Positive Recommendations To The Coillte Case Study

Positive recommendation
Just as specific goals should be mentioned by the initiative so does the risk and scientific approach to calculating risk and making criteria. Their website mentions the use of scientific information to access criteria but did not outline what the procedures informed. The initiative should provide ecological assessment data should be provided for specific locations. Since geography and climate influence the use of pesticides, a one size fit all approach is not enough to support the policy. The rule for the north and south cannot be the same because of the difference in challenges. If the policy fails to recognize this difference and adjust the policy to meet forest manager situation, then there is a recognition injustice.
The derogation criteria have to be rechecked. The pesticide policy stated that stakeholders allow for derogation cases to pass through after specific assessment has been tested. However, in the Coillte case, this was not the result, extended periods with no deliberate decision cause the industry to continue to use this HHPs. To eliminate the problem of bias, an external agency should be responsible for handling all of the issue concerning assessment before derogation is granted. The ASI used to carry out this practice and offer feedback to stakeholders whether owners meet the requirements, but their role has been changed since then. They are now consultants to the certified holders. Including an unbiased third party that solely conducts assessments and offer derogation will be useful for creating accountability. FSC might fail to be stringent for the sake of customer satisfactory, but this third-party will help to manage one of the objectives of the