RA-Cert Division Headquarters Forest Management ... · spp.; Quercus petraea N6 Plants and parts of...

RA-Cert Division Headquarters65 Millet St. Suite 201

Richmond, VT 05477 USATel: 802-434-5491Fax: 802-434-3116

www.rainforest-alliance.org

Audit Managed by:

NEPCon

ul. Emaus 7/1130-201 Kraków, Poland

Tel: +48 124270093, +48124264710

Fax: +48 123767979Contact person: Kinga Sułkowska

Email: [email protected]

ACCREDITEDFSC-ACC-004

FM-02 - 19 April 2012

Forest Management

Certification ReassessmentReport for:

Správa Krkonošského národníhoparku

InVrchlabí, Czech Republic

Report Finalized: 13th May 2014Audit Dates: 15th - 17th April 2014Audit Team: Juraj Tužinský,

Michal Rezek,Ondrej Tarabus,Vasil Hutník

Certificate code: SW-FM/COC-004077

Certificate issued: 15th May 2014Certificate expiration: 14th May 2014

Organization Contact: Ing. Václav JansaAddress: Dobrovského 3,

543 01 Vrchlabí,Czech Republic

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 3

1. SCOPE OF THE CERTIFICATE................................................................................................. 3

1.1. Scope of the certificate.........................................................................................................3Exclusion and/or Excision of areas from the scope of certificate .................................................6

2. ASSESSMENT PROCESS......................................................................................................... 7

2.1.Certification Standard Used ..................................................................................................72.2. Assessment team and qualifications ....................................................................................72.3. Report peer reviewers..........................................................................................................72.4. Assessment schedule (including pre-assessment and stakeholder consultation) .................82.5. Evaluation strategy ..............................................................................................................9Stakeholder consultation process .............................................................................................10

3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS.................................................................. 12

3.1. Stakeholder comments received ........................................................................................123.2. Summary of Evaluation Findings for FSC Forest Criteria ...................................................133.3. Identified nonconformances and Nonconformity Reports (NCRs) ......................................223.4. Conformance with applicable nonconformity reports (Reassessments Only) .....................223.5. Observations......................................................................................................................223.6. Certification Recommendation ...........................................................................................23

4. CLIENT SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................... 25

APPENDIX I: Public summary of the management plan .............................................................. 28

APPENDIX II: Certification standard conformance checklist (confidential) ...............................31

APPENDIX III: Chain-of-Custody Conformance (confidential) ..................................................... 55

APPENDIX IV: List of all visited sites (confidential) ..................................................................... 60

APPENDIX V: Detailed list of stakeholders consulted (confidential) ............................................ 64

APPENDIX VI: FME map (optional)............................................................................................. 65

FM-02 19 April 2012 of 66

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of an independent certification assessment conducted by a teamof specialists representing the Rainforest Alliance The purpose of the assessment was to evaluatethe ecological, economic and social performance of Správa Krkonošského národního parku forestmanagement as defined by the Principles and Criteria established by the Forest StewardshipCouncil™ (FSC®).

The Rainforest Alliance founded its previous SmartWood program in 1989 to certify responsibleforestry practices and has grown to provide a variety of auditing services. Rainforest Alliancecertification and auditing services are managed and implemented within its RA-Cert Division. Allrelated personnel responsible for audit design, evaluation, and certification/verification/validationdecisions are under the purview of the RA-Cert Division, hereafter referred to as RainforestAlliance or RA.

This report contains four main sections of information and findings and several appendices.Sections 1 through 4 of the report plus appendix I will become public information about the forestmanagement operation and comprise a public summary of the full report that may be distributedby Rainforest Alliance or the FSC to interested parties. The remainder of the appendices areconfidential, to be reviewed only by authorized Rainforest Alliance and FSC personnel bound byconfidentiality agreements. A copy of the public summary of this report can be obtained on theFSC website at http://info.fsc.org/.

A key purpose of the Rainforest Alliance auditing is to recognize conscientious land stewardshipthrough independent evaluation and certification of forestry practices. Forestry operations thatattain FSC certification may use Rainforest Alliance and FSC trademarks for public marketing andadvertising.

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 3 of 66

1. SCOPE OF THE CERTIFICATE

1.1. Scope of the certificate

Forest management enterprise (FME) information:FME legal name: Správa Krkonošského národního parkuFME legal jurisdiction: Czech RepublicType of legal entity Contributory organizationContact person(public):

Ing. Václav Jansa

Address: Dobrovského 3, 543 01 Vrchlabí, Czech RepublicTel/FAX/email: +420 466 456 111 / +420 499 422 056 / [email protected]: www.krnap.czReporting period: Previous Jan-Dec Calender year Dates 1st January 2013-31st

December 2013

B. FSC Product categories included in the FM/CoC scope (FSC-STD-40-004a)

Level 1 Level 2 Species

W1 Rough Wood W1.1 Roundwood (logs) Abies alba; Acerspp.; Alnus spp.;Betula pendula;Fagus sylvatica L.;Fraxinus excelsior;Larix decidua; Piceaabies; Pinussylvestris; Populusspp.; Quercuspetraea

W1 Rough Wood W1.2 Fuel wood Abies alba; Acerspp.; Alnus spp.;Betula pendula;Fagus sylvatica L.;Fraxinus excelsior;Larix decidua; Piceaabies; Pinussylvestris; Populusspp.; Quercuspetraea

N6 Plants and parts of plants N6.3 Whole trees or plants Abies alba; Piceaabies

other N/A N/A

A. Scope of Forest AreaType of certificate: single FMU SLIMF Certificate not applicable


C. Species and Sustainable Rate of Harvest (AAC)Latin name Common trade name Annual

allowablecut

Actualharvest(2013)

Projectedharvest for nextyear

Picea abies Norway Spruce m3 96599 m3 99870 m3Abies alba European fir m3 m3 m3Larix decidua European Larch m3 1433 m3 m3Pinus silvestris Scots Pine m3 m3 m3Betula pendula Silver Birch m3 m3 m3Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore m3 m3 m3Fagus sylvatica L. Common Beech m3 m3 m3Fraxinus exelsior Ash m3 1067 m3 m3Total AAC 146200 m3 99099 m3 99870 m3Note: Annual allowable cut in Czech Republic is prescribed for all species, and is not dividedbetween species (FMU level), allowable cut for species are prescribed on compartment level.Total annual estimated log production: 95000 m3Total annual estimates production of certified NTFP: 600 pcs(list all certified NTFP by product type):Christmas trees (N6.3 Whole trees or plants) 600 pcs

m3m3

D. FMU InfoForest zone TemperateCertified Area under Forest Type

Natural 35116,00 haPlantation 0 ha

Stream sides and water bodies 565 Linear Kilometers

E. Forest Area ClassificationTotal certified area (land base) 35116,00 ha

Total forest area 34445,00 haa. Total production forest area 27705,00 hab. Total non-productive forest area (no harvesting) 6740,00 ha

