The role of forest certification for biodiversity conservation: Lithuania as a case study
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Marine Elbakidze ; Rita Ražauskaitė ; Michael Manton…
- 关键词：Sustainable forest management ; Formally protected forest ; Voluntary set ; aside ; Structural connectivity ; Functional connectivity ; Indicator for biodiversity conservation ; Green infrastructure
- 刊名：European Journal of Forest Research
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：April 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：135
- 期：2
- 页码：361-376
- 全文大小：1,513 KB
- 参考文献：Alves RR, Jacovine LAG, Silva ML (2011) Forest plantations and the protection of native forests in certified management units in Brazil. Recista Arvore Vicosa-MG 35(4):859–866CrossRef
Andersson L, Kriukelis R, Skuja S (2005) Woodland key habitat inventory in Lithuania (in Lithuanian, Kertinių Miško buveinių inventorizacija Lietuvoje). VĮ Valstybinis miškotvarkos institutas, Kaunas, pp 56–57
Andrén H (1997) Habitat fragmentation and changes in biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:171–181
Angelstam P (1998) Maintaining and restoring biodiversity by developing natural disturbance regimes in European boreal forest. J Veg Sci 9(4):593–602CrossRef
Angelstam P, Kuuluvainen T (2004) Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures—a European perspective. Ecol Bull 51:117–136
Angelstam P, Breuss M, Mikusinski G (2001) Toward the assessment of forest biodiversity at the scale of forest management units—a European landscape perspective. In: Franc A, Laroussinie O, Karajalainen T (eds) Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level. European Forest Institute, Nancy, pp 59–74
Angelstam P, Boutin S, Schmiegelow F, Villard MA, Drapeau P, Host G, Innes J, Isachenko G, Kuuluvainen M, Mönkkönen M, Niemelä J, Niemi G, Roberge JM, Spence J, Stone D (2004a) Targets for boreal forest biodiversity conservation—a rationale for macroecological research and adaptive management. Ecol Bull 51:487–509
Angelstam P, Dönz-Breuss M, Roberge JM (2004b) Targets and tools for the maintenance of forest biodiversity—an introduction. Ecol Bull 51:11–24
Angelstam P, Roberge JM, Lõhmus A, Bergmanis M, Brazaitis G, Dönz-Breuss M, Edenius L, Kosinski Z, Kurlavicius P, Lārmanis V, Lūkins M, Mikusinski G, Račinskis E, Strazds M, Tryjanowski P (2004c) Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation—a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecol Bull 51:427–453
Angelstam P, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Jonsson BG, Roberge JM (2011) Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fen 45(5):1111–1133
Angelstam P, Roberge J, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Bergman KO, Dahlberg A, Degerman E, Eggers S, Esseen PA, Hjältén J, Johansson T, Müller J, Paltto H, Snäll T, Soloviy I, Törnblom J (2013) Evidence-based knowledge versus negotiated indicators for assessment of ecological sustainability: the Swedish Forest Stewardship Council standard as a case study. Ambio 42:229–240CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
Antongiovanni M, Metzger J (2005) Influence of matrix habitats on the occurrence of insectivorous bird species in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 122(3):441–451CrossRef
Auld G, Gulbrandsen L, McDermott C (2008) Certification schemes and the impacts of forests and forestry. Annu Rev Environ Res 33:9.1–9.25
Aune K, Jonsson BJ, Moen J (2005) Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv 124:89–95CrossRef
Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture of old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manag 258:525–537CrossRef
Bennett EL (2001) The joint effort of timber certification. Conserv Biol 15(2):318–319CrossRef
Bohn U, Neuhäusl R, unter Mitarbeit von/with contributions by Gollub G, Hettwer C et al (2000/2003) Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. Maßstab/Scale 1: 2 500 000. Münster (Landwirtschaftsverlag)
Bollmann K, Braunisch V (2013) To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, pp 18–31
Brazaitis G, Angelstam P (2004) Influence of edges between old deciduous forest and clearcuts on the abundance of passerine hole-nesting birds in Lithuania. Ecol Bull 51:209–217
Brazaitis G, Roberge JM, Angelstam P, Marozas V, Pėtelis K (2005) Age-related effects of clearcut—old forest edges on bird communities in Lithuania. Scan J For Res 20(6):59–68CrossRef
Brown N, Noss R, Diamond D, Myers M (2001) Conservation biology and forest certification: working together toward ecological sustainability. J Forest August 18–25
Brukas V, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Sallnäs O (2013) Forest ecology and management linking forest management, policy and biodiversity indicators–a comparison of Lithuania and Southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 291:181–189CrossRef
Brumelis G, Jonsson BG, Kouki J, Kuuluvainen T, Shorohova E (2011) Forest naturalness in northern Europe: perspectives on processes, structures and species diversity. Silva Fennica 45(5):807–821CrossRef
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond RE et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328(5982):1164–1168CrossRef PubMed
