Publication: Does forest certification conserve biodiversity?
Does forest certification conserve biodiversity?
| dc.contributor.author | Gullison, R.E. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:57:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:57:23Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/924 | |
| dc.title | Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Forest certification provides a means by which producers who meet stringent sustainable forestry standards can identify their products in the marketplace, allowing them to potentially receive greater market access and higher prices for their products. An examination of the ways in which certification may contribute to biodiversity conservation leads to the following conclusions: 1) the process of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certification generates improvements to management with respect to the value of managed forests for biodiversity. 2) Current incentives are not sufficient to attract the majority of producers to seek certification, particularly in tropical countries where the costs of improving management to meet FSC guidelines are significantly greater than any market benefits they may receive; available incentives are even less capable of convincing forest owners to retain forest cover and produce certified timber on a sustainable basis, rather than deforesting their lands for timber and agriculture. 3) At present, current volumes of certified forest products are insufficient to reduce demand to log high conservation value forests. If FSC certification is to make greater inroads, particularly in tropical countries, significant investments will be needed both to increase the benefits and reduce the costs of certification. Conservation investors will need to carefully consider the biodiversity benefits that will be generated from such investments, versus the benefits generated from investing in more traditional approaches to biodiversity conservation | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Gullison, R.E., 2003. Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, 37(2), 153-165. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2003 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Copyrighted; all rights reserved | en |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Costs, obstacles, barriers to certification | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Biodiversity | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | High Conservation Values | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Deforestation, tree cover loss | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Unreported | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Company/certified entities /co-op data records | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Intergovernmental data (World Bank, UN, FAO data) | |
| is.evaluation.notes | It is analyzed if FSC certification conserve biodiversity compared to non-certified forest areas. The most important contribution of certification for that is improved forest management. Although other positive impacts like prevention of deforestation and the implementation of HCVFs result from FSC certification, but the share of tropical forests being certified was too small in 2003 that a positive impact on biodiversity could be stated. In consequence the paper suggests an easier access to certification and an higher benefits to make certification especially in tropical countries more attractive. | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Other resources - synthesis products | |
| is.evidenceType | Briefing or opinion | |
| is.extent.number | 2 | |
| is.extent.volume | 37 | |
| 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 | Forests and other ecosystems | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Consumers and supply chains | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Participant costs and benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Transnational governance | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Supply chain benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Ecosystem | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Deforestation and forest protection | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Ecosystem quality | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Market access | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Cost of inputs | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Consumer preferences | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605303000346 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international800 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Oryx |