Protected forest area (strict reserves) 3691,00 haAreas protected from timber harvesting

and managed only for NTFPs or services3049,00 ha

Remaining non-productive forest 0,00 haTotal non-forest area (e.g., water bodies, wetlands, fields, rocky outcrops,

etc.)671 ha

F. Ownership/Management ClassificationOwnership Tenure State/Public ownership

Management Tenure (list primary tenure type for group certificates) state/public managementCertified area that is: Privately managed 0,00 ha

State/Public managed 35116 haCommunity managed 0 ha

G. Forest RegenerationArea or share of the total production forest area regenerated naturally 5091,00 ha

Operationalforest


inventoryArea or share of the total production forest area regenerated by planting orseeding

36,00 ha

Area or share of the total production forest are regenerated by other or mixedmethods (describe) mixed methods

16 ha

H. High Conservation Values identified via formal HCV assessment by the FME andrespective areasCode HCV TYPES1 Description: AreaHCV1

Forest areas containing globally, regionally ornationally significant concentrations ofbiodiversity values (e.g. endemism,endangered species, refugia).

I. + II. zone of NationalPark

6980 ha

HCV2

Forest areas containing globally, regionally ornationally significant large landscape levelforests, contained within, or containing themanagement unit, where viable populations ofmost if not all naturally occurring species existin natural patterns of distribution andabundance.

Most part of the FMU 30217 ha

HCV3

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

Botanical localities 9133 ha

HCV4

Forest areas that provide basic services ofnature in critical situations (e.g. watershedprotection, erosion control).

Protective forests by theForest Act 289/1995Sb.,§ 7: a) forests onextremely unfavourablehabitats (rubble, stone,steep slopes, ravines,and stabilized alluvialsands, peat bogs, heapsand dumps, etc.) b)alpine forests below thetree vegetation protectinglow-lying forests andforests on the exposedridges, c) forests in thedwarf pine forestaltitudinal vegetationzone.

10560 ha

HCV5

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

Buffer zone for mineralwater spring

3,7 ha

HCV6

Forest areas critical to local communities’traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural,ecological, economic or religious significanceidentified in cooperation with such localcommunities).

Recreational forests 37 ha

Number of sites significant to indigenous people and/or local communities 15

1 The HCV classification and numbering follows the ProForest HCVF toolkit. The toolkit also provides additional explanationregarding the categories. Toolkit is available at http://hcvnetwork.org/library/global-hcv-toolkits.


I. Pesticide UseFME does not use pesticides. (delete rows below)

FME has a valid FSC derogation for use of a highly hazardous pesticide YES NO

FSC highly hazardous pesticides used in last calendar yearName Quantity # of Hectares TreatedN/A 0 0 haNon FSC highly hazardous pesticides used in last calendar yearName Quantity # of Hectares TreatedRoundup Bioaktiv (active substanceglyphosate-IPA)

79 liters21 liters

95 ha agriculturalland7 ha forest land + 4,5km forest roads

haha

Exclusion and/or Excision of areas from the scope of certificate

X Applicability of FSC partial certification and excision policyAll forest land owned or managed by the FME is included in the scope of thisevaluation.

FME owns and/or has management involvement in other forest land/properties(forest management units) not being evaluated. If yes, complete sections A &D below.Is any portion of the forest management unit (s) under evaluation for certificationbeing excised from the scope of the evaluation? If yes, complete sections B, C& D below. Conformance with FSC-POL-20-003 The Excision of Areasfrom the Scope of Certification shall be documented below.

A. Comments / Explanation for exclusion of FMUs from certification:Finding: FME manage also agricultural land that are not included in the scope of the certificate.This land is managed by grazing or mowing, or a combination. Some trees and wood will beextracted also from these areas. This wood (estimated volume of about 150 m3) will be excludedfrom the volume of certified wood and will be sold as uncertified.B. Rationale for excision of area from FMU(s)included in scope of evaluation:Note: Rationale shall be consistent with one of the permitted conditions specified in FSC-POL-20-003, under whichsuch certifications may be permitted.

Finding:C. Summary of conformance evaluation against requirements of FSC-POL-20-003Finding: All forest land is included in scope of certificate. Agricultural land is excluded fromcertification.D. Control measures to prevent contamination of certified wood with wood from

excluded/excised forest areas.Finding: FME updated Chain of Custody procedures. Uncertified wood will be stored andrecorded separately by the Department of Nature Conservation.

Forest Management Units Excluded From EvaluationForest area Location Size (ha)

N/A N/A N/A


2. ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1.Certification Standard Used

Forest Stewardship standardUsed for assessment:

Czech FSC Standard accredited by Accreditation ServicesInternational GmbH in Bonn from 30th of August 2006FM-35 RA CoC Standard for FMEs

2.2. Assessment team and qualifications

Auditor Name Juraj Tužinský Auditor role Lead Auditor

Qualifications:

Slovak citizen, graduate in forest management -Technical University inZvolen, The Faculty of Forestry. Practical experiences: Slovak State forest(Technician responsible for silviculture), Community of forest owners -Nemecká Huta (Director and professional forest manager), FSC SlovakiaWorking Group - Project manager, NEPCon - FM/CoC Lead Auditor andTrademark Specialist. As Lead Auditor has participated in several forestmanagement and chain of custody certification assessments and audits.

Auditor Name Michal Rezek Auditor role Auditor

Qualifications:

Czech citizen, graduated at Masaryk University in Brno with MSc. inGeography and Cartography. He participated at FSC CoC Lead auditorcourses. Michal Rezek has led the FSC Czech Republic non-governmental organization for 8 years. Then worked as Head of Forestryand Timber Department at TÜV SÜD Czech. He has participated inseveral chain of custody certification assessments in the Czech Republic,Austria, Germany and China.

Auditor Name Ondřej Tarabus Auditor role Auditor

Qualifications:

Czech republic citizen, graduate in forest management - Czech AgricultureUniversity in Prag, Faculty of Forestry. He has been through leadassessor chain of custody training course (FSC and PEFC).

