Publication: The role of forest certification for biodiversity conservation: Lithuania as a case study
The role of forest certification for biodiversity conservation: Lithuania as a case study
| dc.contributor.author | Elbakidze, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ražauskaitė, R. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Manton, M.l | |
| dc.contributor.author | Angelstam, P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mozgeris, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bramelis, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Brazaitis, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Vogt, P. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:11Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:11Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/728 | |
| dc.title | The role of forest certification for biodiversity conservation: Lithuania as a case study | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.issued | 2016 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.tenureOwnership | Public | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fscdoc.intransition | no | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | Lithuania | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | LT | |
| is.coverage.region | Europe | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This study focuses on the effect of FSC certification on biodiversity conservation in Lithuania by comparing previously legally protected forests with voluntary set-aside forests following FSC requirements. The comparison is based on the area, and the structural and functional connectivity of those forests at different spatial scales. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | After looking at the 36 FSC indicators that aim at biodiversity conservation, the authors concluded that “there were no indicators relevant to the scale of ecoregion”. However, forest management / FSC certification is not implemented at that scale in Lithuania simply because of the socio-ecological context of the country and the associated lack of large forests. So the conclusions linked to a lack of ambition from FSC to implement biodiversity conservation at that scale are irrelevant. E.g. “There will be no functional habitats for species requiring a habitat area of 1000 ha in any forest types, except pine and mixed coniferous forests”. But the authors do not specify if such functional habitats do actually exist in the country. And this depends on historical decisions from the government. The same issue is found for Old forests which are said to be underrepresented in forest areas aimed at conservation. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The authors do not directly evaluate the implementation of the 36 FSC indicators aimed at biodiversity conservation. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusion on the actual impact of FSC on the ground by just looking at forest area and connectivity. This surely provides information but might be too much of a shortcut to generalize | |
| is.evaluation.notes | “We argue that the FSC standard demonstrates a clear mismatch with current evidence-based knowledge related to biodiversity conservation.” This conclusion should be pondered as 1) biodiversity conservation is not simply assured with set-aside areas but also with specific measures to be implemented in logged areas (Cf 36 indicators), which are however not discussed here. And 2), at a higher level, FSC's goal is to find a compromise between biodiversity conservation and socio-economical valuation. It is not a conservation organization. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Some potential negative impacts should however be noted:-“the total area of formally protected forests within the state forest enterprises was much higher than the area of voluntary set-asides” -“the formally protected areas provided greater (functional) habitat connectivity of all forest types in comparison with voluntary set-asides.” | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.extent.pages | 361-376 | |
| is.extent.volume | 135 | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-0940-4 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international597 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | European Journal of Forest Research |