[MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes

[Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov]

Back after a long hiatus: The MPWG Question of the Month!

For those MPWG Listservers who are not on the Native Plant Listserve, you
have been missing a really exciting conversation on moss harvesting.  I
encourage you to see how the discussion began a few days ago and the
interesting postings that have ensued.   The e-mail from Stephen Rae (at
the very bottom of this e-mail) provided a nexus to the MPWG:  the issue of
chain of custody.

Almost any discussion on the sustainability of wild-harvested medicinal
plants turns toward chain of custody (i.e. in essence, the ability to trace
the material on the shelf back to the hole in the ground that it came
from).  Chain of custody, along with such issues as authenticity of
materials, sustainability of harvest, and monitoring efforts are all part
of the bigger issue that (ideally) might be managed through certification
programs.  And there are many certification programs out there.  Why hasn't
any one program come to the fore as THE certification program for
monitoring medicinal plants?

Perhaps it is because of the broad range of issues.  Bear with me as I
oversimplify the issues to make a point.  Certification of medicinal plants
in trade means different things to different people - to consumers, it
includes safety and reliability issues; to manufacturers it includes raw
material quality and consistency; to land managers, it includes
sustainability of harvest and regeneration of populations.

In an ideal world, all of these issues (and more) would be of concern to
everyone in the equation.  But, this is not the case in the real world.  As
far as I can ascertain, the main reason that one part of this equation is
not concerned about another part of the equation is not for lack of
concern, it's for lack of awareness.
In keeping with MPWG's goal of bringing together diverse perspectives on
medicinal plant issues, I asked one of our members (thank you, Jennifer) to
come up with a list of considerations for medicinal plant certification
programs.   Please respond to any or all of the considerations listed
below.  In your response, please feel free to include any additional links
that will be informative on the issue.  Thanks!

Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural
resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>

- - - - - -

1. Briefly describe where you fit into the medicinal plant equation. (i.e.
are you a consumer, manufacturer, raw materials buyer?)

2. Who should be involved in selecting / adopting appropriate
certifications / standards?

What is the best way to facilitate participation of a wide range of
stakeholders?
(I include this because the National Organic Standards Board found that
while they had formed a reasonably inclusive coalition, the standards were
pretty much created by producers and processors only)

3. What should be included in the scope of certifications / standards?

What environmental issues fall within the scope of consideration?
Organic vs. Non-Organic

How important are issues of social equity?  such as IPRs and sharing of
research findings; ownership (community level, corporate level, national
level) of genetic resources/seed banks; access to med plants and
community/public health; protection of cultural context of and rights to
med plant use; economic security; emphasis on health and economic security
for the poorest; and viability of small farms

4.  Under whose authority do (should) certifications fall?

How much should be voluntary and how much should be mandatory?
How to reconcile authority of government agencies like FDA USDA FWS BLM,
local municipalities and regional and national governments, with rights of
landowners, communities, producers, businesses, end users

5.  How will certifications / standards be communicated to
producers; processors; distributors; consumers; general public

6. How should standards be enforced?

7.  Who pays for public education and enforcement?

URLS / LINKS
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/iso65.htm   informative: ISO65
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/nop.htm   informative: NOP
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html  NOP standards
http://www.ifoam.org/    International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements
http://www.fairtrade.net/   Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International



----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 12/03/2004 03:10
PM -----
|---------+------------------------------------------------->
|         |           Stephen Rae <stephen.rae at gmail.com>   |
|         |           Sent by:                              |
|         |           native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconse|
|         |           rvation.org                           |
|         |                                                 |
|         |                                                 |
|         |           12/03/2004 01:26 PM                   |
|         |           Please respond to Stephen Rae         |
|         |                                                 |
|---------+------------------------------------------------->
  >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                              |
  |        To:      native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org                                    |
  |        cc:                                                                                   |
  |        Subject: [PCA] Moss Harvesting                                                        |
  >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




The observation on perhaps restricting moss harvesting to areas in the
PNW that are slated for timber harvest has merit.  If the harvest
method is clearcutting or the second or third entry for seed tree
removal, then there will be little of the pre-existing upper strata
that define a mature or late successional forest.  Consequently, the
mosses within such areas would suffer from the major change in
temperature, relative humidity and direct insolation following canopy
removal.

I know there is resistance to regulation, but why not request some
type of verification regarding place of harvest.  For instance, a
before and after digital image could be attached to the materials
presented for sale to distributors.  Or, a mandatory collection tag
with GPS coordinates.  Then, a periodic spot check could be
accomplished.  Should such a method be initially voluntary, then we
could assess compliance and effects.  Should compliance be much short
of satisfactory then a less voluntary method could be justified.

In any case, each jurisdiction should establish permanent plots to
evaluate the re-establishment of mosses within harvest areas.  I would
think that several academic institutions would be interested in such a
project.  And, it wouldn't necessarily be very expensive to run.  The
results would be helpful in determining cumulative effects and,
therefore, management opportunities.

Stephen P. Rae

_______________________________________________
native-plants mailing list
native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org