Auditor Name Vasil Hutník Auditor role Local Expert

Qualifications:

Czech Republic citizen, graduate in forest management – Forestrysecondary school in Trutnov. Practical experience: Forest managementplanning institute – 2 years, different position in State forest– 6 years,Forest manager (self-employer) in municipal forest (Rychnov n.Kn.,Solnice)- 18 years. He has been involved in the establishing of the CzechFSC Working Group and was also member of Czech FSC standard settingcommittee. He participated as local expert in certification assessment forSpráva Krkonošského národního parku and surveillance audits for Hlavniměsto Praha and Správa Krkonošského národního parku.

2.3. Report peer reviewers

Peer review is not required for reassessments


2.4. Assessment schedule (including pre-assessment and stakeholderconsultation)

Date Location /main sites Main activitiesFrom 28thFebruary2014 to 14thApril2014

NEPCon headquarters Consultation with stakeholders(notification and interviews by emailsand phone)

15th April 2014 Headquarter KRNAP Opening meeting, documents reviewand interviews with staffs

15th April 2014 Municipal Office in Vrchlabí Meeting with stakeholders conductedby lead auditor

15th April 2014 Local Office Černý Důl Field inspection. Planned, completed and ongoing renewal harvestingoperation, pre-commercial andcommercial thinning, sanitary logging,afforestation and natural regeneration.Field visit in the I. zone of the NationalPark and review forestry operation onthe II. zone.

16th April 2014 Local Office Rezek Office and field inspection. Interviewwith staff, documentation review andrecord keeping. Planned, completedand ongoing renewal harvestingoperation, pre-commercial andcommercial thinning, sanitary logging,afforestation and natural regeneration,forestry operation in botanicallocalities, inspection in tree nursery.

16th April 2014 Local Office Špindlerův Mlýn Office and field inspection. Interview with staff, documentation review andrecord keeping. Planned, completedand ongoing renewal harvestingoperation, pre-commercial andcommercial thinning, sanitary logging,afforestation and natural regeneration,forestry operation in botanicallocalities.

16th April 2014 Local Office Pec pod Sněžkou Office and field inspection. Interviewwith staff, documentation review andrecord keeping. Planned, completedand ongoing renewal harvestingoperation, pre-commercial andcommercial thinning, sanitary logging,afforestation and natural regeneration,Field visit in the I. zone of the NationalPark and review forestry operation onthe II. zone.

16th April 2014 Local Office Horní Maršov Office and field inspection. Interviewwith staff, documentation review andrecord keeping. Planned, completedand ongoing renewal harvestingoperation, pre-commercial and


commercial thinning, sanitary logging,afforestation and natural regeneration.

17th April 2014 Local Office Černý Důl Field inspection. Planned, completed and ongoing renewal harvestingoperation, pre-commercial andcommercial thinning.

17th April 2014 Headquarter KRNAP Documents review, records keeping,interviews with staff and presentationof audit results.

Total number of person days used for the assessment:12= number of auditors participating 4 X average number of days spent in preparation, on site and postsite visit follow-up including stakeholder consultation3.

2.5. Evaluation strategy

The aim of reassessment was to evaluate all indicators of applicable standard. In order toachieve these goals audit team visited headquarter, four local offices forests of the forestscompartments of five local offices and forest nursery. Audit team interviewed relevant staff andreview of various documents. Selection of staff, reviewed documents and places for fieldinspection resulted from the audit focus areas to cover the largest range of company activitiesand comments received from stakeholders. During field visit were observed compartments withplanned, ongoing and recently finished management operations, but also compartments weremanagement operation are prohibited and with special management (e.g. botanical localities).During field visit were conducted interviews with field staffs, contractors and workers. Healthand safety issues were verified and all aspects related to management system were additionallyevaluated. Number of auditor days meets the FSC criteria for such size FMU.

2.5.1 List of FMUs selected for evaluation

FMU Name Rationale for SelectionHeadquarter KRNAP HQ have most documents and records related to FSC FM/CoC

certification.Local Office Černý Důl Local offices have management and operational records. Selected

local offices were chosen due a great diversity of naturalconditions and opportunity to check forest with planned, ongoingand recently finished management operations but alsocompartments with prohibited management operation and withspecial management to verify all applicable criteria FSC standards.

Local Office RezekLocal Office Špindlerův MlýnLocal Office Pec podSněžkou Local Office HorníMaršov

2.5.2 List of management aspects reviewed by assessment team:

Type of siteSites

visitedType of site

Sitesvisited

Road construction 0 Illegal settlement 0Soil drainage 0 Bridges/stream crossing 2Workshop 0 Chemical storage 2

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 10 of 66

Tree nursery 1 Wetland 0Planned Harvest site 5 Steep slope/erosion 0Ongoing Harvest site 3 Riparian zone 2Completed logging 12 Planting 6Soil scarification 0 Direct seeding 0Planting site 4 Weed control 0Felling by harvester 0 Natural regeneration 9Felling by forest worker 3 Endangered species 2Skidding/Forwarding 3 Wildlife management 1Clearfelling/Clearcut 0 Nature Reserve 4Shelterwood management 12 Key Biotope 0Selective felling 0 Special management area 2Sanitation cutting 6 Historical site 0Pre-commercial thinning 4 Recreational site 1Commercial thinning 6 Buffer zone 0Logging camp 0 Local community 2

2.5.3 Summary of Pre-assessment Findings

Not applicable for re-assessments.

Stakeholder consultation process

The purpose of the stakeholder consultation strategy for this assessment was threefold:1) To ensure that the public is aware of and informed about the assessment process and

its objectives;2) To assist the field assessment team in identifying potential issues; and,3) To provide diverse opportunities for the public to discuss and act upon the findings of

the assessment.This process is not just stakeholder notification, but wherever possible, detailed andmeaningful stakeholder interaction. The process of stakeholder interaction does not stop afterthe field visits, or for that matter, after even a certification decision is made. RainforestAlliance welcomes, at any time, comments on certified operations and such comments oftenprovide a basis for field assessment.Through input from FMO an initial list of stakeholders was developed and publicannouncements were distributed by email to them more than 45 day prior field works. Thenauditors contacted some stakeholder by phone. Public meeting or meeting with auditing teamwas offered to the stakeholders. Public was informed also by means of web pageswww.nepcon.net and www.rainforest-alliance.org about reassessment process.Public meeting with stakeholders was held at the Municipal Office in Vrchlabi. Auditors duringaudit also met and interviewed workers in forest. All comments are listed in table undersection 3.1 of this report.