Cabarle B, Brown N, Cesareo K (2000) Integrating protected areas, plantations, and certification. J Sustain For 21(4):15–34CrossRef
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010) The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on biological diversity, 29 October 2010, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2
Dias FS, Bugalho MN, Cerdeira JO (2013) Is forest certification targeting areas of high biodiversity in cork oak savannas? Biodivers Conserv 22(1):93–112CrossRef
Directorate general of state forests (2007) Regulation (In Lithuanian, Nuostatai) Accessed 2014.03.02. http://www.gmu.lt/gmu_nuostatai/
Directorate general of state forests (2013) Forest certification. (In Lithuanian, Miškų tvarkymo sertifikavimas) Accessed 2014.01.29 http://www.gmu.lt/misku_tvarkymo_sertifikavimas/
Edenius L, Sjöberg K (1997) Distribution of birds in natural landscape mosaics of old-growth forests in northern Sweden, relations to habitat area and landscape context. Ecography 20:425–431CrossRef
Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Andersson K, Nordberg M, Pautov Y (2011) How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia. For Ecol Manag 262(11):1983–1995CrossRef
Eriksson S, Hammer M (2006) The challenge of combining timber production and biodiversity conservation for long-term ecosystem functioning—a case study of Swedish boreal forestry. For Ecol Manag 237:208–217CrossRef
Esseen PA, Renhorn KE (1998) Edge effects on an epiphytic lichen in fragmented forests. Conserv Biol 126:1307–1317CrossRef
Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74CrossRef
FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, Main report. FAO forestry paper. Accessed 2014.01.29. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf
Forest law of the Republic of Lithuania (In Lithuanian, Lietuvos Respublikos miškų įstatymas) (1994) Vilnius. (Nr. I-671)
FSC (2012a) FSC international standard. FSC principles and criteria for forest Stewardship. Fsc-std-01-001 (version 4-0) en. Accessed 2014.06.09. https://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-criteria.34.htm
FSC (2012b) FSC international standard. FSC principles and criteria for forest Stewardship. FSC-std-01-001 (version 5-0) en. Accessed 2014.06.30. https://ic.fsc.org/preview.revised-fsc-pc-v5-0-fsc-std-01-001-low-resolution.a-870.pdf
FSC (2014) Facts & Figures. Accessed 2014.01.30. https://ic.fsc.org/facts-figures.19.htm
Ghazoul J (2001) Barriers to biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 15(2):315–317CrossRef
Gulbrandsen LH (2004) Overlapping public and private governance: Can forest certiacation fill the gaps in the global forest regime? Glob Environ Politics 4(2):75–99CrossRef
Gulbrandsen LH (2005) The effectiveness of non-state governance schemes: a comparative study of forest certification in Norway and Sweden. Int Environ Agreem Pol Law Econ 5(2):125–149
Gullison RE (2003) Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx 37(2):153–165CrossRef
Gustafsson L, Baker S, Bauhus J, Beese W et al (2012) Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience 62(7):633–645CrossRef
Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV (2010) Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. PRNAS 107(19):8650–8655CrossRef
Hanski I (2008) The world that became ruined. EMBO Rep 9:S34–S36CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
Hess G, King T (2002) Planning open spaces for wildlife. I. Selecting focal species using a Delphi survey approach. Landscape Urban Plan 58:25–40CrossRef
Hirzel AH, Helfer V, Metral F (2001) Assessing habitat suitability models with a virtual species. Ecol Model 145:111–121CrossRef
Jansson G, Andrén H (2003) Habitat composition and bird diversity in managed boreal forests. Scand J Forest Res 18:225–236CrossRef
Jansson G, Angelstam P (1999) Thresholds of landscape composition for the presence of the long-tailed tit in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecol 14:283–290CrossRef
Johansson J, Lidestav G (2011) Forest policy and economics can voluntary standards regulate forestry? Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. For Policy Econ 13(3):191–198CrossRef
Karazija S (1998) Forest types in Lithuania (in Lithuanian, Lietuvos miško tipai). Vilnius, Mokslas, pp 46–48
Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Land Ecol 23:879–890
Kurlavicius P, Kuuba R, Lukins M, Mozgeris G, Tolvanen P, Angelstam P, Karjalainen H, Walsh M (2004) Identifying high conservation value forests in the Baltic states from forest databases. Ecol Bull 51:351–366
Laasimer L, Kuusk V, Tabaka L, Lekavičius A (eds) (1993) Flora of the Baltic countries: compendium of vascular plants, vol 1. Estonian Agricultural University, Institute of Zoology and Botany, Tartu 362
Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11(4):849–856CrossRef
Larsson TB, Angelstam P, Balent G et al (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecol Bull 50
Lazdinis M, Carver A, Lazdinis I, Paulikas VK (2009) From union to union: forest governance in a post-soviet political system. Environ Sci Policy 12:309–320CrossRef
