2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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 funct… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
57
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
(82 reference statements)
2
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…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.…”
Section: Edge Influencesupporting
confidence: 57%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…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.…”
Section: Edge Influencesupporting
confidence: 57%
“…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).…”
Section: Mature Forest Influencementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…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.…”
Section: The Paper Reality Of Forest Certificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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).…”
Section: Level 2 Management Changes Induced By Forest Certificationmentioning
confidence: 99%