2009. Effects of Forest Certification on Biodiversity (original) (raw)
Related papers
Does forest certification conserve biodiversity?
Oryx, 2003
Forest certification provides a means by convincing forest owners to retain forest cover and produce certified timber on a sustainable basis, rather than which producers who meet stringent sustainable forestry
Biodiversity conservation in certified forests
2010
The loss and degradation of tropical forest have become issues of popular concern and political debate across the world. logging was once seen as the root of the problem but over the last three decades that view has altered somewhat. although the subject of logging remains contentious, and environmental nGos are divided, there is some acceptance that even though timber production remains a threat to the long-term viability of tropical forest biodiversity, it may also make a positive contribution. The promotion of socially and ecologically sound forest management-through forest certification 1-has changed the narrative. certification is now widely advocated as a strategy to conserve the world's forests and the biodiversity they contain. some consumers will pay a premium for products that promise "biodiversity friendly" forest management and some markets are closing to non-certified forest products. approximately 8% of global forest area has been certified under a variety of schemes (Fao 2009). one recent estimate suggests that approximately one quarter of global industrial roundwood now comes from certified forests (Fao 2009). most of these advances have occurred outside the tropics: less than 2% of forest area in african, asian and tropical american forests are certified. most certified forests (82%) are large and managed by the private sector (iTTo 2008). increasing the extent of certification in the tropics remains a goal for many organizations-including some international conservation nGos. so far, so good, but many details remain uncertain. only a fraction of the rich practical experience with forest certification and its impacts on the conservation of biodiversity is documented publicly. 2 Even less has been published in academic journals. among practitioners, forest managers, forestry nGos, auditors, and certifiers there is a great deal of information and wisdom that increase our understanding of certification impacts. This ETFrn news provides a forum for some of those involved in certification, from academia and from the practice, to air their views on the role of roderick Zagt works as a programme coordinator at Tropenbos international, the netherlands. Douglas sheil is director of the institute of Tropical Forest conservation of mbarara university of science and Technology, uganda and a research affiliate of ciFor in indonesia. Jack putz is a professor at the Department of Biology, university of Florida, usa. They have all worked in ecological aspects of pure and applied research and are jointly motivated by an interest in developing practical science-based solutions for responsible forest management in the tropics. Roderick Zagt v ETFRN NEws 51: sEpTEmbER 2010 vi biodivERsiTy coNsERvaTioN iN cERTiFiEd FoREsTs: aN ovERviEw vii ETFRN NEws 51: sEpTEmbER 2010 viii ETFRN NEws 51: sEpTEmbER 2010 x biodivERsiTy coNsERvaTioN iN cERTiFiEd FoREsTs: aN ovERviEw xi biodivERsiTy coNsERvaTioN iN cERTiFiEd FoREsTs: aN ovERviEw xiii ETFRN NEws 51: sEpTEmbER 2010 xiv biodivERsiTy coNsERvaTioN iN cERTiFiEd FoREsTs: aN ovERviEw xv ETFRN NEws 51: sEpTEmbER 2010 xvi Endnotes 1. In this introduction, we use the word "certification" to describe the implementation of forest management practices that are consistent with and certified against one of the recognized forest management standards. It is acknowledged that forest certification is a procedure to provide assurance of conformance to a certain quality, and can also be seen as a marketing instrument. 2. FSC (2009); van Kuijk, Putz and Zagt (2009); Newsom (2009); and Peña-Claros, Blommerde and Bongers (2009) discuss forest certification impacts from a variety of perspectives. There are several books on forest certification (e.g., Viana et al. 1996; Vogt et al. 2000; Nussbaum and Simula 2005); in addition, Auld, Gulbrandsen and McDermott (2008) provide a thorough overview of the development and impacts of forest certification schemes. 3. understandably, respondents who held this opinion were much more critical about impacts than others; 36% thought that losses tended to be too high and avoidable (compared to 14% of the remaining respondents), and relatively few (39%) found that losses were insignificant or acceptable, versus 62% of other respondents. 4. In the survey, 36% disagreed or disagreed strongly that certification had an effect on deforestation rates, and only 31% agreed. See Auld, Gulbrandsen and McDermott (2008) for a discussion. 5. They scored 3.91-4.11 on a scale of 1 to 5 of increasing effectiveness for biodiversity conservation. 