Stakeholder Type(NGO, government bodies, local

inhabitant, contractor etc.)

StakeholdersNotified (#)

Stakeholders consulteddirectly or provided input

(#)National/International NGOs 6 0Local/Regional NGOs 12 0Govt. Agency 2 1

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 11 of 66

Local Community members 31 2Trade Unions 2 1

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 12 of 66

3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

3.1. Stakeholder comments received

The stakeholder consultation activities were organized to give participants the opportunity toprovide comments according to general categories of interest based upon the assessmentcriteria. The table below summarizes the issues identified by the assessment team with abrief discussion of each based upon specific interview and/or public meeting comments.

FSC Principle Stakeholder comment Rainforest Alliance response

P1: FSCCommitment andLegalCompliance

No comments received No response needed.

P2: Tenure & UseRights &Responsibilities


P3 – IndigenousPeoples’ Rights

No applicable No response needed.

P4: CommunityRelations &Workers’ Rights

The organization uses also the roadsowned by municipalities and villages,and should compensate potentialdamage of these roads.

The organization has a system ofcompensation for owners of roads.Through the so called “joininvestment”, can be covered agreedportion of the cost for road renovation.The audit did not reveled any specificcomplaints from municipality regardingdamage of their roads andcompensation.

P5: Benefits fromthe Forest

Wood from FME should be sold tolocal businesses.

Sale analyze for the year 2013 showedthat all woods were sold to the Czechmarket (companies or private persons- e.g. fuel), 63% from this volume weresold to local customers (RegionHradec Králové or Liberec)

P6:EnvironmentalImpact

The threat of bark beetle outbreak insome parts of the national park suchas Obří Důl-Čertův hřebínek and southwestern slopes of the peaknamed Liščí hora.

Review of documentation confirmedthat the sites are located in I. zone ofthe national parkThese areas were excluded from themanagement activities due to natureprotection.Field inspection have not confirmedthe spread of bark beetles in II. or III.or buffer zones of National Park.

P7: ManagementPlan


P8: Monitoring &Assessment


P9: Maintenanceof HighConservationValue Forest


P10 - Plantations No applicable No response needed.

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 13 of 66

3.2. Summary of Evaluation Findings for FSC Forest Criteria

PRINCIPLE 1: Compliance with law and FSC Principles

Criterion 1.1 Respect for national and local laws and administrative requirements

Conformance Yes Non conformance NCR #(s)

Finding

(strength/weakness)

Staff have access to a database of laws or legislation requirement and organizationemploys also lawyer. Interviews with staff confirmed that they have good knowledge ofthe relevant legislation. Audit not revealed any violations of applicable laws orregulations.

Criterion 1.2 Payment of legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges


Finding

(strength/weakness)

FME presented documents that all wages and salaries as well as all applicable andlegally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges are paid. There was notfound any evidence that applicable charges are not paid.

Criterion 1.3 Respect for provisions of international agreements


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The requirements international conventions ratified Czech Republic are incorporated inthe legislation. There was not found evidence of any violations of such conventions.

Criterion 1.4 Conflicts between laws and regulations, and the FSC P&C


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Interview with forest manager confirmed that there are no conflicts between Czechlaws and regulations and FSC P&C.

Criterion 1.5 Protection of forests from illegal activities


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Organization established guards which task is actively prevent illegal activities in thenational park. This guard is made by professional guards, employees who havecompetence of forest guards and guards of nature and also volunteer guards. In caseof violation of law the forest guard solves this by penalty or by administrative act. Incase of serious violation forest guard stall report this to the Czech Police, whichcontinues to investigate cases like this.

Criterion 1.6 Demonstration of a long-term commitment to the FSC P&C


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The FME has good acknowledge FSC Principles and Criteria and has demonstratedinterest of a long-term commitment to the FSC P&C.

PRINCIPLE 2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities

Criterion 2.1 Demonstration of land tenure and forest use rights


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The organization manages forest land owned by the state and some land is leasedfrom a private owner. All these land are registered in the Land Registry.

Criterion 2.2 Local communities’ legal or customary tenure or use rights


FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 14 of 66

Finding

(strength/weakness)

Only lesser part of the managed forest is leased from a private owner. Most of theproperty belongs to the state.

Criterion 2.3 Disputes over tenure claims and use rights


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Audit confirmed that records of disputes are kept including documentation of all stepsthat have been undertaken in order to resolve these disputes. There are no currentdisputes over tenure claims and use right.

PRINCIPLE 3: Indigenous peoples’ rights

Criterion 3.1 Indigenous peoples’ control of forest management

Conformance Non conformance NCR #(s)

Finding

(strength/weakness)

Not applicable in Czech Republic

Criterion 3.2 Maintenance of indigenous peoples’ resources or tenure rights


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 3.3 Protection of sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significanceto indigenous peoples


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 3.4 Compensation of indigenous peoples for the application of their traditionalknowledge


Finding

(strength/weakness)


PRINCIPLE 4: Community relations and workers rights

Criterion 4.1 Employment, training, and other services for local communities


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Forestry operation are performed by contractors who are selected in public tenders.

Fulfilling qualification is very important requirements of these tenders. Interviewed staffconfirmed that the organization supports employees to increase their knowledge andskills. The organization is actively cooperating with schools and other organizationsregarding educational activities.

Criterion 4.2 Compliance with health and safety regulations


Finding

(strength/weakness)

FME have developed and implement procedures concerning health and safetyrequirements. Agreements with suppliers describe required work conditions, includingcompliance with applicable safety regulations. Field inspection has not revealed any

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 15 of 66

non-compliances.

Criterion 4.3 Workers’ rights to organize and negotiate with employers


Finding

(strength/weakness)

All employees have the right to associate in trade unions, without being limited. Unionrepresentatives did not mention any non-compliance.

Criterion 4.4 Social impact evaluations and consultation


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The FME has identified local stakeholders and neighboring property owners and have recordedconsultation with them. Field inspection, interviews and documentation to confirm that theorganization respects places of special cultural and religious significance andorganization is involved in the restoration and reconstruction of some such places.

Criterion 4.5 Resolution of grievances and settlement of compensation claims


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The FME has system in place for resolution of grievance and settlement ofcompensation claim. Audit and stakeholder consultation confirmed that preventivemeasures are sufficient.

