Publication: Biodiversity conservation in certified forests
Biodiversity conservation in certified forests
| dc.contributor.author | Sheil, D. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Zagt, Roderick J. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:18Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:18Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/750 | |
| dc.title | Biodiversity conservation in certified forests | en |
| dcterms.abstract | 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 certification1 — 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. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Sheil, D., Putz, F.E. and Zagt, R.J., 2010. Biodiversity conservation in certified forests. ETFRN News, (51) | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2010 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Copyrighted; all rights reserved | en |
| dcterms.publisher | Tropenbos International | |
| dcterms.type | Report | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.forestType | Natural Forest | |
| fsc.focus.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | High Conservation Values | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Carbon | |
| fsc.subject | Ecological Impacts | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | HCVF | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Water Pollution | |
| fsc.subject | Biodiversity | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Public funds (government, EU funding, public research grants) | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | PE | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | TZ | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | ID | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Company/certified entities /co-op data records | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Focus groups | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Intergovernmental data (World Bank, UN, FAO data) | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Independent researcher data | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This ETFRN Issue focusses on biodiversity conservation in certified forests and comprises multiple contributions ranging from studies on methodology of biodiversity monitoring to case studies of on the topic in the field (Cameroon, Congo Basin, Amazon, Indonesia, Tanzania and Peru) | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | there was a general trend towards lower population density with increased human disturbance. The Pristine site had the highest density estimate. The two logging concessions had the next highest density estimates, with the FSC-logged site having a slightly higher estimate. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Our estimates of density in the two logging concessions (FSC-logged and Logged) were the 2nd and 3rd highest among our study sites, confirming that golden cats can reach important densities in forests structurally impacted by commercial timber exploitation. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | van Kreveld and Roerhorst (2009) found that apes, including gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos, benefit from FSC-certification due to the FSC requirements to block and guard roads to reduce poaching, as well as protect fruiting trees. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The authors mention that “both logging concessions included in this study were within 10 km of a national park boundary and it is as yet unclear how disturbance would affect an isolated golden cat population away from a large source population within a protected area.” This parameter weakens the power of the conclusion at it is difficult to solely attribute the high cat density in the FSC-certified concession to the certification itself. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | our findings that golden cats can be found at relatively high densities within well- managed logging concessions suggests that these areas should also be considered important for conservation efforts, including post- extraction management to avoid further human encroachment of forests that have been made accessible by logging activities. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Monitoring flora and fauna is one way to measure certification impacts, at leastwithin certified forests. However, the opinions on the usefulness of current monitoringprogrammes required by certifiers are divided. CARs related to monitoring were commonamong FMUs (Peña-Claros and Bongers 4.5) and the majority (81%) of respondentsagreed that the quality of monitoring programmes should be improved. Only 45% ofthe respondents considered the data generated from monitoring programmes to be veryuseful, while the 48% thought they were somewhat useful. When asked about the mainproblems associated with monitoring, respondents indicated that monitoring effortssuffered from inadequate baseline information, insufficient investment of resources andpoor implementation.7 The adequacy of statistical designs and the involvement of expertswere among the least important concerns identified by respondents. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | 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. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The analyses and judgments reported in this issue of ETFRN News suggestthat certification has helped reduce biodiversity loss in the tropics. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | For the almost 20% who disagreed or disagreed strongly, the most common reason wasthe limited area of certified natural forest in the tropics, which remains too small to makea meaningful contribution to conservation. | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Descriptive information - contextual and operational | |
| is.evidenceType | Descriptive information | |
| is.extent.volume | 51 | |
| is.focus.products | Other forestry and logging | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Plant and wildlife conservation | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Ecosystem | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Species composition | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international628 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.journalName | ETFRN | |
| is.link.url | http://www.etfrn.org/file.php/17/etfrn_51-web.pdf |