Forest Management Public Summary

for

Leśny Zakład Doświadczalny w Krynicy

Certification Code: SW-FM/COC-1219 Date of Certification: May 10, 2004 Date of Public Summary: May, 2004

This document was produced according to the guidelines of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the SmartWood Program.

No part of the report should be published separately. Certifier: SmartWood Program1 c/o Rainforest Alliance 665 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, New York 10012 USA TEL: (212) 677-1900 FAX: (212) 677-2187 Email: info@smartwood.org Website: www.smartwood.org

1 SmartWood is implemented worldwide by the nonprofit members of the SmartWood Network. The Network is coordinated by the Rainforest Alliance, an international nonprofit conservation organization. The Rainforest Alliance is the legally registered owner of the SmartWood certification mark and label. All uses of the SmartWood label for promotion must be authorized by SmartWood headquarters. SmartWood certification applies to forest management practices only and does not represent endorsement of other product qualities (e.g., financial performance to investors, product function, etc.). SmartWood is accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for the certification of natural forest management, tree plantations and chain-of-custody.

LZD Krynica Page 2

ACRONYMS AAC Annual Allowable Cut ALP Annual Logging Plan CNFE Center for Nature-Forest Education CITES Convention on Trade in Endangered Species DBH Diameter at Breast Height DOC Department of Conservation EF Experimental Forest FA Forest Act FF Forest Faculty of Warsaw Agricultural University FMO Forest Management Organization FMP Forest Management Plan FMGB Forest Management and Geodesy Bureau FPI Forest Protection Institutions FRI Forest Research Institute FSC Forest Stewardship Council GDLP General Directorate of State Forests HCVF High Conservation Value Forest ILO International Labor Organization IFR Institute of Forest Research KAU Krakow Agricultural University KPOP Commission of Nature Protection Program KTG Technical-Management Committee, committee for preparation of Management

Plan NTFP Non Tiber Forest Products MCA Minimum Cutting Age MPDI Management Plan Designing Instruction OSH Occupation Safety and Health PNP Program for Nature Protection P&C Principles and Criteria of the FSC RMA Resource Management Act RDSF Regional Directorate of State Forests SF State Forest SHS Soil-Habitat Survey SILP Electronic Information System for State Forest VONP Voivodship Office for Nature Protection ZUL Forest Services Enterprise, contractor (subcontractor)

LZD Krynica Page 3

1. INTRODUCTION To earn SmartWood certification, a forest management operation must undergo an on-site field assessment. This Public Summary Report summarizes information contained in the initial assessment report, which is produced based on information collected during the field assessment. Annual audits are conducted to monitor the forest management operation’s activities, to review the operation’s progress toward meeting their certification conditions, and to verify compliance with the SmartWood standards. Addenda providing the updated information obtained during these annual audits are included as attachments to the Public Summary Report. This report presents the findings of an independent certification assessment conducted by a team of specialists representing the Polish SmartWood Program of the Rainforest Alliance and NEPCon/Natural Systems. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the ecological, economic and social sustainability of forest management in Leśny Zakład Doświadczalny w Krynicy Akademii Rolniczej w Krakowie (the Experimental Forest of Kraków Agricultural University in Krynica). The purpose of the SmartWood program is to recognize conscientious forests and land stewardship through independent evaluation and certification of forestry practices. Forestry operations that attain SmartWood certification may use the SmartWood label for public marketing and advertising.

2. GENERAL SUMMARY

2.1. Name and Contact Information: Name: Leśny Zakład Doświadczalny w Krynicy (Experimental Forest in

Krynica) Contact person: Józef Bogacz, Director

Address: ul. Ludowa 10, 33-380 Krynica-Zdrój Tel: +48184712068 Fax: +48184777770 E-mail: lzd@pascom.pl Internet: http://www.lzdkrynica.ar.krakow.pl

2.2. General Background

A. Type of operation Poland has about 8.7 million hectares of forests which cover approximately 28% of the land area. 82% of them are state forests owned by the State Treasury. This includes both national parks and productive forest estates, which are managed by regional General Directorates of State Forests. Forest management of state forests is based on the legal requirements of the Forest Act, and other relevant legislation, regulations and policy documents. The total forest estate area exceeds 7 million hectares.