PRINCIPLE 5: Benefits from the forest

Criterion 5.1 Economic viability taking full environmental, social, and operational costs intoaccount


Finding

(strength/weakness)

All forest lands are designed as special purpose forests and their main functions arenon-productive. The organization has a financial plan where are estimated revenuefrom management activities and other financial resources used to cover all the costsconnected with forestry management.

Criterion 5.2 Optimal use and local processing of forest products


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Forest management is focused to maintain and enhance non-productive functions offorest. Income from sale of products is not the goal of management. The organizationperform the sale of a wide range of products (wood, game, Christmas trees) andservices (e.g. entrance fees to the museums, allowances selling).

Criterion 5.3 Waste minimization and avoidance of damage to forest resources


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Agreements with contractors ensure that damage of timber and its loss are minimal.Field visits during assessment confirmed such practice. Field visit confirmed that layoutof existing and planned forest roads, bridges, and harvesting tracks is appropriate tothe scale and intensity of management operations and works are carried out way toprevent damage of the forest resources.

Criterion 5.4 Forest management and the local economy


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Sale analyze for the year 2013 showed that all woods were sold to the Czech market(companies or private persons - e.g. fuel), 63% from this volume were sold to localcustomers.

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 16 of 66

Criterion 5.5 Maintenance of the value of forest services and resources


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Audit and stakeholder consultation has not confirmed negative impacts of forestmanagement on the multiple services.

Criterion 5.6 Harvest levels


Finding

(strength/weakness)

All forest lands are designed as special purpose forests and prescribed forest operationmaintained value of forest services and resources

PRINCIPLE 6: Environmental impact

Criterion 6.1 Environmental impacts evaluation


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The influence of the forest management on environment particularly the impact onhighly-protected plant and animal species, endangered ecosystems (biotopes), and onthe water regime and soil is described in National park management plan. The forestmanagement described in FMP is planned in such a way that guarantee compliancewith National park Management plan and minimalize negative impact.

Criterion 6.2 Protection of rare, threatened and endangered species


Finding

(strength/weakness)

FME has mapped habitats of highly-protected and endangered plant and animalspecies. The field visit has proved that in these areas where such habitats are forestmanagement operations are carried in way to ensure the maintenance or enhancementof populations and habitats of given species

Criterion 6.3 Maintenance of ecological functions and values


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The field visit has proved that the forest management is focused on strengthening ofthe ecological functions and values. Organization uses natural regeneration, smallscale harvesting areas and appropriate tree species with higher range of broadleavestree species which brings more stability to the forest.

Criterion 6.4 Protection of representative samples of existing ecosystems


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Forest owner did define more than 10% of the forest area as reference sites and hasgood overview where these areas are. Forest owner let these stands in natural state.Management operation are not performed in these areas.

Criterion 6.5 Protection against damage to soils, residual forest and water resources duringoperations


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Field visit confirmed that system for control erosion, minimize vegetation damageduring harvesting, transportation of wood, construction of roads etc. and conservewater resources is respected and implemented during forestry operation.

Criterion 6.6 Chemical pest management


Finding Control of documentation about used chemicals review confirmed full record required

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 17 of 66

(strength/weakness)

by FSC standard including explanation of chemical use (e.g. use of herbicides toreduce invasive species). The forest owner do not use pesticides with activesubstances mentioned on the FSC list of prohibited substances).

Criterion 6.7 Use and disposal of chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Site visit, documentation check and interviews with employees has revealed that allchemicals and solid non-organic wastes are liquidated in environmental friendly wayoutside the forest on places dedicated to this liquidation.

Criterion 6.8 Use of biological control agents and genetically modified organisms


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The audit has revealed that biological control agents and genetically modifiedorganisms are not used.

Criterion 6.9 The use of exotic species


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The audit has revealed that introduced species are monitored and eliminated(especially the invasive species).

Criterion 6.10 Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The National park management plan contains document: "Assurance of complianceskiing development with nature protection in KRNAP national park and its bufferzones". This document set up the rules and limits on which basis can forest owner givean approval to temporary or permanent conquest of forest land in a way that would bein line with long term natural protection interests.

Temporary (8.9685 ha) and permanent (0,64ha) conversion was performed in districtHorní Maršov and temporary conversion (3,46ha) in district Špindlerův Mlýn for skiing development during 2013. All these forest land conversions were approved by Ministryof environment respectively Trutnov Municipality.

PRINCIPLE 7: Management plan

Criterion 7.1 Management plan requirements


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Review of documentation confirmed high quality of maps and management plan whichcontains:a) the objective of the forest managementb) Detailed stand description and taxation data, environmental limits, ownership status,socioeconomic conditions,c) information about planned forestry operation and management measures in HCVforest areas (Forests soil protection function).d) explanation of the yearly harvesting rate including the species selectione) measures used to monitoring or grow and forest dynamicsf) assurance of environment protection based on environmental evaluationsg) identification plans and protection of endanger speciesh) maps describing forest sources, including protected areas, planed managementmeasures and ownership relationsi) description and justification of harvesting technologies used

Criterion 7.2 Management plan revision


FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 18 of 66

Finding

(strength/weakness)

Revision of management plan was performed in compliance with national legislation.

Criterion 7.3 Training and supervision of forest workers


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Interviews and review of documentation confirmed that all workers (contractors) aresufficiently educated and trained and hold relevant skill licenses. Agreements withcontractors include also penalties for low quality works.

The quality of done forest work is regularly checked by foresters and invoices can bepaid only if work are done and checked by forester.

Criterion 7.4 Public availability of the management plan elements


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Summary of FMP is published on FMO΄s web page

PRINCIPLE 8: Monitoring and evaluation

Criterion 8.1 Frequency, intensity and consistency of monitoring


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Organization has monitoring program on place including all parameters required by thestandard. Internal controls on forest management issues are conducted by forestmanager, sub-district managers. In addition there is system of internal controls fromheadquarter so called “FMP fulfilment checking”

Criterion 8.2 Research and data collection for monitoring


Finding

(strength/weakness)

National park management plan (2010 - 2020) approved by Ministry of Environment in2010 describes management of forest and other ecosystems of Krkonoše mountains.

As basis for this National park management plan are used the results of the monitoringand ecological research and forest inventarization. Plan is consulted with stakeholders,municipalities and regional offices where the park belongs.

The forest owner keeps detailed monthly records about sold wood in the form ofstanding stand that is the only one realized product.

