Publication: Forest certification as a policy option in conserving biodiversity: An empirical study of forest management in Tanzania
Forest certification as a policy option in conserving biodiversity: An empirical study of forest management in Tanzania
| dc.contributor.author | Kalonga, S.K. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Midtgaard, F. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Klanderud, K. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:55:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:55:23Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/568 | |
| dc.title | Forest certification as a policy option in conserving biodiversity: An empirical study of forest management in Tanzania | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Forest certification management standards aim at maintaining forest ecosystem integrity, including for-est biodiversity conservation. However, studies from the Amazon and Congo basin find that forest certi-fication may not protect forest biodiversity and ecosystems, and may therefore be unsustainable. Thisstudy evaluates the influence of forest certification on conserving biodiversity. Specifically, we (a) esti-mate tree (adult and seedling) species richness, diversity and density among different forest managementregimes; (b) assess the relationship between environmental and human forest use variables, and speciesrichness, diversity and density among the forest management regimes; and (c) assess the influence of for-est governance of villages adjacent to the forests on tree (adult and seedling) species richness, diversityand density among the forest management regimes. This is achieved in a comparative study of ForestStewardship Council certified community forests, non-certified open access forests, and non-certifiedstate forest reserves in the Kilwa District in Tanzania.Our results show that forest certification standards and implementation processes are positivelyrelated to biodiversity conservation. There are significantly higher tree (adults) species richness, diver-sity, and density in certified community forests than in open access forests and state forest reserves.These findings suggest that forest certification may be a good policy option to conserve biodiversity.The present study is one of the first studies in tropical Africa, which contributes to the limited data onthe influence of forest certification on conserving biodiversity. Our results may also serve as baselinefor further research on the contribution of certified forests in conserving biodiversity at both temporaland spatial scales. | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Kalonga, S. K., F. Midtgaard, and K. Klanderud, 'Forest Certification as a Policy Option in Conserving Biodiversity: An Empirical Study of Forest Management in Tanzania', Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 361, 2016, pp. 1-12. | en |
| 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.forestZone | Tropical | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.focus.tenureManagement | Community | |
| fsc.inTransition | no | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.subject | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.subject | Ecosystem | |
| fsc.subject | Protected areas | |
| fsc.subject | Plant biodiversity | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Protected areas | |
| fsc.topic.environmental | Plant biodiversity | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Public | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | United Republic of Tanzania | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | TZ | |
| is.coverage.geographicLevel | Region | |
| is.coverage.latitude | -9.166896 | |
| is.coverage.longitude | 39.086718 | |
| is.coverage.place | Kilwa | |
| is.coverage.region | Southern Africa | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Field measurement | |
| is.evaluation.comparison | Treatment vs Control | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | Yes | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Independent researcher data | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Adult tree species richness was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forests under open access management regime. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Adult tree species richness was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forest reserves. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Adult tree species diversity was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forests under open access management regime. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Adult tree species diversity was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forest reserves. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Adult tree species density was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forests under open access management regime. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Adult tree species density was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forest reserves. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Species richness of regenerating trees was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forests under open access management regime. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | Species richness of regenerating trees was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forest reserves. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | The diversity of regenerating trees was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forests under open access management regime. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | The diversity of regenerating trees was higher in forests under FSC-certified community-based management than in forest reserves. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | The density of regenerating trees was similar in forests under FSC-certified community-based management and in forests under open access management regime. | |
| is.evaluation.findings | The density of regenerating trees was similar in forests under FSC-certified community-based management and in forest reserves. | |
| is.evaluation.outcome | yes | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The FSC standards, which are more stringent and more detailed than national laws, may serve as an incentive to comply with the bylaws or even to help enforce the laws. They are also regularly updated, controlled and verified through third party auditors. The national laws do not uphold as high a standard and are weakly implemented and verified (Petersen and Sandhövel, 2001). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The higher tree species diversity in the certified forests (FSC), as shown by high biomass of harvested trees, implies that forest use is less intense due to effective harvesting plans, corroborating certification audit reports which indicate gradual biodiversity maintenance and/or enhancement in the area (e.g. Soil Association, 2013). | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Human forest use practices related to forest certification appear to conserve biodiversity. There are higher biodiversity indicators (species richness, density and diversity) in FSC-certified community forests than in open access community forests (OCF) and state forest reserves (FRS). These findings suggest that forest certification may be a policy option to help conserve biodiversity. This implies that the adoption and incorporation of forest certification standards in the forest policy and legal framework, could be one of the sustainable forest management tools in conserving biodiversity in Tanzania and in the tropics as a whole. The certification experiences from certified community forests could then be extended to landscape level mosaics of forests under other uses, and to the various products they provide. Because of the sample size in this study, and the short duration of time the certification has been operational, it is hard to identify the precise effects of the certification. Nevertheless, our findings may serve as a baseline for future research at temporal and spatial scales on building up empirical evidence on the contribution of certified forests on conserving biodiversity. | |
| is.evaluation.scope | Study comparing a number of biodiversity indicators between FSC certified CBFM, non-certified open access forests and non-certified state forest reserves. Based on empirical data (transects/plots) and mixed methods, but small sample size. It uses counterfactuals (space and time, latter recall data), which may also present a limitation as well as the short time passed since start of certification (around 6 years). Include reference to this limitations wenn quoting. | |
| is.evaluation.significance | Statistically significant | |
| is.evidenceResourceType | Primary | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Empirical study - with matched control, data collected post-intervention | |
| is.evidenceSummary | This study assesses the impact of forest certification on the conservation of biodiversity. To do so the study looked at tree species richness, diversity and density and evaluated what the relationship between these variables and the environmental and human forest use are. Furthermore, it looked at the same variables of tree species richness, diversity and density and the influence of forest governance by adjoining villages on these variables. To do the assessment the study conducted a comparative study of Forest Stewardship Council certified community forests, non-certified open access forests and non-certified state forest reserves in Tanzania. | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.extent.pages | 1-12 | |
| is.extent.volume | 361 | |
| is.focus.products | Forestry products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 15 - Life on Land | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| 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 | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.034 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international682 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Forest Ecology and Management |