In Poland, there are 4 Experimental Forests, which are managed by Forest Faculties of Agricultural Universities. Experimental Forest in Krynica (EF) is a field unit of Forest Faculty, Kraków Agricultural University. The EF manages forests covering the area of 6481 ha. EF Krynica has the following goals:

• providing a basis for the researches important for science and national economy; • securing a basis for field trainings for students of Agricultural University in Kraków; • performing forest management taking into consideration other non-economic forest functions.

EF Krynica contains one forest districts which is subdivided into 6 rangeries [subdistricts] (Kopciowa, Krynica Zdrój, Jaworzyna, Krynica Wieś, Tylicz, Powroźnik). The Director of EF Krynica conducts forest management according to Management Plan; he is responsible for all aspects of forest management and conditions to the Chancellor of Kraków Agricultural University. EF Krynica contains also the following units: - Centre for Game Breeding and hunting rifle-range; - students dormitory house and guestrooms.

B. Years in operation Experimental Forest in Krynica is used by Agricultural University in Kraków for experimental, scientific and educational purposes. EF was established in 1967 on place of former Krynica District of State Forests.

C. Date first certified

-May 10, 2004

LZD Krynica Page 5

D. Latitude and longitude of certified area N 49°25'07" E 20°57'44"

2.3. Forest and Management System

A. Forest type and land use history

Poland is situated in the central European forest zone, which is typically prevailed by broadleaf forests (oak-hornbeam) and pine-dominated mixed stands. Sub-atlantic influences are visible in the western part of Poland and beech and oak are common. Norway spruce and fir have their natural ranges in the southern part of Poland. EF in Krynica is situated within the range of most of forest tree species. Forests and species of EF are strongly influenced by the forest management; the forests are dominated by spruce stands which were introduced here in the middle of the 19th century, and pine stands which were planted on former agricultural areas after II World War. The natural forest types include pine forest, fir forests, mixed beech and fir forests, Carpathian beech forest, riparian forests and willow bushes. Main habitat types are: mountain forest (90.32 % of EF area), mixed mountain forest (9.43 %), and riparian mountain forest (0.26 %). The present species composition of EF Krynica forests differ considerably natural habitat types. The natural conditions of EF Krynica sets limitations on acceptable forest managing operations: e.g. clearcuts are not allowed, only step-wise and selective fellings are used; old-growth forests have high protective priority; natural forest regeneration is widely used.

B. Size of forest management unit certified, forest use types and size of

production, protected, and/or restored forests

Table 1. Size of forest management unit certified, forest use types and size of production, protected and/or restored forests.

Land use Area (ha)

Natural or Semi Natural Forest

-

Plantation - Protected area 87.94

Protective forests 5658.67 Water -

Infrastructure 103.52 Other uses 630.16

Total Certified Area

6480.29

C. Annual allowable cut and/or annual harvest covered by management

plan

The determination of the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is based on figures accepted in the Forest Management Plan (FMP) which covers harvesting plans for 10-year-long period. The

LZD Krynica Page 6

size of planned harvesting is calculated according to the forest stand age structure, in order to attain sustainability of forest use and stock increment; it does not exceed stock increment in the 10 years period. Stock increment is estimated according to methodology published in the Management Plan Designing Instruction (MPDI), which is the technical description of the desired content of FMP and methodology. In EF Krynica, AAC was calculated according to several general rules. For stands which are already adapted to local conditions, AAC was based on age structure of stands. For stands which need adaptation to local conditions and/or species composition change, AAC was calculated according to needs of adaptation timetable. The following is a detailed description of these methods (which are generally used in Polish forestry): A. "Classic method" - used for most of forest area:

1. Calculation unit is a forest sub-district ("obręb"). Each forest district (an administration

unit) in Polish forestry is composed of 1-3 sub-districts (calculation units). Sub-districts borders are generally constant, even if the district borders or area change.

2. Stands age structure is calculated for each sub-district. 3. On the basis of stand age structure, the maximum timber volume which can be cut

during 10-year-long period is calculated with the special mathematical modelling, assuming persistency of forest age structure. As a rule, it equals to the timber volume of stands, which age is above the regulation parameter - the "cutting age", determined for each tree species in sub-district.