FMO have evidence of the employees operating in the forest and also keeps records ofemployees' working injuries

Interviews and documentation confirmed that FMO keeps accounts and has overviewabout forests operations cost and income

Criterion 8.3 Chain of custody


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The FMO has designated a person responsible for adherence to the requirements ofthe FSC Chain of Custody.

The FMO has established system for identification and records of certified products.Procedure for implementation Czech standard in KRNAP management – S-1/2009

FMO have evidence of the employees operating in the forest and also keeps records ofemployees' working injuries.

Interviews and documentation confirmed that FMO keeps accounts and has overviewabout forests operations cost and income. The FMO has clear procedures for

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 19 of 66

identification and records of forests products. Procedures states that certified and noncertified products must be separated.

Relevant staffs were aware of these procedures.

Criterion 8.4 Incorporation of monitoring results into the management plan


Finding

(strength/weakness)

The results of monitoring were available to the company which preparing new FMP.The results of and relevant part are available also for management plan of protectedareas.

Criterion 8.5 Publicly available summary of monitoring


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Results of monitoring are available on request. Monitoring results are publicly availableon company web page.FMP http://www.krnap.cz/lhp/Reports http://www.krnap.cz/rocenka-spravy-krnap/Fauna and flora - map server http://gis.krnap.cz/map/

Birds - http://www.krnap.cz/prunella/

Scientific studies -http://opera.krnap.cz/index.php?Example_Session=777a41ebd07b6c54e9ff7d03e0227eb5.

PRINCIPLE 9: High Conservation Value Forests

Criterion 9.1 Evaluation to determine high conservation value attributes


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Documents with characteristic attributes of high conservation value forests and selectsall significant growths with these attributes are available at FMO web page. Park zonesdesignation, botanical location, localities Natura 2000, localities important for birdsprotection, protection forests etc.

Criterion 9.2 Consultation process


Finding

(strength/weakness)

National park management plan and resume of forest management plan deals withcharacteristic attributes of forests with high conservation value. These attributes of highconservation forests are publically available FMO's web page. Consultation issufficiently proactive, information about HCVF are available, in order to stakeholderscan send comment.

Criterion 9.3 Measures to maintain and enhance high conservation value attributes


Finding

(strength/weakness)

National park management plan prescribed measures to ensure maintaining orenhancing the applicable characteristic conservation, while respect precautionaryapproach. Field visit has proved that measures are done in a way to keep and improvethe protection character of the forest stand

Criterion 9.4 Monitoring to assess effectiveness


Finding

(strength/weakness)

HCVF are monitored by specialist from natural conservancy department and also byforesters. HCVF are monitored when forestry operation are completed in these areas.

PRINCIPLE 10:Plantations

Criterion 10.1 Statement of objectives in the management plan

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 20 of 66


Finding

(strength/weakness)

Not applicable for FME

Criterion 10.2 Plantation design and layout


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.3 Diversity in composition


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.4 Species selection


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.5 Restoration of natural forest


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.6 Impacts on soil and water


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.7 Pests and diseases


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.8 Monitoring of impacts, species testing and tenure rights


Finding

(strength/weakness)


Criterion 10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994


Finding Not applicable for FME

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 21 of 66

(strength/weakness)

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 22 of 66

3.3. Identified nonconformances and Nonconformity Reports (NCRs)

A nonconformance is a discrepancy or gap identified during the assessment between someaspect of the FME’s management system and one or more of the requirements of the foreststewardship standard. Depending on the severity of the nonconformance the assessment teamdifferentiates between major and minor nonconformances.

Major nonconformance results where there is a fundamental failure to achieve theobjective of the relevant FSC criterion. A number of minor nonconformances againstone requirement may be considered to have a cumulative effect, and therefore beconsidered a major nonconformance.

Minor nonconformance is a temporary, unusual or non-systematic nonconformance,for which the effects are limited.

Major nonconformances must be corrected before the certificate can be issued. While minornonconformances do not prohibit issuing the certificate, they must be addressed within the giventimeframe to maintain the certificate.

Each nonconformance is addressed by the audit team by issuing a nonconformity report (NCR).NCRs are requirements that candidate operations must agree to, and which must be addressed,within the given timeframe of a maximum of one year period.

No NCRs have been issued during the recertification audit.

3.4. Conformance with applicable nonconformity reports (ReassessmentsOnly)

The section below describes the activities of the certificate holder to address each applicablenonconformity report (NCR) issued during previous evaluations. For each NCR a finding ispresented along with a description of its current status using the following categories. Failure tomeet NCRs will result in nonconformances being upgraded from minor to major status withconformance required within 3 months with risk of suspension or termination of the RainforestAlliance certificate if Major NCRs are not met. The following classification is used to indicate thestatus of the NCR:

Status Categories Explanation

Closed Operation has successfully met the NCR.

Open Operation has either not met or has partially met the NCR.

Check if N/A (there are no open NCRs to review)

No NCRs have been issued during the previous annual audit.

3.5. Observations

Observations can be raised when issues or the early stages of a problem are identified whichdoes not of itself constitute a nonconformance, but which the auditor considers may lead to afuture nonconformance if not addressed by the client. An observation may be a warning signal on

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 23 of 66

a particular issue that, if not addressed, could turn into a NCR in the future (or a pre-condition orNCR during a 5 year re-assessment).

OBS 01/14 Reference Standard & Requirement: Czech FSC FM Standard,accredited on 30Aug06 by ASI, point 6.2.4.

[Description of findings leading to observation]:

Leaving of hollow trees is addressed in the management plan. During the field visits auditorshave not found any evidence and also interviews have not confirmed the removal of hollowtrees. But in some stands of these trees are missing because were removed in the past.

Observation:

The audit team recommends to pay special attention on the protection of nesting and hollowtrees and possible involvement of specialists with the department of nature conservation in theprocess of sample trees marking (compartments with planned harvesting).

3.6. Certification Recommendation

Based on a thorough review of FME performance in the field, consultation with stakeholders,analysis of management documentation or other audit evidence the Rainforest Allianceassessment team recommends the following:

Certification requirements met;No NCRs issued

Certification requirements not met

Subject to conformance with minor NCRs (if applicable), the FME has demonstrated thattheir described system of management is being implemented consistently over the wholeforest areas covered by the scope of the evaluation

Yes

No

Comments: The organization has demonstrated that their described system ofmanagement is being implemented consistently over whole forests area covered byscope of the evaluation.

