Biodiversity

The overall global threats to biodiversity was addressed already in the Brundtland report (United Nations General Assembly 1987), which concluded that many biologically rich ecosystems are severely threatened.

At the World Summit in Rio 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was launched, thereby providing biological diversity with a dedicated international global agreement. Its legal power is limited, and countries remain sovereign right to exploit their own natural resources, but the convention provides a framework for setting strategic goals related to the conservation of biological diversity, and for coordinating and catalysing policies and activities related to these goals (Snape III 2010) an approach to governance, which is sometimes called ‘pledge and review’ (Heyvaert 2013)).

In 2010, at the 10^th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Japan, the CBD adopted a Strategic Plan for 2011-2020 with five strategic goals being set to reduce or stop the loss of biological diversity (www.cbd.int/sp/elements/default.shtml):

• Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss

• Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

• Improve the status of biodiversity

• Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services

• Enhance implementation of strategic goals

Three to six specific targets have been specified for each goal, amounting to a total of 20 targets to be reached by 201 or 2020 (the so-called Aichi Biodiversity Targets). The goals and targets provides a flexible framework for the establishment of national or regional targets, with target 17 encouraging that Parties to the convention develop and commence implementing an effective and participatory national biodiversity strategy and action plan, that incorporates the information available from the convention. The parties have committed themselves to inform the COP of the national targets and associated policy instruments, as well progress the strategy and its milestones (www.cbd.int/sp/elements/default.shtml).

In a forestry context, one of the most severe threats to biodiversity is deforestation. Deforestation rates have slowed down and the focus on conservation of biodiversity has increased, but threats are still alarming, as are threats in some temperate and boreal forest regions (European Environment Agency 2010).

In developing countries, a number of wood uses for energy may contribute to putting pressure on forests and their biodiversity values, including local subsistence use and charcoal production, and pressure by immigrants hired to work in adjacent wood energy plantations, but needing to settle in and clear natural forest remnants (Naughton-Treves, Kammen et al. 2007). A major concern is also the conversion of tropical rainforests with extensive, mono-specific plantations (e.g., palm oil in Indonesia or eucalypt in Brazil), while in developed countries, concerns are more often related to reductions in deadwood and downed woody debris and the species that are dependent on this substrate for their living (Lattimore, Smith et al. 2009).

73

Other mentioned concerns include shorter rotations that alter forest structure, land-use changes, increased forest access, the spread of invasive species, and the proliferation of pest species, e.g. when wood fuel raw materials are piled and left to dry in the forest.

Lattimore, Smith et al. (2009) summarizes that the effects of forest management operations on biological diversity can occur at a number of levels, including landscapes, ecosystems, habitats, species, and genes.

They list the following potential biodiversity impacts of forest practices related to wood fuel production and harvesting:

• Habitat loss or gain due to landscape and ecosystem changes;

• Removal of niche habitats (i.e., dead and downed wood);

• Disturbances to wildlife from increased forest access;

• Encroachment into protected areas;

• Proliferation of invasive species;

• Overall changes in ecosystem health.

• Impacts on forest regeneration

Considering that forest management usually aims a number of goals, many of the mentioned impacts are risks associated with forest management generally, while other are especially related to wood fuel production and harvesting.

Jonsell (2008) reviewed the impacts of wood fuel harvesting practices on biodiversity, focusing on the impacts of the increased removal of deadwood that result from current practices in the boreal region of Fennoscandia. Generally, only few biodiversity values are associated with coniferous residues removed for energy in these countries. However, he mentions that it is important retain broadleaved deadwood and wood in more progressed stages of decay in these regions, and also that precaution should be taken in areas, where deadwood supports a rich fauna or flora. He recognises, however, that the challenge how to define such areas persists.

Riffell, Verschuyl et al. (2011) reviewed the effects on biodiversity of removing deadwood in the forests of the U.S.A. They concluded at least a short-term decrease in the number of birds have been observed after extensive removal of harvest residues. They analysis also suggested that a decreased biomass of invertebrates may occur, even if they did not find evidence for an effect on the diversity or abundance of taxonomic groups. They found little evidence for large or consistent responses of other fauna to course woody debris and snag manipulations.

Riffell, Verschuyl et al. (2011) also discuss that intensified harvesting with increased deadwood removal will not take place everywhere nor at the same time in those places, where it is practiced. It is thus very likely, that dead wood resources, including snags, downed course woody debris and fine woody debris, will be abundant in other parts of the landscape. Another point is that removals are rarely as comprehensive in practice as they are under experimental conditions.