4. This volume is a "maximum allowable 10-years cut". 5. The size of actual cut in 10-years period may not excess maximum allowable cut.

Generally, allowable cut calculated according to this method is ca 60-70% of stands volume increment during this period, because of prevalence of young stands in Polish forests. B. "Special method" - is used for specially managed stands, e.g. in nature reserves, some protective forests etc.

1. For each stands, a wood volume which should be harvested during necessary

modifications of stand structure during 10-year period is calculated during the field visit. 2. The allowable cut for 10-years period is a sum of these needs for all types of stands.

As a rule, the 10-years allowable cut calculated according to this method are ca 30-40% of stands volume increment for this period. The Minimum Cutting Age (MCA) is determined for each EF forest division during the preparation of FMP. MCA is a parameter which is used during calculation of AAC, it is usually close to minimum cutting age of stand. The MCA is estimated for each tree species, it may be changed according to local environmental conditions (productivity of particular site, pollution pressure, environmental protection needs act.). Estimated annual stand increment volume in Experimental Forest in Krynica is about 26 000 cubic meters. Average yearly felling rate for the last three years was ca. 18 000 cubic meters.

D. General description of details and objectives of the management

plan/system

LZD Krynica Page 7

EF manages the forests according to the Forest Act (FA) from 28 September 1994. EF is responsible for all forest management activities. At present, most of the activities (harvesting, silviculture, forest protection, infrastructure construction) is done by contractors that are private companies (ZULs). Forest management principles in EF Krynica are defined in the FA. They are:

1. preservation of forests and their beneficial impact on the climate, air, water, soil,

living conditions and health of human being and balance in nature; 2. preservation and protection of forests, especially forests and forest ecosystems which

are natural fragments of native forests or forests especially valuable because of: a) preservation of natural variety, b) preservation of forest genetic resources, c) landscape values, d) scientific needs;

3. preservation of soils and areas endangered by pollution or damage as well as areas of special social importance;

4. preservation of surface and ground waters, water retention, particularly in the areas of watershed and in the areas of underground water basins;

5. production, based on sustainable basis, of timber and raw materials and by-products of forest management.

Taking into account a special role of Experimental Forests, the forest management here should fulfil the following functions: • the scientific function – to provide a base for research studies and experiments related

to different forestry disciplines. At present, these studies are carried out by most departments of Forestry Faculty of Agricultural University in Kraków, as well as by some departments from other faculties. The thematic scope of these experiments is very broad and diversified. They result in a growth of the forestry knowledge and contribute to the improvement of forest management by taking into consideration the economic, environmental and social functions of forests. All experiments are conducted under agreements with the EF director. Area of forest covered by research activities is 630.16 ha.

• the educational function – EF is a place of practical trainings and lectures for students of the Forestry Faculty, as well as for the participants of other studies and teaching courses related to forestry;

• the extension function – EF is a place of cooperation between scientific workers and local forest administration service on problems of practical implementation of the scientific findings and technological (know-how) achievements;

• the economic function –carrying out production activity which range and intensity are appropriate to the requirements of the above cited primary functions.

The Forest Management Plan (FMP) is the basic document which describes all management activities. The FA defines the requirements which must be met by FMP. The FMP, as well as attached maps of different scale and themes, is prepared for EF for 10-year-long period. The previous FMPs for EF Krynica were prepared by Forests Management Department of Agricultural University in Kraków (1978-1987), and BULiGL (Forest Management and Geodesy Bureau) in Kraków (1988-1997). Current FMP was prepared by private consulting company ‘Krameko’ (1998-2007). FMP is elaborated on the basis of field revision, which includes a detailed and standardised inventory of stands parameters, environmental aspects, economical cues, demarcation of borders etc.

LZD Krynica Page 8

Since 1996, preparation of the Program of Nature Protection (PNP) is obligatory for each forest district. The PNP contains description of rare and endangered species of plants and animals and their localities, environmentally valuable ecosystems, and cultural heritage sites. In EF Krynica, PNP has not been elaborated yet, it is planned to be prepared in near future.