FME’s management system, if implemented as described and subject to conformancewith minor NCRs (if applicable), is capable of ensuring that all the requirements of thecertification standards are met across the scope of the certificate

Yes

No

Comments: N/A

Issues identified as controversial or hard to evaluate.

Yes

No

Comments: N/ADescription of activities taken by the FME prior to the certification decision to correct major orminor nonconformity(s) identified during the assessment.N/A

Certificate type recommended:Forest management and Chain of custodyForest management only (no CoC)

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 24 of 66

Once certified, the FME will be audited annually on-site and required to remain in conformancewith the FSC principles and criteria as further defined by regional guidelines developed byRainforest Alliance or the FSC in order to maintain certification. The FME will also be requiredto fulfill the corrective actions as described below. Experts from Rainforest Alliance will reviewcontinued forest management performance and conformance with the corrective action requestsdescribed in this report, annually during scheduled and/or random audits.

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 25 of 66

4. CLIENT SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4.1 Ownership and land tenure description (legal and customary)Organization manage forest owned by state (34 968 ha) and smaller part (148 ha) of managedproperty is leased from private company.

The FME´s forest land cover 35 116 ha from which forests cover 34 445 ha. National Park CareDepartment is responsible for forestry management and manages six district offices:

Špindlerův Mlýn Pec pod Sněžkou RezekHorní MaršovČerný Dul Harrachov

Managed terriory is divided into six hunting grounds:Three are managed by FMO:

Prameny MumlavyPrameny LabePrameny Úpy

Three are leased out to huntings association:Rýchory IRýchory IJavorník

All forest management operations are conducted by subcontractors that are being chosen inpublic tenders.4.2 Legislative and government regulatory contextSpráva Krkonošského národního parku (Správa KRNAP) is a contributory organizationproviding specialized care for the National Park (NP) and its buffer zone (OP). Organizationperforms information, cultural, educational activities and also provides state administration.The organization is divided into:• National Park Care Department (with Nature Protection Department, Sales Department,Department of the management of forest ecosystems)• Department of State administration• Public Relations (with Public Relations department, department care for visitors)• Department of Internal Affairs (with Department of Economics, Department of AssetManagement, Service Department, Division of Investment).

The Krkonoše National park was established on 17th May 1963 and Správa KRNAP located inVrchlabí was authorized by its administration. In 1991, the Správa KRNAP passed under thedirect control of the Ministry of Environment and since 1994 is responsible for management offorests in national park and its buffer zone. State supervision of forestry management activitiesis performed by of Ministry of Environment through the Czech Environmental Inspectorate.

Organization follows forestry legislation no. 289/1995 and as well nature conservancy legislationno. 114/1992. The Forestry Section of the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for thedevelopment of legislative instruments affecting the management and protection of forests.Ministry of Environment is responsible for the development of legislative instruments affectingthe Nature and landscape conservancy.

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 26 of 66

The main expertise and conceptual document Management plan of Krkonoše National Park andits buffer zone (for years 2010-2020) and this document is used as a basis for other types ofplanning documents and decisions of the organization. This document define principles ofmanagement for forest ecosystems which are binding for Forest Management Plans (FMP).

The Forest management plans (FMP) are prepared by private licensed companies for 10 yearsperiod according national forestry legislation. The Forest management plans are approved byMinistry of Environment.4.3 Environmental ContextThe Krkonoše mountains (Mts.) are situated in a mild climatic zone which, beside the seasonalchange, are impacted by the Atlantic Ocean and predominating western winds which cause theerratic character of the weather. The great majority of this area belongs to the geological unitknown as the Krkonoše–Jizera crystalline complex and a very small area is classified asbelonging to the Krkonoše piedmont basin. The predominant mineral types are metamorphicrocks, complemented by plutonic rocks (granite), and effusive rocks in a few places. On thesouthern border of the Krkonoše NP buffer zone, Permo-Carboniferous sedimentary rocks canalso be found. Highest point of Krkonoše Mts. is Sněžka (1603 m) which is the highest peak in Czech mountain. Ridge Krkonoše Mts. forms an important European watershed. The Labe(Elbe) river system takes water from the Czech side of the mountains to the North Sea, whereasthe northern slopes are drained by the Odra river system to the Baltic Sea..Four distinct altitudinal vegetation belts can be defined in the Krkonoše Mountains:• submontane (400 to 800 m)• montane (800 to 1,200 m)• subalpine (1,200 to 1,450 m)• alpine (1,450 to 1,602 m)Their structure has been altered to a greater or lesser extent by human activities in recentcenturies. Diversity of landscape and historical development of the area contributed therelatively rich diversity of fauna and flora. Managed area which is included in scope of certificateare part of Krkonoše National park and its buffer zone, Biosphere Reserve Krkonoše, EUbiodiversity site Krkonoše, Special protection area (Birds directive) In the area are severalimportant zoological and botanical sites and reserves.4.4 Socioeconomic ContextNature in territory of the Krkonoše Mts has been significantly influenced by human activitiesfrom the past. The initial slow phase of colonization foothills of the Krkonoše Mts ended during12th century. The rapid development of the settlement of this area is connected mainly with thedevelopment of medieval mining and metallurgical activities (12th - 14th century) andglassmaking industry (16th-17th century). These activities however, led to the exploitation ofnatural mountain forests. At a later period (17th-19th century), the landscape was significantlyinfluenced by agriculture, grazing and livestock. These activities significantly changed the faceof Krkonoše and led to the conversion of forest to non-forest land enclaves. The 20th centurybrought the development of tourism and during second half of this century forests of this regionwere quite highly affected with industrial air pollution.Despite all human activities many nature conservation values are still present in this area andfrom the mid- 20th century has started gradual pressure from public on the declaration ofnational parks on both sides of the Krkonoše Mts. In 1959 he was established "Karkonoski ParkNarodowy" in Poland and in 1963 the "Krkonošský národný park" (National Park) in the CzechRepublic.

Governmental Regulation No. 165/91 Coll . is again declared the National Park in 1991 andterritory of national park was divided into 3 protection zones . The purpose of creating ofzonation was ensuring the protection of the natural values while taking into consideration alsothe socio-economic interests and cultural and historical aspects of this territory.

