Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 93–112 | Cite as

Is forest certification targeting areas of high biodiversity in cork oak savannas?

  • Filipe S. DiasEmail author
  • Miguel N. Bugalho
  • J. Orestes Cerdeira
  • M. João Martins
Original Paper

Abstract

Over the last four decades the world has been losing biodiversity at an alarming rate despite the increasing number of protected areas (PAs). Certified forest management may complement the role of PAs in protecting biodiversity. Forest certification aims to promote sustainable forest management and to maintain or enhance the conservation value of certified forests. The area of forest under certified forest management has grown quickly over the past decade. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, for example, currently covers 148 million hectares, i.e., 3.7 % of the world’s forests. In spite of such increase there is, however, a dearth of information on how forest certification is related to biodiversity. In this study we assessed if FSC certification is being applied in high biodiversity areas in cork oak savannas in Portugal by comparing biodiversity values of certified and non-certified areas for birds, reptiles and amphibians. We calculated the relative species richness and irreplaceability value for each group of species in certified and non-certified areas and compared them using randomization tests. The biodiversity value of certified areas was not significantly greater than that of non-certified areas. Since FSC certification is expanding quickly in cork oak savannas it is important to consider the biodiversity value of these areas during this process. Prioritizing areas of high biodiversity value would enhance the conservation value of forest certification and facilitate integrating certification with other conservation initiatives.