The EF Krynica district is subdivided into rangeries (leśnictwa). The area of each rangery is subdivided into compartments (average size 10-30 ha), which borders depend on topography or on previous artificial spatial segmentation. Compartments are further subdivided into sub-compartments, which are basic units in planning of forest management. Each sub-compartment has a full inventory description in FMP which includes forest stand and forest floor structure, species compositions, trees height, DBH, age, growing stock volume of each species on each forest floor, etc. All planned silvicultural operations are also related to particular sub-compartment.

Forest operations, beside these resulting from elementary disasters or pest outbreaks, are performed on relatively small areas, which usually do not exceed one or a few sub-compartments – on average 1-15 ha. Forest management shows a low level of mechanization. Timber is usually harvested with chainsaws. Skidding is performed with tractors and horses. Planting and nursing is performed almost entirely manually. Forest workers come mostly from local people which are specialized in forest activities. They are organized in small companies (Zakłady Usług Leśnych; ZUL), ranging from one to several workers. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs), berries and mushrooms are harvested by local people. Generally, access to the forest and harvesting of NTFPs are unlimited except for special circumstances described in FA and for species protection regulations. In Poland, game animals are the property of the Ministry of Treasure. The game animal management in EF is made in Centre for Game Breeding or through leasing hunting licenses for hunting clubs.

2.4. Environmental and Socioeconomic Context

Environmental context

Poland is a central European country. Total land area is ca. 312 thousand sq. km and a population is ca. 38 million. Most of the country is situated on lowlands, created and modelled during the last Ice Age. Poland is bordered by Germany to the west, Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Russia to the east, and the Baltic See to the north. Woodlands cover ca. 28% of the area of Poland. Forest cover of Poland was ca. 40% at the end of 18th century (in former borders of state) and decreased to about 21% in 1945. Deforestation and impoverishment of forest species structure resulted in a decrease in forest biodiversity, impoverishment of landscape, soil erosion and water balance disturbance. Between 1945-1970 this process was turned round, when after afforestation of 3 350 000 ha the forest cover of Poland increased to 27%. Approximately 35 900 ha was afforested yearly, (maximum 55 000 ha per year; in 1961-65). Today, the woodland area in Poland is 8 850 000 ha. EF Krynica is localised in the south-eastern part of Poland, in the Nowy Sącz District

LZD Krynica Page 9

of Małopolskie Voivodship (Province), near Slovakian border. EF forests belong to VIII Carpathian Environmental and Forest Province. EF is localised on border between two environmental districts: Gorce - Beskid Sądecki Mts. and Beskid Niski Mts. 90% of EF area is in Beskid Sądecki mesoregion with Jaworzyna Krynicka mountain range (highest point - 1114 m a.s.l.). The remaining 10% is localised in Górna Ropa mesoregion. EF Krynica is characterised by diverse climatic conditions, depending on geographical localisation. The most representative are results from Kopciowa meteorological station (720 m a.s.l.), where mean annual temperature was 5.3 oC and precipitation 1000 mm. for period 1971-2000. EF Krynica has two main types of geological deposits characteristic for Carpathian Mts. (Carpathian flysh): Magurian sandstone and under-Magurian strata. All native tree species typical for this region occur in forests of EF Krynica: fir, beech, Norway spruce, pine, larch, alder, sycamore maple, ash, and linden. EF Krynica contains the following forest communities: 1) Pinewoods and fir forests with Vaccinio myrtilli – Pinetum and Abieti –

Piceetum montanum communities; 2) mixed beech and fir forests (Galio – Abietetum); 3) Carpathian beech woods (Dentario glandulosae – Fagetum), which is the

dominant community in EF Krynica; 4) riparian and marshy forests including Alnetum incanae, Caltho – Alnetum,

and Doronico austriaci – Abietum communities; 5) willow bushes with communities Salicetum triandro – viminalis and Salici -

Fragnetum.

There are following forest habitat types: • mountain forest (ca. 90.32 % of EF area); • mixed mountain forest (9.43 %); • riparian mountain forest (0.26 %).

