) interpretations that clearly define the local HCVs. This part of the Toolkit provides a practical methodology to be used at a national (or sub-national) level for defining High Conservation Values.

Developing national definitions requires both technical knowledge and difficult decisions about when an attribute is of sufficient importance to be designated a High Conservation Value. Therefore, input is needed from a range of technical specialists as
well as different interest groups. The appropriate forum for defining national HCVs will vary, but could include a standards working group, a national group convened for HCVF or a group convened by a particular company. Whatever the composition of the group, the Toolkit maps out the steps involved in developing fair, workable definitions and guidelines.

This Toolkit provides a detailed framework on how to define each of the six types of High Conservation Value. This includes guidance on how to use different types of existing information to define HCVs for a country and outlines potential sources of this information. It also provides examples of how other groups have defined individual HCVs. The Toolkit then provides some guidance on designing appropriate requirements for managing and monitoring each type of High Conservation Value. Once High Conservation Values have been defined nationally, the High Conservation Value Forest concept can be used by forest managers to meet standards related to High Conservation Value Forest, by certifiers assessing High Conservation Value Forest, by landscape planners trying to prioritise different land-uses and by purchasers, investors or donors implementing policies concerned with the concept of High Conservation Value Forest. This is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

 

Part 3: Identifying and Managing High Conservation Value Forests: a guide for forest managers. This part of the Toolkit is aimed at forest managers, other land managers, investors, donors, and conservation practitioners who wish to implement
HCVF as part of best management practice. Unfortunately, in many countries there is no clear and precise definition of HCVF (e.g., as part of a ratified FSC certification standard or even an FSC standards working group). This creates the problem that forest managers have to interpret generic terms such as ‘significant’ or ‘critical’ that are not easily understood in the context of a specific forest. Part 3 provides guidance on identifying HCVF in the absence of an accepted national definition and also provides some general guidance as to what sort of management and monitoring activities are likely to be appropriate for each type of HCV.

In lieu of formal guidance from FSC, there has been a proliferation of discussion on HCVF, led mainly by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In particular, the need for more precise and practical guidance led to a 2001 initiative by the UK-based consulting company, Proforest Ltd. This initiative led to the production of a three-part High Conservation Value Toolkit (the ‘Global Toolkit’).^[5] The Global Toolkit offered a revised definition of HCVF as follows:

 

A High Conservation Value Forest is the area of forest required to maintain or enhance a High Conservation Value.^[6]

This definition provides a new approach to the zonation of HCVF as well as introduces the concept of ‘High Conservation Values’ (‘HCVs’). The inclusion of the term ‘area of forest’ provide clarity that there may be instances where an HCVF zone might be restricted to part of a forest, while the FSC definition implied that the presence of one or more HCV attribute would render the whole forest as to be a ‘high conservation value forest’. Indeed, despite the provision for partial zonation, the Global Toolkit makes it clear that for the purposes of certification, any forest management unit (FMU) containing even one small HCV is classified as a High Conservation Value Forest, which brings into play extra requirements for consultation, maintenance or enhancement, and annual monitoring. However, the additional burden is determined by the nature of the HCV and will affect only those parts of the forest, and those aspects of management, that are required for the maintenance or enhancement of the HCV (this procedure is explained in more detail in the section on Adaptive Management, below).

 

The Global Toolkit lists six ‘High Conservation Values’ (‘HCVs’):

HCV1. Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia).

HCV2. Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

HCV3. Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems.

HCV4. Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).

HCV5. Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health).

HCV6. Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities).^[7]

The Global Toolkit has not been explicitly endorsed by the FSC but the revised ordering system appears to have gained widespread appeal and there is a recommendation for its use in FSC reports found in a footnote to an FSC reporting standard.^[8] The Global Toolkit was intentionally designed for a wide range of users beyond the FSC scheme. Indeed, in December 2005, the popularity of the ‘HCV’ approach led to the formation of the HCV Resource Network which includes a broad platform of NGOs as well as the World Bank and the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO).^[9]

 

(source: Wikipedia)

Some information may be generalized due to the nature of the subject:

 

Managing HCVFs: one frequently asked question is: ‘how should HCVFs be managed?’ The true answer is ‘because management should maintain or enhance the specific HCV, it depends on which is HCV present’ – an answer that is simple but unhelpful. Because forests, and the values they contain, are so variable, it is not possible to give detailed global guidance on managing HCVF.

Monitoring HCVFs: monitoring is an essential part of any forest management because it allows managers to know whether the aims of management are being achieved and provides information on whether management practices need to be changed. Because HCVs are, by definition, outstanding or critical, the effects of management on them have to be monitored with particular care. As with management, it is not possible to give detailed guidance on exactly how to monitor each type of HCV.

 

Photo Credit