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 27 of 66

The overall objectives of forest management in the National Park are :- To stabilize the current forest ecosystems by changing species , spatial and age composition,- Species composition gradually closer to the natural state of the forest ,- Gradually introduce and promote nature-regulatory processes forests

Some areas of the National Park are intensively used for recreation (hiking, skiing, biking, andclimbing) and several ski resorts are within its territory. National Park Administration is tryingregulate recreation to maintain conservation values Krkonoše Mts.4.5 WorkersNumber of workers including employees, part-time and seasonal workers:

Total workers 226 workers (provide detail below)

Local Full time employees (a:b) 154 Male 72 Female

Non - Local Full time employees (c:d) 0 Male 0 Female

Local Part time workers (e:f) 0 Male 0 Female

Non- local part time workers (g:h) 0 Male 0 Female

Worker access to potable water on the worksite

YES NO

Full time employees making more than $2 aday

YES NO

Number of serious accidents (past 12 monthperiod)

0

Number of fatalities (past 12 month period) 0

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 28 of 66

APPENDIX I: Public summary of the management plan

(NOTE: To be prepared by the client prior to assessment, Information verified by assessment team)

1. Main objectives of the forest management are:

Primary priority: biodiversity and increasing of nature values

Secondary priority: recreation and outdoor activities

Other priorities:income from harvesting and sales of roundwood;maintained for scientific research; Providing hunting possibilities

Forest composition:

SM 79% , JD 0,3%, BK 5,1%, MD 1,9%, Klen 1,3%, Ost. 12,4%

Description of Silvicultural system(s) used:

selective logging with cont. forest cover and shelterwood silvicultural system with exclusion finalfelling

2. Silvicultural system % of forest under thismanagement

Even aged management haClearcut (clearcut size range ) haShelterwood ha

Uneven aged management haIndividual tree selection haGroup selection (group harvested of less than 1 ha in size)

Other types of management (explain) Shelterwood with exclusion offinal felling - leaving rest of the trees. Transition to the uneven treemanagement.

28669 ha (III.zone ofNP)3120 ha (II. zone of NP)

3. Forest Operations3.1 Harvest methods and equipment used: Harvest with chain saw, forwarding by cable lines,

horses, tractors, forwarders.3.2 Estimate of maximum sustainable yield for main commercialspecies:

In FMP s determinedmaximum sustainableyield 146.200 m3/yearfor all commercialspecies together

3.3 Explanation of the assumptions (e.g. silvicultural) upon which estimates are based andreference to the source of data (e.g. inventory data, permanent sample plots, yield tables) uponwhich estimates are based upon.Operational forest inventory, based on a statistical evaluation of the actual condition of the forest,habitat, evaluation of increment, damages and health condition. This inventory is made for therenewal of forest management plans. Backbone (830 monitoring areas) have been established in2009 - 2010. Currently, the measurements are finalized from more than 1300 areas used formanagement plan. The areas with size 500m2 are randomly generated.Forest management plans - the basic source of information for planning.The network of permanent monitoring areas with 30 years continuous monitoring.The outputs of the Research Institute of Forestry, Water Management and Hunting - more than30 years of research in the area of vegetation response to air pollution and climate change, thedetermination optimal procedures for management.3.4 FME organizational structure and management responsibilities from senior management tooperational level (how is management organized, who controls and takes decisions, use ofcontractors, provisions for training, etc.).

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 29 of 66

Statutory - DirectorThe organization is divided into :• National Park Management Department ( Nature Protection Department, Sales Department ,Department of the management of forest ecosystems)• Department of State administration• Public Relations ( Public Relations Department , Visitors Care Department)• Department of Internal Affairs ( Department of Economics , Department of Asset Management ,Service Department , Division of Investment)

Responsibility for the forestry has Department of management of forest ecosystems with onemanager and specialist. They are responsible for the implementation of the mandatoryprovisions of the FMP, the conformity forestry operations with management plan of national parkand compliance with the requirements of nature protection, management tenders for silvicultureand harvesting activities, inspection, methodological guidance of assigned forestry operation.Under this department are local field offices:Špindlerův Mlýn Pec pod Sněžkou RezekHorní MaršovČerný Dul Harrachov

Local offices are operational unit with these staff:Office Managers are responsible for forestry in the territory, obligation to review the performanceof duties by subordinates, contractors , responsible for game management.Technicians are responsible for record keeping, responsible for operational mattersRangers are responsible for forestry operation, check suppliers, assignance and acceptance ofwork3.5 Structure of forest management units (division of forest area into manageable units etc.).The FMU is divided into four Forest Management Departments:LHC Harrachov (code: 501 210) – 10.303 haLHC Vrchlabí (code: 502 210) – 12.986 haLHC Maršov (code: 503 210) – 11.548 haLHC Šimkovičová a spol (code: 503 701) – 279 ha

3.6 Monitoring procedures (including yield of all forest products harvested, growth rates,regeneration, and forest condition, composition/changes in flora and fauna, environmental andsocial impacts of forest management, costs, productivity and efficiency of forest management).Operational forest inventoryForest management recordsMonitoring forestry operations and compliance with LHPBotanical and zoological inventory surveysAnalysis of salesAnalysis of the structure of buyers and suppliersMonitoring of marker-economic costs, revenues, productivity and so on.The concept of monitoring natural conditions is incorporated into the National park managementplan http://www.krnap.cz/monitoring-prirodnich-pomeru/The system of inspection planned and finished works3.7 Management strategies for the identification and protection of rare, threatened andendangered species.Mapping of Natura 2000, inventory surveys, system of botanical and zoological locations,zonation National Park, determining the degree of naturalness of forest stands (in representative

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 30 of 66

samples of natural forests are management operation prohibited, management for for small-scale protected areas.3.8 Environmental safeguards implemented, e.g. buffer zones for streams, riparian areas,seasonal operation, chemical storage, etc.Control and regulation of tourism. Limitations resulting from tourism (winter maintenance ofroads for skiers) - Krkonoše cross-country skiing paradiseSeasonal restrictions on work in the areas of nesting rare birdsSpecial management for botanical and zoological siteRestrictions on the use of pesticides and use to non-chemical methods (e. g. removal of bark)Justified use of herbicides (e.g. for control of invasive plants).Other Sections may be added by the FMEN/A

FM-02 19 April 2012 Page 65 of 66

APPENDIX VI: FME map (optional)

RA-Cert Division Headquarters Forest Management ... · spp.; Quercus petraea N6 Plants and parts of...

Documents

Transcript of RA-Cert Division Headquarters Forest Management ... · spp.; Quercus petraea N6 Plants and parts of...