EF Krynica possesses some particularly valuable forests stands:

1. Seed stands which are not subjected to cuttings; 2. Managed seed stands; 3. Selection structure forests 4. Stands with „wdziar” pine (local ecotype)

Socioeconomic context

Poland, a former socialist state, has been transformed to democracy and market economy after 1990. Poland is a member of European Union from 1st of May 2004. Recent social and economic transformation had/has the several side effects:

high rate of unemployment, presently 20%, and locally in countryside or in the forests complexes even up to 60%;

decrease of profitability of agriculture; especially due to traditional farm structure which is dominated by very small farms;

LZD Krynica Page 10

privatization of the big state-owned farms; as a result large areas of agriculture grounds were abandoned, especially in northern and western Poland.

impoverishment of some groups of people. In Poland, local societies traditionally use forest as a recreation place and for picking berries and mushrooms. These activities are traditionally and legally allowed also in EF Krynica. Polish society attaches importance to the Polish model of forestry and state ownership of forest. Polish Forest Policy declares priority of social and environmental functions in forest management. In comparison to many other post-communist countries, Poland has a well developed network of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Some of the NGOs focus their activity on nature protection in forests and forests management. Polish NGOs exert a significant impact influence on environmental protection legislation. After the II World War, Ukrainian people (Lemkos) were force-displaced from Krynica surroundings, and their property was nationalised. A great part of these areas was presented to State Forests, and then to EF Krynica. During the last years "forestry education" has become an important factor influencing public perception of forest management. Different education activities are conducted in forests and in collaboration with foresters, and they have established themselves as a permanent part of the education for school children.

2.5. Products Produced and Chain of Custody

A. Chain of custody certificate

The wood harvesting is done almost exclusively by ZUL contractors. Most of ZUL workers are former employees of EF Krynica. All works are supervised by rangers or sub-rangers. Felling is done with chainsaws and extraction is performed either with tractors or horses. Logs are extracted to log yards at the roadsides where they are stacked by assortment, marked and numbered. All these data are recorded in inventory system.

EF Krynica sells also tree seeds, seedlings, greenery and Christmas trees.

B. Species and volumes covered by the certificate

Table 2. Species and volumes covered by the certificate (2003) Thinning Final felling Total Species m3 % m3 % m3 %

Scotch Pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Larch (Larix decidua) 2852 18 1816 33 4668 22 Norway Spruce (Picea abies) 6305 39 1176 22 7481 35 Fir (Abies alba) 3080 19 1506 28 4586 21 Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and Sycamore Maple (Acer pseudoplatanus)

262 2 74 1 336 2

Birch (mainly Betula pendula) 204 1 123 2 327 1 Alder (Alnus sp), 413 3 274 5 687 3 Beech (Fagus sylvatica) 2808 17 454 8 3262 15 Goat Willow (Salix caprea) 124 1 28 1 152 1

LZD Krynica Page 11

Total 16048 100 5451 100 21499 100 Table 3. Main assortments produced by EF in Krynica (2003)

Pine Pinus sylvatica

Larch Larix sp.

Spruce Picea abies

Fir Abies alba

Birch Betula ver

Alder Alnus glut

Ash Fraxinus sp.

Beech Fagus sylv

Use of material m3/year m3/year m3/year m3/year m3/year m3/year m3/year m3/year Veneer Plywood Large logs (>20 cm) 1026 410 1762 2706 81 - 1 451 Small logs (<20 cm) Pulp 2646 445 4829 1602 96 34 19 208 Fuel 115 26 839 208 150 482 45 2603

C. Description of current and planned processing capacity covered by the certificate

Round wood, and non-timber forest products (tree seeds, seedlings, greens and Christmas trees).

3. CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.1. Assessment Dates

1. Nov 03 Beginning of stakeholder public notices distribution (by email, fax, newspapers and mail)

10.-11. Dec 03 Office and field assessment in EF, meetings with stakeholders 18. Jan 04 Preparation of draft report and further consultations with

stakeholders (emails and interviews) ended 19. Jan 04 Draft report sent to EF in Krynica for initial review & fact- checking/ comment 2. Feb 04 Comments received from EF in Krynica 27. Feb 04 Assessment by peer reviewers --------- Final draft submitted to SmartWood Certification Committee ____ Certification decision by SmartWood Certification Committee --------- Certification Contract signed and received by SmartWood

