[MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes
Center for Sustainable Resources
sustainableresources at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 5 09:36:31 CST 2004
Before asking these questions you would need to ask why you would want such
a certification?, if this process is constitutional, what people outside
your little circle of influence think of it.
Who does this process stand to benefit? Probably no one unless you work for
a government agency that wants to control people. Stakeholders include
primarily growers and buyers because they have a stake in such products.
Consumers have little to no stake in this. Such a process would put unfair
stipulations on property ownership and the property owner's pursuit of
happiness, and would be unconstitutional in this country unless done
volintarily, even then would be bias and be about political agenda only.
What is needed is less certification, less regulation, less government, more
democracy, incentives to produce the stuff intentionally ( if you want to
pay someone for something then you are buying the right to say how you want
it), less attacking by environmentalist and other people who don't have a
stake in this. Fred Hays
>From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
>To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>CC: stephen.rae at gmail.com
>Subject: [MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:36:19 -0500
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MPWG mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Disclaimer
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc.
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information
>that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the
>individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not
>reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation
>Alliance.
More information about the MPWG
mailing list