6. This includes the cases of great apes and other wildlife in Republic of Congo (Poulsen and Clark 3.1; van Kreveld and Roerhorst 4.3); orangutans in Borneo (Bleaney 3.3 and van Kreveld and Roerhorst 4.3); birds and herpetofauna in Bolivia and forest remnants in Brazil (Price 4.1). 7. These scored 4.07 (inadequate baseline information, ranked 1); 4.04 (inadequate resources invested, ranked 2); and 3.91 (poor implementation quality, ranked 3) on a scale from 1 to 5. 8. These scored 3.38 and 3.45, respectively, on the same scale (ranked 13 and 15 out of 15 potential problems). 9. Ideally, according to respondents, experts should be most important in setting biodiversity conservation objectives (score 4.34 on a scale of importance of 1 to 5), followed by local people (4.19) and local NGOs (3.88). In practice, the order is local people (4.24) and experts (4.23) followed by local NGOs (3.96). Both in practice and in theory, timber consumers rank lowest by far in determining biodiversity objectives (2.97-3.37) among 10 identified stakeholder groups. References auld, G., l.h. Gulbrandsen and c.l. mcDermott. 2008. "certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 187-211. Blackman, a. and J. rivera. 2010. The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts of "sustainable" certification. rF Discussion paper 10-17 washington: resources for the Future. www.rff.org/documents/rFF-Dp-10-17.pdf.
Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry
Annual Review of …, 2008
Certification schemes have emerged in recent years to become a significant and innovative venue for standard setting and governance in the environmental realm. This review examines these schemes in the forest sector where, arguably, their development is among the most advanced of the sustainability labeling initiatives. Beginning with the origins, history, and features of schemes, the review synthesizes and assesses what we know about the direct effects and broader consequences of forest certification. Bearing in mind underlying factors affecting producers' decisions to certify, direct effects are examined by describing the uptake of schemes, the improvements to management of audited forests, and the ameliorative potential of certification for landscape-level concerns such as deforestation and forest protection. In assessing broader consequences, we look beyond the instrument itself to detail positive and negative unintended consequences, spillover effects, and longer-term and slow-moving effects that flow from the emergence of the certification innovation.
Forest Ecology and Management, 2016
Forest certification management standards aim at maintaining forest ecosystem integrity, including forest biodiversity conservation. However, studies from the Amazon and Congo basin find that forest certification may not protect forest biodiversity and ecosystems, and may therefore be unsustainable. This study evaluates the influence of forest certification on conserving biodiversity. Specifically, we (a) estimate tree (adult and seedling) species richness, diversity and density among different forest management regimes; (b) assess the relationship between environmental and human forest use variables, and species richness, diversity and density among the forest management regimes; and (c) assess the influence of forest governance of villages adjacent to the forests on tree (adult and seedling) species richness, diversity and density among the forest management regimes. This is achieved in a comparative study of Forest Stewardship Council certified community forests, non-certified open access forests, and non-certified state forest reserves in the Kilwa District in Tanzania.
Forest certification--an instrument to promote sustainable forest management?
Journal of environmental management, 2003
Forest certification was introduced in the early 1990s to address concerns of deforestation and forest degradation and to promote the maintenance of biological diversity, especially in the tropics. Initially pushed by environmental groups, it quickly evolved as a potential ...
Assessment of Forest Certification as a Tool to Support Forest Ecosystem Services
Forests
Certification provides a way to demonstrate the positive impacts of sustainable forest management (SFM) on ecosystem services. Ecosystem services provide society with a wide range of benefits, from clean water and carbon sequestration to the production of wood and non-wood products. This study evaluates forest owners’ and managers’ perceptions of forest certification as a tool to support SFM and forest ecosystem services in Slovakia. The questionnaire survey focused on the understanding of the concept of SFM, the objectives of forest certification schemes, and especially on the examination of the perceptions of 288 PEFC- and FSC-certified forest owners and managers on how forest certification helps to support individual ecosystem services. Among the important factors influencing the level of understanding of forest certification and its role in ensuring forest ecosystem services is the size of the managed forest area and the implemented certification scheme. The results of this stud...