3.2. Assessment Team and Peer Reviewers

Dr Andrzej Czech – leading auditor - Nature, Ecology and People Consult (NEPCon) and Natural Systems Polish citizen, certification expert and director of Natural Systems company, which is the certification partner of SmartWood/NEPcon in Poland. He has been involved in the development of the Polish FSC Working Group and the Polish FSC standards since 1998. For two years he was the FSC Contact Person and Chairman of the Interim FSC Working Group. Mr. Andrzej Czech received a PhD in Biology at Jagiellonian University, Kraków. He has an extensive knowledge about development of FSC standards. He is interested in problems related to nature-friendly forest management and ecotourism. As certification expert, Dr. Czech has participated in several forest management and chain of custody certification assessments in Europe, USA and Canada. He has coordinated SmartWood

LZD Krynica Page 12

activities in Poland since June 2002. Peer reviewer during certification of RDSF Wrocław and RDSF Szczecin. Dr. Czech has been through SmartWood’s lead assessor training course. Leading auditor during certification of RDSF Poznań, RDSF Piła, RDSF Łódź, RDSF Radom, RDSF Krosno, EF in Rogów, EF in Siemianice and several State Forest Enterprises in Lithuania. Antoni Łabaj - auditor Graduate of the Environmental Biology Institute of Jagiellonian University, Krakow; Forest Engineer and MSc in biology. Since 2003 Ph.D. student in Department of Ecology of Ecosystems, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Kraków. In 2000, Mr. Łabaj finished postgraduate computer studies on Department of Automatics and Robotics in University of Science and Technology (AGH) in Kraków, Poland. In 1998-2002 he was employed in the Forest Management and Geodesy Bureau, Krakow, where he conducted researches on forest resources analysis using GIS. In 1995, he was employed at the Wildlife Animals Research Institute of Jagiellonian University. In 1999, he was hired as a forestry expert during the surveying of the FSC certification process at RDSF Szczecinek, Poland. Mr. Łabaj took part as auditor during certification RDSFs in Poznań, Piła, Łódź, Radom, Krosno and Experimental Forest in Rogów. Mr. Łabaj is interested in use of advanced computer techniques in monitoring and modelling of natural environment and planning of environmental protection.

Peer reviewer #1 Peer reviewer has a PhD in environmental biology, has a lot of experience in managing of protected areas and cooperation with local communities. Author of many publications in ecology and nature protection. Peer reviewer #2 Peer reviewer has a master of science in forestry, 3 years of experiences within FSC certification and a background from the NGO environment.

3.3. Assessment Process

1) Audit methodology During field assessment, a standard SmartWood method was used to obtain an overview of all different types of activities and sites in EF Krynica. This method maximizes the number of parameters which may be checked during one visit and ensures the general assessment of EF Krynica activity. Criteria of selection and list of sites visited are presented in table below.

Table 4. Summary of Criteria of Selection and List of Forest Areas Visited by SmartWood Assessors Ongoing Recently

completed Planned

Harvesting methods Group fellings and stepweise cutting 2 3 Various thinning operations 2 3

Areas of special management Reserves, other protected areas 2

LZD Krynica Page 13

Sites of rare and threatened species 2 Other valuable areas 2 Riparian zones and wetlands 2 2 1

Regeneration Artificial regeneration 1 2 Natural regeneration 3 4 1 Various types of soils 1 1 1

Other Areas of stand reconstruction 2 2 1 Post-agriculture areas 2 Projects of small retention of waters 1 Nurseries 1 Sites of cultural importance 2 Tourist patches, parking lots, camping places 2 Patches and other educational sites 2

The preliminary list of sites meeting criteria of selection was prepared by EF Krynica. The audit team randomly selected places to visit. The assessment team also reviewed management documentation in the EF Head Office and rangers’ offices, and conducted stakeholder consultation which included interviews with the employees, contractors, and other stakeholders.

3.4. Timetable of field assessment

10 December 2003 Meeting with the management at the EF Headquarter: presentation of audit principles and methods, introducing of team and EF members. Documentation checking and interviews with staff. Field visits. Start of report preparation. 11 December 2003 Documentation checking and interviews with staff. Field visits. Debriefing meeting. Continuation of report preparation.