Linnell J, Promberger C, Boitani L, Swenson JE, Breitenmoser U, Andersen R (2005) The linkage between conservation strategies for large carnivores and biodiversity: the view from the “half-full” forests of Europe. In: Ray J, Redford K, Steneck R, Berger J (eds) Large carnivores and biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 381–399
Lithuanian Fund for Nature (2014) Stimulation of private forest certification in Lithuania (2002–2005) (in Lithuanian, Privačių miškų sertifikavimo skatinimas Lietuvoje). Accessed 2014.02.05. http://glis.lt/en/?pid=24&proj_id=35
Long JN (2009) Emulating natural disturbance regimes as a basis for forest management: a North American view. For Ecol Manag 257:1868–1873CrossRef
MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington
Manton M, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2005) Modelling habitat suitability for deciduous forest focal species—a sensitivity analysis using different satellite land cover data. Land Ecol 20:827–839CrossRef
McNab BK (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat 97:133–140CrossRef
Meffe G, Carroll C (1994) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland
Menges ES (1991) The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. In: Falk D, Holsinger K (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 45–61
Mikusiński G, Edenius L (2006) Assessment of spatial functionality of old forest in Sweden as habitat for virtual species. Scand J For Res 21(1):73–83CrossRef
Ministry of Environment (2006) Lithuanian forestry policy and strategy (In Lithuanian, Lietuvos miškų ūkio politika ir jos įgyvendinimo strategija). Accessed 2014.03.12. http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=4997
Ministry of Environment (2007) What is Natura 2000? (In Lithuanian, Kas yra Natura 2000?) Accessed 2014.02.27. http://www.am.lt/VI/index.php#a/6802
Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62CrossRef PubMed
Niemelä J (1997) Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv Biol 11(3):601–610CrossRef
Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115(2–3):135–146CrossRef
OECD (1993) Core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews: a synthesis report by the group on the state of the environment. Environment monographs, vol 83. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
Opdam P (2006). Ecosystem networks: a spatial concept for integrative research and planning of landscapes. In: Tress B, Tres G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning, pp 51–65. Springer
Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landsc Ecol 18:113–126CrossRef
Ostapowicz K, Vogt P, Ritters K, Kozak J, Estreguil C (2008) Impact of scale on morphological spatial pattern of forest. Landsc Ecol 23:1107–1117CrossRef
PEFC (2014) PEFC council information register. http://www.pefcregs.info/RESULT1.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=20&TYPE_OF_CERTIFICATION=_&ORGANISATION_NAME=&CERTIFICATION_NUMBER=&CERTIFICATION_BODY_NAME=_&fstatus=valid&B1=Search+nowBrownN . Accessed 29 January 2014
PEFC Lietuva (2008) PEFC lithuanian (In Lithuanian, PEFC Lietuva). http://www.forest.lt/pefc/PEFC_Lietuva.htm . Accessed 2 February 2014
Pekarskienė I, Susnienė R (2012) Baltic countries globalization sectorial analysis (in Lithuanian, Baltijos šalių atskirų ūkio šakų globalizacijos lygio vertinimas). Econ Manag 17(2):547–553
Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience 50(2):133–146CrossRef
Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L, Niculae I, Cucu A, Hartel T (2014) Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU’s Natura 2000 network. PLoS One 9(11):e113648CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
Prakash A, Potoski M (2012) Voluntary environmental programs: a comparative perspective. J Policy Anal Manag 31(1):123–138CrossRef
Putz FE, Romero C (2001) Biologists and timber certification. Conserv Biol 15(2):313–314CrossRef
Rainforest Alliance (2013) Lithuania Interim FM Standard. Accessed 2014.02.18. http://www.nepcon.net/files/resource_1/documents/LITHUANIA/Rainforest%20Alliance%20Lithuania%20Interim%20Standard%20FM-32%20LIT.pdf
Rametsteiner E, Simula M (2003) Forest certification—An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J Environ Manag 67(1):87–98CrossRef
Roberg JM, Lämås T, Lundmark T, Ranius T, Felton A, Nordin A (2015) Relative contribution of set-asides and tree retention to the long-term availability of key forest biodiversity structures at the landscape scale. J Environ Manag 154:284–292CrossRef
Roberge JM, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18(1):76–85CrossRef
Roberge JM, Bengtsson SBK, Wulff S, Snäll T (2011) Edge creation and tree dieback influence the patch-tracking metapopulation dynamics of a red-listed epiphytic bryophyte. J Appl Ecol 48:650–658CrossRef
Ruževičius J (2008) Lithuanian forestry certification analysis (in Lithuanian, Lietuvos miškų sertifikavimo sistemos analizė). Ekonomika ir vadyba 13:834–841
Sasser EN, Prakash A, Cashore B, Auld G (2006) Direct targeting as an NGO political strategy: examining private authority regimes in the forestry sector. Bus Politics 8(3):1–34CrossRef
