High Conservation Value Forests

Jeffrey Hayward

Rainforest Alliance

The concept of High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF) was developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1999. After some years of debate and study, FSC re-evaluated the language of its then existing Principle 9 in 1998 to move away from giving a perceived special status to old growth or virgin forests. Recognition was made that since all forests contain environmental and social attributes, any forest could harbor such attributes of outstanding significance or critical importance – of high conservation value. This was an important shift of emphasis in the application of Principle 9, moving the attention of forest managers and forest certifiers beyond “primary forests and well-developed secondary forests” and towards this concept of the specific attributes of conservation ‘value’.

The essential difference brought about by the concept was that in forests where these social and environmental values were considered to be of outstanding significance or critical importance that forest should be defined as HCVF. Central to such a determination then comes down to assessment and identification of High Conservation Values within a forest management unit or at a landscape scale. For FSC certification, forest managers are required to identify any High Conservation Values (HCVs) that occur within their individual forest management units, to manage them in order to maintain or enhance the values identified, and to monitor the success of this management.

The FSC (2000) established six definitions for these High Conservation Values (HCVs). They are defined as:

HCV 1:   Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia);

HCV 2:   Forest areas containing globally, regionally, or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable population of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns or distribution and abundance.

HCV 3:   Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems.

HCV 4:   Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)

HCV 5:   Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)

HCV 6:  Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance in cooperation with such local communities).

The FSC has not endorsed or developed specific regional or national interpretation of these HCV definitions. However forest certification practitioners, social, and biological scientists, under coordination by Proforest Limited, a UK based consulting firm, during 2002 to 2004, produced written guidance for HCVF interpretation at national, landscape, and forest management unit levels through HCVF toolkits.  Many adaptations of country or region specific HCVF toolkits have since emerged, which aim to offer operational instructions for applying the concept in practice.

These HCVF toolkits build off of the FSC definitions of HCVs and describe a series of steps to conduct a systematic evaluation of the conservation values that exist in a forest area or at a landscape scale and indicators for what species or ecosystems would be ‘significant’, ‘fundamental’ or ‘critical’, as per the definitions’ language. Deciding that a forest area should be classified as HCVF if those HCVs are present is an evaluation of the rationale that establishes that the maintenance of those values is dependent upon the maintenance of the forest area (Proforest 2003).

The Precautionary Principle

The HCVF concept provides a framework which enables other established and well-founded assessment methods of conservation biology and science to be used in the evaluation, management, and monitoring of HCVs. To assess and determine the presence of conservation values that would be considered HCV according to these definitions, however, requires highly experienced ecological and social scientists; further consultation with relevant stakeholders (communities, government bodies, forest managers, scientists, and NGOs); access to baseline inventories, data sets, maps, and spatial imagery; and professional judgment based on field research and study.

The FSC (2000) recognizes the Precautionary Principle (PP) for decision-making processes about HCVs in the absence of adequate scientific knowledge on the consequences of human impact on forest areas. FSC Principle 9 states that “decisions regarding high value conservation forests shall always be considered in the context of a precautionary approach”.  The definition of the precautionary approach used by the FSC was ratified during the FSC General Assembly in June 1999. The FSC considers a precautionary approach one that is “tool for the implementation of the precautionary principle.” 

An FSC advisory panel that examined the effectiveness of FSC Principle 9 prior to the development of the HCVF concept was more explicit about the precautionary approach in respects to managing HCVF. The guidance from the panel was that “planning, management activities and monitoring of the attributes that make a forest management unit HCVF should de designed, based on existing scientific and indigenous/traditional knowledge, to ensure that these attributes do not come under threat of significant reduction or loss of the attribute and that any threat of reduction or loss is detected long before the reduction becomes irreversible. Where a threat has been identified, early preventive action, including halting existing action, should be taken to avoid or minimize such a threat despite lack of full scientific certainty as to causes and effects of the threat” (FSC Principle 9 Advisory Panel, 2000).

There are multiple definitions of the PP in circulation. The IUCN launched an evaluation into the application, effectiveness, and controversy surrounding the PP in natural resource management, and indicated that “considerable ambiguity remains regarding the meaning and context of the precautionary principle … [its] meaning and application are unclear in situations where sources of risk are complex and multiple, which is frequently the case in the context of natural resource management and conservation” (Cooney 2003).  

Probably the most widely accepted PP definition is from the Rio Declaration, “In order to protect the environment the Precautionary Approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Broader Applications

While the HCVF originated within FSC forest certification, the HCV concept is now widely applied outside of forest certification. It has been proposed as a landscape and land-use planning approach for spatial allocation of production and conservation activities in natural ecosystems. The HCVF concept now plays a role in the environmental and forestry policies of some of the major international banks, for example, Citigroup, HSBC, and ABN AMRO and it also is a pivotal point in procurement policies of major forest product companies, for example Tetra Pak and Ikea.

The HCVF concept has been promoted by global conservation organizations, for example, WWF, Rainforest Alliance, TNC, and Greenpeace, as a common approach to advocate for conservation of natural resources. It has been proposed for use with non-forest ecosystems, such as savannahs, grasslands, and wetlands. It is also notably included in other standards, such as the RSPO principles and criteria for sustainable palm oil production.

There are currently about 20 country-specific interpretations of the global HCVF toolkit in use or in development to assist natural resource managers and conservation planners on the application of the concept fitting the specific and unique national or regional circumstances. In 2005, an HCV Resource Network www.hcvnetwork.org was formed to be a global coalition of the users of the concept. The HCV Resource Network has a Steering Group membership from the World Bank, ITTO, IUCN, as well as forest owners, forest product buyers and major social and conservation NGOs.

The Network itself is comprised of members who agree to the HCV Charter, founded in September 2006. The Network aims to encourage collaboration, provide information and support on the evolving usage of HCV, and ensure that a consistent approach to HCV is understood and applied throughout the world. It has emerged as a clearinghouse and central point of information on HCV and is a useful resource for further investigation.

References 

Cooney, R. 2003. The Precautionary Principle in Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation: Situation Analysis.   IUCN, Traffic, Resource Africa, Fauna and Flora International, The Precautionary Principle Project.

FSC, Forest Stewardship Council.  2000. Report of the Principle 9 Advisory Panel, Draft Report.  Forest Stewardship Council, October 2000.

 FSC, Forest Stewardship Council. 2001. FSC Principles and Criteria.  Forest Stewardship Council, February 2000.

ProForest. 2003.  HCVF Global Toolkit, Part 3, Identifying and managing High Conservation Values Forests: a guide for forest managers.

Jeff Hayward is Verification Services Manager, SmartWood Program, Rainforest Alliance, Washington D.C.