3.5. Standards

The assessment of EF in Krynica was conducted using the Draft SmartWood Baltic Interim standards. They have been prepared to provide region specific guidance to forest managers and other stakeholders on assessing forestry practices. The standards have been prepared by SmartWood in cooperation with stakeholders in these countries to take advantage of the relatively similar historical development of forestry practices in the region as well as to define common interim standards that cover several countries that are engaged in drafting national FSC standards. The present regional standards have given SmartWood an opportunity to adopt the principles and requirements of draft national standards and apply them in forest management certification assessments within the framework of a single regional standard. SmartWood has built the interim Baltic standards using the draft national FSC standards from Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Russia, Bulgaria, and Poland. Standards have been subjected to stakeholder consultation to ensure applicability and feasibility of the standards. The standards are available in several languages from http://www.nepcon.dk.

At the same time the assessment team especially checked and reviewed issues mentioned

LZD Krynica Page 14

in Polish national draft standard to prevent major non-compliance with national standards in future. No major non-compliances were found.

3.6. Stakeholder consultation process and results

The purpose of stakeholder consultation was to identify any potential problems from the point of view of various stakeholder groups. In addition, it should also secure public awareness about the certification process. Invitations to respond with comments were sent to the representatives of NGOs, companies and governmental institutions which can be interested in activity of EF Krynica. Key stakeholders were contacted through personal meetings and phone calls.

Issues Identified Through Stakeholder Comments and Public Meetings

The stakeholder consultation activities were organized to give participants the opportunity to provide comments according to general categories of interest based upon the assessment criteria. The identified issues and audit team comments are summarized in a table below.

FSC Principle Stakeholder Comments SmartWood Response P1: FSC Commitment/ Legal Compliance

No comments given

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities

No comments given

P3: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

N/A

P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

EF Krynica cooperates with hunting clubs. EF Krynica cooperates with schools. Wood yards should be localised in forest areas rather than on public roadsides because they interfere with road conservation, especially in winter, and cause traffic problems.

Confirmed during assessment. Confirmed during assessment. Not confirmed during assessment, this problem will be checked also during next audits.

P5: Benefits from the Forest

No comments given.

P6: Environmental Impact

Some limits on wood harvesting in Wojkowa community were proposed, in order to prevent excessive deforestation.

According to EF data, forest cover close to Wojkowa community has increased during last a few dozen years, and wood harvesting is lower than volume growth. This problem will be checked in details during next audit visits.

LZD Krynica Page 15

P7: Management Plan No comments given

P8: Monitoring & Assessment

No comments given

P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest

No comments given

P10: Plantations N/A

List of stakeholders notified Stakeholder notifications and invitation to give comments to the forest management practice were circulated to 4 NGOs, 5 governmental bodies and local communes, 5 companies and business associations, 6 scientific and research institutions, 3 media representatives, 3 educational institutions, 1 nature protection area management institution and others. They included local, regional, national and international organizations and institutions. Additionally, the notification was published on SmartWood’s and NEPCon’s homepages, GDSF homepage and other internet portals and sent to the FSC. The whole list of consulted stakeholders is given in Appendix I. In addition, press release on EF Krynica certification assessment was sent to the following Internet news agencies and newspapers: • Polish Green Gate (www.zielonabrama.pl) • Polish Green Network (www.pzs.pl) • Mailing list of Polish Greens (www.eco.pl) • NGO list www.ngo.pl • eko-news@most.org.pl • Forests website www.lasy.pl • Wood industry website www.drewno.pl • Wood industry portal www.drewno.net • Office of Promotion and Information of Ministry of Environment hanna.regulska@mos.gov.pl

3.7. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 5. Findings by FSC Principle

Principle/Subject Area Strengths Weaknesses

P1: FSC Commitment/ Legal Compliance

EF Krynica has access to the laws and procedures of updating information in this field. Good knowledge of EF staff about FSC requirements and standards.

A very limited knowledge of FSC requirements and standards among contractors (ZUL workers).

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Local people have rights to access forests for

LZD Krynica Page 16

Responsibilities recreation and use of NTFPs, such as picking of berries and mushrooms. Land ownership issues are settled.

