Publication: High Conservation Value or High Confusion Value? Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics
High Conservation Value or High Confusion Value? Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics
| dc.contributor.author | Edwards, D.P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fisher, B. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wilcove, D.S. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:57:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:57:13Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/898 | |
| dc.language | en | |
| dc.rights | Public | |
| dc.rights | Open access | |
| dc.title | High Conservation Value or High Confusion Value? Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Green labeling of products that have been produced sustainably is an emerg- ing tool of the environmental movement. A prominent example is the Forest Stewardship Council, which certifies timber that is harvested to manage and maintain forests defined as having High Conservation Value (HCV). The cri- teria for HCV are now being applied to four rapidly expanding crops in the tropics: oil palm, soy, sugarcane, and cacao. However, these criteria do not pro- vide adequate protection for biodiversity when applied to agriculture. The only criterion that provides blanket protection to forests is one that protects large expanses of habitat (?20,000–500,000 ha, depending on the country). Absent of other HCVs, the collective clearing of forest patches below these thresh- olds could result in extensive deforestation that would be sanctioned with a green label. Yet such forest patches retain much biodiversity and provide con- nectivity within the agricultural matrix. An examination of forest fragments in biodiverse countries across the tropics shows that future agricultural de- mand can be met by clearing only forest patches below a 1,000 ha threshold. We recommend the development of a new HCV criterion that recognizes the conservation value of habitat patches within the agricultural matrix and that protects patches above 1,000 ha. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Edwards, D.P., Fisher, B. and Wilcove, D.S., 2012. High Conservation Value or high confusion value? Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation in the tropics. Conservation Letters, 5(1), pp.20-27 | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2012 | |
| dcterms.license | Copyrighted; all rights reserved | en |
| dcterms.other | Edwards, D.P., Fisher, B. and Wilcove, D.S., 2012. High Conservation Value or high confusion value? Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation in the tropics. Conservation Letters, 5(1), pp.20-27 | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC effect-related studies | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Plantation | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.tenureManagement | (not yet curated) | |
| fsc.focus.tenureOwnership | (not yet curated) | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | (not yet curated) | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Compositional diversity | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Private funds (NGOs, companies, VSS self-funded etc) | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Nigeria | |
| is.coverage.country | Brazil | |
| is.coverage.country | Indonesia | |
| is.coverage.country | Malaysia | |
| is.coverage.geographicLevel | Country | |
| is.coverage.latitude | 9.081999 | |
| is.coverage.latitude | -14.235004 | |
| is.coverage.latitude | -0.789275 | |
| is.coverage.latitude | 4.210484 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | 8.675277 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | -51.92528 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | 113.921327 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | 101.975766 | |
| is.coverage.region | (not yet curated) | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Focus groups | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Data by scheme / tool under evaluation | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Data collected post-intervention | |
| is.evidenceType | Comparative study with no matched control | |
| is.extent.pages | 20-27 | |
| is.extent.volume | 5 | |
| is.focus.products | Oil Palm | |
| is.focus.products | Sugarcane | |
| is.focus.products | Soy | |
| is.focus.products | Cacao | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 12 - Responsible Production and Consumption | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Consumers and supply chains | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Landscape approaches | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Sustainable sourcing | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2011.00209.x | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international528 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Conservation Letters |