How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia

Abstract

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is one of the leading forest certification schemes. While many studies concern political aspects and social outcomes of FSC, little is known about the contribution of certification to biodiversity conservation. In Europe, the Russian Federation and Sweden have the largest areas of FSC certified forest. We assessed the potential of FSC certification for boreal biodiversity conservation in terms of standard content, and outcomes as habitat area set aside and habitat network functionality. First, we compared the biodiversity conservation indicators at different spatial scales in Swedish and Russian FSC standards. Second, focusing on one large state forest management unit in each country, we compared the areas of formally and voluntarily set aside forests for biodiversity conservation. Third, we evaluated the structural habitat connectivity by applying morphological spatial pattern analysis, and potential functional connectivity by using habitat suitability index modelling for virtual species. The Russian standard included indicators for all spatial scales of biodiversity conservation, from tree and stand to landscape and ecoregions. The Swedish standard focused mainly on stand and tree scales. The area of voluntary set-asides for FSC was similar in Sweden and Russia, while formal protection in the Russian case study was three times higher than in the Swedish one. Swedish set-aside core areas were two orders of magnitude smaller, had much lower structural and potential functional connectivity and were located in a fragmented forestland holding. We conclude that to understand the potential of FSC certification for biodiversity conservation both the standard content, and its implementation on the ground, need to be assessed. We discuss the potential of FSC certification for biodiversity conservation with different levels of ambition. We stress the need for developing rapid assessment tools to evaluate outcomes of FSC for biodiversity conservation on the ground, which could be used by forest managers and FSC-auditors toward adaptive governance and management.

Landscape Structure and Mature Forest Biodiversity in Wet Eucalypt Forests: A Spatial Analysis of Timber Production Areas in South-Eastern Australia

“…A considerable proportion of structurally mature patches (27%-38%) within the three study areas had no roads or harvested areas within 25 m and the proportion of unaffected patches declined only slightly (24%-32%) when the buffer distance was extended to 50 m (relevant to ground-active beetles in streamside reserves [59]). The change in non-edge affected patches with increasing edge buffer width was comparable with two production forest landscapes with contrasting forestry histories in Sweden and Russia [71]. Very few (~11%) had more than 50% of their area within 25 m of roads or harvested patches.…”

“…Knowledge of the spatial scales of biodiversity responses from empirical studies can provide a framework for interpreting results of GIS-based analyses [71]. In Tasmania, the depth of mature forest influence into harvested coupes varies markedly amongst communities of birds [25], beetles [26], vascular plants [24], and bryophytes [21], and increases as the regenerating forest ages (see Figure 1).…”

“…Reviews of surrounding habitat cover required by biodiversity in forested landscapes show marked variation across species and regions, but identify 10%-30% cover as a practical guide for land managers [71,77,78]. In Tasmania, mature-forest-associated species of birds and plants reached levels of occurrence in silvicultural regeneration that were comparable with mature eucalypt forests when their 1000 m surrounding landscape contained~20%-30% cover of mature eucalypt forest [19].…”

We Can't See the Forest for the TreesThe Environmental Impact of Global Forest Certification Is Unknown

“…We only found a few recent scientific field studies that measure the effectiveness of forest certifica tion on the ground or use datasets of primary data for their evaluation (Johansson and Lidestav 2011, Elbakidze et al 2011, Sverdrup-Thygeson et al 2008. All other studies reviewed for this forum incorporate only indirect evidence from the field.…”

The Impact of International Cooperative Initiatives on Biodiversity (ICIBs)

“…According to these authors, certification has clearly contributed to practical improvements and is not just a confirmation of already existing management practices. For instance, the identification of HCVAs in certified concession can be labelled as an impact, as they are additional to the areas under formal national biodiversity protection policies (Elbakidze et al 2011). There is also other evidence from comparative and experimental casestudies that show positive biodiversity changes in response to certified management (see level 3 cases).…”