P3: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights N/A N/A P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

Local employees are preferred, good relationships with local communities. Stable employment.

Health and safety requirements not always met.

P5: Benefits from the Forest Logging level is set on the proper scientific principles. The actual volume of harvesting is well below the annual growth. Public access to the forest is ensured.

Low diversity of offered wood products and low profitability

P6: Environmental Impact Widespread stand transformation, in order to follow soil and habitat conditions. Very limited use of chemicals. Local provenience of seeds.

Limited amount of deadwood in the forest. Protected existing ecosystems in their natural state are represented incompletely.

P7: Management Plan Detailed Forest Management Plan. Forest Management Plan does not include identification and protection of rare and threatened species.

P8: Monitoring & Assessment Numerous results of scientific research are utilized in practice.

Results of monitoring are not published.

P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest

Good knowledge of EF staff about potential HCVFs.

In practice HCVFs are not officially defined.

P10: Plantations N/A N/A

3.8. Certification Decision Based on a thorough field review, analysis and compilation of its findings by this SmartWood assessment team, the Experimental Forest of Kraków Agricultural University in Krynica is recommended to receive joint FSC/SmartWood Forest Management and Chain of Custody (FM/COC) Certification under the stipulated conditions.

In order to maintain certification, the Experimental Forest of Kraków Agricultural University in Krynica will be audited annually on-site and required to remain in compliance with the FSC principles and criteria as further defined by regional guidelines developed by SmartWood or the FSC. The Experimental Forest of Kraków Agricultural University in Krynica will also be required to fulfil the conditions described below. SmartWood experts will review forest management performance and its compliance with the conditions described in this report, during annual scheduled and random audits.

3.9. Conditions and Recommendations

Conditions are verifiable activities that will form part of the certification agreement that the Experimental Forest of Kraków Agricultural University in Krynica will be expected to fulfil at the time of the first audit or as required in the condition. Each condition has an explicit time period for its completion. Non-compliance with conditions will lead to de-certification.

Conditions:

LZD Krynica Page 17

1. Condition 4.2.1: Within one year, EF Krynica shall introduce to agreements with ZUL a

commitment which obliges their employees to observe the safety regulations and to use H&S equipment listed in Criterion 4.2. Additionally, EF Krynica shall intensify controlling of compliance with H&S requirements and ensure that only companies that comply with the requirements are contracted. See also Condition 7.3.1.

2. Condition 6.2.1.: During process of elaboration of new Forest Management Plan (2008), EF Krynica shall ensure preparation of complete and credible inventory (catalogue and maps) of sites of valuable species of animals and plants, and protected ecosystems in the area of EF. This may be made in form of Plan for Nature Protection. This inventory should contain rules of effective protection of these sites and their management. Before preparation of new FMP, EF Krynica shall gather and update documentation of sites of valuable species of plants and animals, and protected ecosystems in the area of EF.

3. Condition 6.3.1: Effective immediately EF Krynica shall assure that the requirement for leaving of deadwood in form of large logs and leaving of all hollow trees will be included in new Forest Management Plan and other documents related to forest management.

4. Condition 6.4.1.: Within 2 years, EF Krynica shall elaborate list of representative ecosystems, which are protected from harvesting and will be protected in the future. They should cover at least 5 pct of the total EF forest area.

5. Condition 6.7.1. In new contracts with ZULs or in appendices to old contracts, EF Krynica shall introduce a requirement for using biodegradable oil in forest machinery and oil absorbent kits, as well as observing environment protection rules by contractors and their equipment. Additionally, within 1 year EF Krynica shall implement documented procedure of recycling of oil produced in EF.

6. Condition 7.3.1. Within one year EF Krynica shall ensure that staff of contractor companies (ZULs) is trained in nature protection issues and obligations from FSC certification.

7. Condition 8.3.1. Effectively immediately, EF Krynica will place SmartWood certification code on all invoices and other documentation related to all certified forest products.

8. Condition 8.5.1. EF shall publish annually a report containing indicators mentioned in criterion 8.2. It can be published in internet.

9. Condition 9.1.1. Within one year, the EF Krynica shall define and demarcate high conservation value forest (HCVF).