Schulz T, Krumm F, Bücking W, Frank G, Kraus D, Lier M, Lovrić M, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Paillet Y, Parviainen J, Vacchiano G, Vandekerkhove K (2014) Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants. Biodivers Conserv 23:3425–3450CrossRef
Soille P, Vogt P (2009) Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recogn Lett 30:456–459CrossRef
State Forest Service (2014) Lithuanian statistical yearbook of forestry 2013. Lututė, Vilnius, pp 55–56
Store R, Jokimäki J (2003) A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modelling. Ecol Model 169:1–15CrossRef
Svancara LK, Brannon R, Scott JM, Groves CR, Noss RF, Pressey RL (2005) Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience 55(11):989–995CrossRef
Timonen J, Siitonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Stokland JN, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Mönkkönen M (2010) Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scand J For Res 25(4):309–324CrossRef
Vogt P (2016) GuidosToolbox (Graphical User Interface for the Description of Image Objects and their Shapes): Digital image analysis software collection available at the following web site: http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/software/guidos
Vogt P, Riitters K, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade T, Wickham J (2007a) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc Ecol 22:171–177CrossRef
Vogt P, Riitters K, Iwanowski M, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Soille P (2007b) Mapping landscape corridors. Ecol Ind 7(2):481–488CrossRef
Vogt P, Ferrari J, Lookingbill T, Gardner R, Riitters K, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Ind 9:64–71CrossRef
With K, King A (1999) Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conserv Biol 13:314–326CrossRef
Wolfslehner B, Vacik H (2008) Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the analytic network process in a pressure-state-response framework. J Environ Manag 88(1):1–10CrossRef - 作者单位：Marine Elbakidze (1)
Rita Ražauskaitė (1)
Michael Manton (1) (2)
Per Angelstam (1)
Gintautas Mozgeris (3)
Guntis Brūmelis (4)
Gediminas Brazaitis (2)
Peter Vogt (5)
1. Faculty of Forest Sciences, School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, 73921, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden
2. Faculty of Forest Science and Ecology, Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, 53361, Akademija, Kaunas, Lithuania
3. Faculty of Forest Science and Ecology, Institute of Forest Management and Wood Science, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, 53361, Akademija, Kaunas, Lithuania
4. Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Jelgavas iela 1, Riga, 1004, Latvia
5. Forest Resources and Climate Unit, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES), 21027, Ispra, Italy - 刊物主题：Forestry; Plant Sciences; Plant Ecology;
- 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- ISSN：1612-4677
文摘
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) forest certification system is a globally widespread market-driven mechanism that aims at responsible use and governance of forests, and its application is growing. However, the extent to which forest certification contributes effectively to maintaining forest biodiversity is an unresolved issue. We assessed the role of FSC certification for forest biodiversity conservation in Lithuania’s state forests. First, we analysed the indicators related to biodiversity conservation at different spatial scales in the FSC standard used in Lithuania. By applying morphological spatial pattern analysis and habitat suitability modelling, we explored the structural and functional connectivity of forest habitat patches of formally and voluntarily set-asides for biodiversity conservation. According to the Lithuanian FSC standard, active measures in forest management for biodiversity should be imposed at three spatial scales: ‘trees in a stand’, ‘stands in a landscape’, and ‘landscape in an ecoregion’. The total area set aside for biodiversity was 18.6 %, including 4.9 % voluntary set-asides. The quality of habitats in terms of forest stand age was low, only 9.4 % of all set-asides constituted older forests. The proportions of voluntary set-aside area varied among the different state forest enterprises, and the results indicated a clear trend to set aside non-forest or low productivity forest habitats. Small (<1 ha) habitat patches formed a major part of all set-asides, including formally protected areas. FSC certification alone was not able to maintain structural and functional connectivity of forests for species at multiple spatial scales in Lithuania. By keeping a minimum standard of 5 % forestland set aside for biodiversity, the state forest enterprises certified according to the FSC can only satisfy forest species with small habitat requirements. To maintain biodiversity, place-based learning among stakeholders for representative functional green infrastructures in concrete landscapes and regions, combined with transparent knowledge about the net effect of pressures and responses on the state of biodiversity, are necessary.