Finally, Lattimore, Smith et al. (2009) also mention that wood fuel production systems also have the potential to increase biodiversity. For example, afforestation of former agricultural lands may create new habitat for some species, while thinning or replacement of degraded stands can improve forest structure for other species.

74

It is a complex issue to describe and measure biodiversity, and it is a challenge to find a balance between indicators that are effective, but still economically and practically feasible. The approach is often to use high-level indicators, such as the amount of forest designated to biodiversity conservation, but some of them are also more closely related to the population processes and species, for example the amount of deadwood. In an analysis of forest policies globally, (McDermott, Cashore et al. 2012) note that it is a topic that deserves special attention, but that it is not easy to deal with from a policy perspective. They choose to focus on the extent of the protected area and the extent of species and habitats at risk, as there is some scientific evidence that these measures do support the intended goals. The information available to monitor more specific indicators, for example those aiming at protection of species and habitats within managed forests, is usually less comprehensive compared to more aggregated indicators, addressing whole forest areas of a specific type (FOREST EUROPE, UNECE et al. 2011).

To protect biodiversity, (Fritsche, Iriarte et al. 2012) suggest that an approach where forests with a high level of biological diversity are defined and that such areas be exempted from extraction of forestry products such as timber and bioenergy. Primary and old-growth forests are as such suggested to be exempt from extraction of forest products, unless the extraction is compatible with biodiversity conservation. For other forest they suggest that maximum extraction rates be set for residues and other decaying live or deadwood. The introduction of for example primary forest as a no-go area for obtaining biofuel raw materials is much discussed, see e.g. (IEA Bioenergy 2013) and (Pesklevits, Duinker et al. 2011).

As touched upon by Jonsell (2008) the challenge will be to define areas with faunal and floral biodiversity values that will be harmed by residue extraction and other bioenergy related operations. Different approaches are already being used to define such areas. For example, the FSC forest certification system uses the concept High Value Conservation Forest (HVCF). Forest owners and managers are decides whether a forest has high conservation values, but they are strongly encourage to consult other users of the forest, or people with specialist knowledge (FSC/Proforest 2009). The existence of HVCF does not mean that the whole forest is turned into a conservation area or that any forest management is excluded per se, but assumes that it is a characteristic of small, low intensity and community forests (FSC 2008).

Several international frameworks also exist to protect species and habitats within a managed forest, with overall criteria, more specific indicators to be monitored, sometimes also operational guidelines for the forest management to improve its performance against the defined criteria and indicators. An example of guidelines developed to address biodiversity specifically is the ITTO/IUCN guidelines for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in tropical timber production forests (ITTO and IUCN 2009).

International level guidelines also include the Pan European Operational Level Guidelines (PE OLG) under FOREST EUROPE (Annex 2 to Resolution L2 from the Ministerial Conference of FOREST EUROPE/MCPFE in Lisbon in 1998). These address SFM more broadly, but with a specific set of forest management planning and best practice guidelines for “Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest ecosystems” (Criterion 4). Several regional, national and subnational guidelines also include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for biodiversity, see chapter 11. One of the main challenges in the development of such guidelines is to define which are the critical extraction levels and also at which spatial scales these should aim. The landscape level seem to show the most relevant dynamics, and thus is the most appropriate level for addressing forest biodiversity issues (Jonsell 2008).

75

If prescriptions are too strict, opportunities to obtain e.g. greenhouse gas benefits and support economic development in especially developing countries may unintentionally be foregone. If they are too loose, biodiversity and other values, such as soil quality and site productivity, might be at stake. Research supporting the development of biodiversity guidelines for the forest management is scarce, and this topic remains an under-researched. The complexity of such research is underlined by studies indicating an overarching importance of the land use history for the baseline level of biodiversity e.g. (Elbakidze, Angelstam et al. 2011). Studies that focus on locations with a long tradition for relatively intensive management may not capture the original biodiversity potential of these locations, even when rigorous scientific experiments with repetitions and controls are set up.

Figure 32. The number of animal species associated with different ecosystems (GRID-Arendal 2013), http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/number-of-animal-species-per-biome-ecosystem_c24c Credited Philippe Rekacewicz assisted by Cecile Marin, Agnes Stienne, Guilio Frigieri, Riccardo Pravettoni, Laura Margueritte and Marion Lecoquierre.