Keywords

Forest management Biodiversity conservation Conservation strategies Mediterranean Species richness Irreplaceability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors were supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). FSD was supported by a PhD grant (SFRH/BD/69021/2010), MB was funded by the project PEst-OE/AGR/UI520/2011 and JOC and MJM were funded by the project PEst-OE/AGR/UI0239/2011. We thank ICNF and Luis Costa of SPEA for providing the biodiversity data and to Diogo Alagador for his comments on a previous draft of the manuscript and for his help with CPLEX. We also thank the two anonymous referees for their helpful and insightful comments that substantially improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Araújo MB, Lobo JM, Moreno JC (2007) The effectiveness of Iberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Conserv Biol 21:1423–1432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auld G, Gulbrandsen LH, McDermott CL (2008) Certification. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autoridade Florestal Nacional (2010) Final report of the 5th national forest inventory. Autoridade Florestal Nacional, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo-Ramos CO, Carvalho O Jr, Amaral BD (2006) Short-term effects of reduced-impact logging on eastern Amazon fauna. Forest Ecol Manag 232:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berrahmouni N, Regato P, Ellatifi M, et al. (2009) Ecoregional planning for biodiversity conservation. In: Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (eds) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, management, and restoration, Island, St. Louis, pp 203–217Google Scholar
  6. Brown NR, Noss RF, Diamond DD, Myers MN (2001) Conservation biology and forest certification working together toward ecological sustainability. J For 88:18–25Google Scholar
  7. Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS et al (2011) Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 9:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bugalho MN, Plieninger T, Aronson J et al (2009) Open woodlands: a diversity of uses (and overuses), adaptive management and restoration. In: Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (eds) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology. Island, St.Louis, pp 33–47Google Scholar
  9. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabral MJ, Almeida J, Almeida PR et al (2006) Livro vermelho dos vertebrados de portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza/Assírio & Alvim, Lisboa, p 660Google Scholar
  11. CBD (2010) global biodiversity outlook 3. convention on biological diversity, Montreal, CA, http://www.cbd.int/gbo3/. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  12. Carwardine J, Rochester WA, Richardson KS et al (2006) Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodivers Conserv 16:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catry P, Costa H, Elias G, Matias R (2010) Aves de Portugal - Ornitologia do Território Continental. Assírio & Alvim, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  14. Coelho IS (2003) Propriedade da Terra e Política Florestal em Portugal. Silva Lusitana 11:185–199Google Scholar
  15. Diaz M, Campos P, Pulido FG (1997) The Spanish dehesas: a diversity of land uses and wildlife. In: Pain D, Penkowski M (eds) Farming and birds in europe: the common agricultural policy and its implications for bird conservation. Academic, London, pp 178–209Google Scholar
  16. Díaz-Villa MD, Marañón T, Arroyo J, Garrido B (2003) Soil seed bank and floristic diversity in a forest-grassland mosaic in southern Spain. J Veg Sci 14:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Andersson K et al (2011) How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia. For Ecol Manag 262:1983–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Equipa Atlas (2008) Atlas das Aves Nidificantes em Portugal (1999-2005). Instituto da Conservação da Natureza, Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Parque Natural da Madeira e Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar, Assírio & Alvim, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (2006) Global forest resources assessment 2005: progress towards sustainable forest management. food and agriculture organization of the United States, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0400e/a0400e00.htm. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  20. FSC (2012) Global FSC certificates: type and distribution. Forest Stewardship Council, Bonn, Germany. http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  21. Ferrier S, Pressey RL, Barrett TW (2000) A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement. Biol Conserv 93:303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gomez-Zamalloa MG, Caparros A, Ayanz AS-miguel (2011) 15 years of forest certification in the European Union. Are we doing things right ? For Syst 20:81–94Google Scholar
  23. Gulbrandsen LH (2005) The effectiveness of nonstate governances schemes: a comparative study of forest certification in Norway and Sweden. Int Environ Agreem 5:125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gullison RE (2003) Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx 37:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Humphreys D (2009) Forest politics: evolution of international cooperation. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. IBM (2010) IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio 12.2. International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Ioras F, Abrudan VI, Dautbasic M et al (2009) Conservation gains through HCVF assessments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Romania. Biodivers Conserv 18:3395–3406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins CN, Joppa L (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol Conserv 142:2166–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4:e8273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008273 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loucks C, Ricketts TH, Naidoo R et al (2008) Explaining the global pattern of protected area coverage: relative importance of vertebrate biodiversity, human activities and agricultural suitability. J Biogeogr 35:1337–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loureiro A, Ferrand de Almeida N, Carretero MA, Paulo OS (2008) Atlas dos Anfíbios e Répteis de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  32. Marx A, Cuypers D (2010) Forest certification as a global environmental governance tool: what is the macro-effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council? Regul Gov 4:408–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mendes AMS, Graça JAR (2009) Cork bottle stoppers and other cork products. In: Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (eds) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management and restoration. Island, St. Louis, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  34. Miller TR, Minteer BA, Malan L-C (2011) The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol Conserv 144:948–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pausas J, Pereira JS, Aronson J (2009) The tree. In: Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (eds) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, management, and restoration. Island, St.Louis, pp 7–21Google Scholar
  36. Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proença V et al (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinto-Correia T, Fonseca AM (2009) Historical perspective of montados: the example of Évora. In: Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (eds) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, Adaptive Management and Restoration. Island, St.Louis, pp 49–58Google Scholar
  38. Pressey RL, Johnson IR, Wilson PD (1994) Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodivers Conserv 3:242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quantum GIS Development Team (2011) Quantum gis geographic information system. Open source geospatial foundation projectGoogle Scholar
  40. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A Language and Environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodrigues ASL, Cerdeira JO, Gaston KJ (2000) Flexibility, efficiency, and accountability: adapting reserve selection algorithms to more complex conservation problems. Ecography 23:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shahabuddin G, Rao M (2010) Do community-conserved areas effectively conserve biological diversity? Global insights and the Indian context. Biol Conserv 132:2926–2936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suzuki N, Olson DH (2008) Options for biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes of multiple ownerships in Oregon and Washington, USA. Biodivers Conserv 17:1017–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 108:20260–20264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UNEP, Fischer-Kowalski M, Swilling M, von Weizsäcker EU, Ren Y, Moriguchi Y, Crane (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel, Switzerland. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/de. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  46. Wilson KA, Cabeza M, Klein CJ (2009) Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, USA, pp 16–27Google Scholar

Web references

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2012). www.fao.org. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  2. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (2012). www.fsc.org. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  3. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certificate Database (2012). www.info.fsc.org. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  4. Instituto de Metereologia, IP Portugal (2012). www.meteo.pt. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  5. União da Floresta Mediterrânica (UNAC) (2012) www.unac.pt. Accessed 10 Jan 2012

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe S. Dias
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miguel N. Bugalho
    • 1
  • J. Orestes Cerdeira
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. João Martins
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Ecologia Aplicada “Prof. Baeta Neves”, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Técnica de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Centro de Estudos Florestais, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Técnica de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Departamento de MatemáticaFaculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations