Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions applicable in Spain at the forest management unit scale

Forest Systems 24(1), e004, 21 pages (2015) eISSN: 2171-9845 http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2015241-05542 Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS varies depending on the natural and anthropogenic influences on each type of forest (Castañeda, 2000; Barbati et al., 2007). Criteria and indicators (C&I) constitute a tool to spread an understanding of SFM: they provide the means to translate sustainability principles into measurable goals and achievements (Wijewardana, 2008). Monitoring and evaluation processes through C&I depend a lot on the subjectivity of the one who carries out the evaluation, its experience, values and interests. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions applicable in Spain at the forest management unit scale Pablo Valls-Donderis*, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Departamento de Ingeniería Rural y Agroalimentaria (DIRA), Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV). Camino de Vera s/n. 46021, Valencia (Spain) Abstract Aim of study: to identify criteria and indicators (C&I) of sustainable forest management (SFM) under Mediterranean conditions. The indicators are meant to monitor changes in the provision of ecosystem services at a local scale (forest management unit, FMU). We support that if a forest provides a bundle of ecosystem services its management can be considered sustainable; thus, we adjust C&I to an ecosystem services classification. Area of study: La Hunde y La Palomera, a public FMU in the region of Valencia (east of Spain), 100km southwest of the city of Valencia. Material and methods: first, a literature review of the following themes took part: SFM, features of Mediterranean forests, ecosystem services and C&I. Some C&I were proposed and, later on, a participatory process in Ayora, the municipality where the mentioned FMU is located, was carried out with different stakeholders (forestry professionals, users for recreation, hunters, environmentalists and professionals of cultural and rural development activities) in order for them to value the C&I proposed according to their management preferences for La Hunde y La Palomera. Research highlights: – 15 criteria and 133 indicators were identified: a balance has been achieved among economic, social and ecological concerns. – People value the ecological issues associated to forestry on top and the economic ones at the bottom. – Results suggest that SFM under Mediterranean conditions is based on more than one product and on the provision of several ecosystem services. Key words: Sustainable forest management; ecosystem services; local scale, literature review, participation. Citation: Valls-Donderis, P., Vallés, M.C., Galiana, F. (2015). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions applicable in Spain at the forest management unit scale. Forest Systems, Volume 24, Issue 1, e004, 21 pages. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2015241-05542. Received: 01 Jan 2014. Accepted: 02 Dec 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2015241-05542 This work has three Supplementary Files. Copyright © 2015 INIA. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC by 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Funding: The Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness supports the project Multicriteria Techniques and Participatory Decision-Making for Sustainable Management (Ref. ECO2011-27369) and the Regional Council of Education, Culture and Sports (Valencia, Spain) finances a research fellowship (Ref. ACIF/2010/248). Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Correspondence should be addressed to Pablo Valls-Donderis: pabv[email protected].es. Introduction The concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) was first used at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED, 1992) in reference to a type of management that considers social and environmental values of forests and other products apart from wood (Wijewardana, 2008). However, there is not a universal definition of SFM (Varma et al., 2000); the relative importance of the different aspects that SFM covers Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 2 These forests provide a diversity of goods and services, all of them known as ecosystem services (MA, 2005). The goods include edible products (fungus, pine nuts and other fruits), resins, cork or aromatic plants (rosemary). Forests in this region also provide ecological and social services, like protecting soil from erosion, keeping and improving the visual aspect of landscapes and serving as spaces for recreation (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2000). These services are essential for rural development and for the well-being of urban populations (EFI, 2010). Spain constitutes a case where Mediterranean conditions take place in most of the forests. Besides the features mentioned, forestry in this country presents some peculiarities which are described next: Decentralization: regional governments have the authority in forest regulation (MMA, 1999). The decentralized model allows for adapted forest policies, but results in an uneven development in terms of budget, schedule and so on (MARM, 2008). Property structure: most of the forest area is private (65%) and the forest management units (FMUs) are on the average small-sized (less than 3ha). This discourages many land owners to manage their land as they cannot harvest regularly (Tolosana et al., 2004). Socio-economic conditions: there has been a depopulation of rural areas a few decades ago, so that the management of much land including forest has been abandoned (Marraco, 2004). The main forest product is timber, which together with firewood accounts for a 47.1% of the total forest production in Spain (Tolosana et al., 2004). Most of the timber produced goes to low added value industries like packing cases (Plana & Meya, 1999). Besides, the average price of one m3 of wood in Spain to be paid to the forest owner in the year 2005 was of 46.49€, which is very low for a small property (MARM, 2010). This research develops a case study in the region of Valencia (east of Spain). For this region a forestry plan has been elaborated: Plan de Acción Territorial Forestal de la Comunitat Valenciana (PATFOR). This plan proposes a forest management that stems from ecosystem services. Nowadays, most of the ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean forests do not result in any incomes to the forest owners. Besides, PATFOR states that the forests of this region go through an ecoTo overcome this weakness of existing C&I standards1, Pokorny & Adams (2003) suggest that the meaning of C&I has to be clear, which means that their writing should be simple, understandable and specific. There is general agreement that international C&I standards cover the following thematic areas: (1) area of forest resources, (2) biodiversity conservation, (3) forest health and vitality, (4) and (5) productive and protective functions of forests, (6) social functions, and (7) legal, political and institutional framework (FAO, 2006). They are particularly weak in the social and cultural areas. This fact likely reflects the strong emphasis that forestry has traditionally placed on natural sciences and a perceived division over responsibility for the social elements of SFM (Gough et al., 2008). Context As aforementioned, the literature on SFM suggests that its objectives and strategies change depending on the type of forest; this fact is especially relevant under Mediterranean conditions, which have to be in mind to evaluate forestry practices (Osem et al., 2008). These conditions have been summarised by Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. (2000), Fabbio et al. (2003) and Madrigal (2003), as follows (Valls et al. 2012): Adaptation to a specific climate: a pronounced biseasonality with dry and hot summers, occasional heavy rains, a large year-to-year variability of total precipitation and strong winds that favour the spread of forest fires. Species richness: the presence of a high diversity of plant and animal species, the Mediterranean area harbors around 25000 plant species whereas in the rest of Europe around 6000 plant species can be found. 50% of the Mediterranean flora is endemic. Anthropogenic influence: the diversity of vegetation types, land-uses and landforms, results in a landscape that consists of a mosaic of patches. This is the result of a very long history of human occupation and overlaying of new elements without elimination of the old ones. Fragility: due to heterogeneity, instability and low profitability. Heterogeneity is caused by diversity of species and habitat conditions (climate, soils). Instability results from summer drought, heavy rains, poor soils, and forest fires. Low profitability is derived from low productivity of Mediterranean forests. 1 Standard or set refers to a group of criteria and indicators that has been developed to monitor and assess the performance of forest management for specific ecological, social and economical conditions. Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 3 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry adapts other existing frameworks to Mediterranean forests. Tables 1, 2 and 3 constitute a classification with examples of ecosystem services, and the references consulted. Then, to identify forestry criteria that maintain and improve their provision, those examples and kinds of the classification whose supply was considered that could be improved through management actions2 were transformed into criteria (Table 4). It was considered that the provisioning services category could be associated to the economic pillar of sustainable development, the regulating one to the ecological pillar and the cultural category to social issues. The criteria were classified in three groups: economic, social and ecological, according to the ecosystem services categories. The criteria are indicated next: – Economic criteria: persistence and stability of forest resources, profitability of forest resources, diversified exploitation of forests. – Social criteria: employment and working conditions, recreation, visual character, historical and cultural heritage, participatory processes, education, research. – Ecological criteria: biodiversity and habitats, hydrological regulation, mass flows, forest fires, carbon storage. - It can be seen in Table 4 that the criteria employment and working conditions and participatory processes have not been associated to any ecosystem service kind or example. This is because they constitute requirements of forest management and thus have to be included as criteria, even though they do not maintain or improve the provision of any ecosystem service. On the other hand, no criteria have been associated to the following ecosystem services kinds: – Service group air flow regulation. – Service group noise pollution reduction. – Service group air quality regulation. – Service type regional and local climate. – Service group water quality regulation. – Service group nutrient cycling. – Service type fishing. The reason for not including them is because they happen either in specific situations or as a result of the management for providing other ecosystem services. The first situation corresponds to noise pollution reduction, air quality regulation and fishing. The first two nomic, social and environmental crisis. The economic crisis derives from the low productivity of these ecosystems. The ecological and the social crisis are connected: the abandonment of forest management increases the density of vegetation favouring the spread of forest fires. The social crisis is also affected by a lack of organisation among the forest actors, bad communication with the society, and conflicting interests between forest owners and users (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a). The low productivity and the abandonment of forest lands represent a danger for the continuity in the provision of ecosystem services. It becomes then necessary to identify and define C&I for SFM that take into account ecosystem services together with their economic valuation (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a). Another pillar over which PATFOR builds forest management is the inclusion of participatory processes for decision making. This is to make the forest sector closer to people, to achieve a common vision among stakeholders and to share responsibility with society (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a). Aim and Objectives The aim of this research is to answer this research question: “what has to be considered for SFM under Mediterranean conditions?” The specific objectives of this research are: 1. To identify C&I of SFM for Mediterranean forests, applicable at the scale of FMU and adapted to an ecosystem services framework, under the hypothesis that if forestry is oriented to maintain and improve the provision of ecosystem services it can be considered sustainable. 2. To test the realism and comprehensiveness of the issues covered by the C&I identified by means of a participatory process. Material and methods In order to adapt a typology of ecosystem services to Mediterranean conditions, different studies proposing them were revised. The inputs came mainly from the Common International Classification on Ecosystem Services (CICES) document (UN, 2010) and PATFOR (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a). The first of them is a proposal of a United Nations expert committee. PATFOR 2 Management actions refer to all the procedures and activities of forestry: from planning goals to silvicultural treatments. Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 4 Table 1. Provisioning ecosystem services: this category corresponds to tangible benefits that people get from forests with either material purposes (food, construction or decoration) or energetic. This table shows the sources where the ecosystem services kinds and examples are taken or inspired from. The ecosystem services examples that are relevant in Mediterranean forests are underlined. S. Class S. Group Service Type Examples Nutrition (UN, 2010) Edibles from terrestrial plants and animals (UN, 2010) Livestock (UN, 2010) Pastures, meat, milk and other edibles coming from animals (UN, 2010; Chiabai et al., 2011; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Plants, wild animals and other wild living beings and their products (UN, 2010) Mushrooms, truffles, honey, snails, wild asparagus, berries and seeds (pine nuts, sloes, acorns, arbutus fruits, blackberries, etc.) (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Freshwater edibles (UN, 2010) Animals (UN, 2010) Macro invertebrates (UN, 2010) Plants (UN, 2010) Water cress (UN, 2010) Non-edible materials (UN, 2010) Biotic (UN, 2010) Plant origin (UN, 2010) Wood, splinters, paper, cardboard, esparto, cork, resins (de Groot et al., 2010; Chiabai et al., 2011; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Animal origin (UN, 2010) Leather, furs, waxes (Chiabai et al., 2011) Ornamental resources (UN, 2010) Flowers, stones, gems, ornamental and aromatic plants (moss, holly, mistletoe, rosemary, thyme, lavender, etc.) (de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Medicinal resources (UN, 2010) Plants, active ingredients (de Groot et al., 2002; de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Abiotic (UN, 2010) Mineral resources (UN, 2010) Salt (subsurface assets not included) (UN, 2010) Energy (UN, 2010) Renewable biofuels (UN, 2010) Plant based resources (UN, 2010) Firewood, peat, forest biomass (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Animal based resources (UN, 2010) Dung, fat, oils (UN, 2010) Renewable abiotic (UN, 2010) Wind, hydro, solar, thermal (UN, 2010) Table 2. Regulating ecosystem services: this category refers to different ecosystem processes that are relevant for life itself and for humankind. This table shows the sources where the ecosystem services kinds and examples are taken or inspired from. The ecosystem services examples that are relevant in Mediterranean forests are underlined. S. Class S. Group Service Type Examples Flow regulation (UN, 2010) Air flow regulation (UN, 2010) Windbreak, air circulation (UN, 2010) Water flow regulation (UN, 2010) Natural drainage and irrigation (de Groot et al., 2002) Directing the flow of water towards rivers and ravines (de Groot et al., 2002) Runoff regulation (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Flood frequency and magnitude reduction and attenuation of discharge rates (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Water storage (UN, 2010) Wetlands, natural springs, lakes, reservoirs and aquifers (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Earth flow regulation (UN, 2010) Erosion control (de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a; UN, 2010) Minimise soil losses (de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Mass flows regulation (UN, 2010) Landslides, avalanches (UN, 2010) Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 5 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry Table 2 (cont.). Regulating ecosystem services: this category refers to different ecosystem processes that are relevant for life itself and for humankind. This table shows the sources where the ecosystem services kinds and examples are taken or inspired from. The ecosystem services examples that are relevant in Mediterranean forests are underlined. S. Class S. Group Service Type Examples Physical environment regulation (UN, 2010) Noise pollution reduction (de Groot et al.,2002) Air quality regulation (de Groot et al., 2010) Dust and chemicals capture, air oxygenation (de Groot et al., 2002; de Groot et al., 2010) Climate regulation (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Global climate (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Greenhouse gases, hydrological cycle (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Regional and local climate (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Temperature, humidity, rainfall (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Water quality regulation (UN, 2010) Water purification and oxygenation (UN, 2010) Nutrient retention in buffer strips, nutrient translocation and water purification in wetlands (UN, 2010) Soils and their formation (UN, 2010) Formation (de Groot et al., 2010) Physical, chemical and biological pedogenesis (de Groot et al., 2010) Fertility (UN, 2010) Organic residuals, N-fixing plants, activity of soil organisms (UN, 2010) Structure (UN, 2010) Activity of soil organisms (UN, 2010) Nutrient cycling (Costanza et al., 1997) Nutrient cycles in the ecosystem (Costanza et al., 1997) Nutrient acquisition, cycling, processing and storage (Costanza et al., 1997) Regulation of wastes (recovery of mobile nutrients and reduction or removal of excess nutrients or compounds) (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010) Plant and microorganism bioremediation, dilution, filtration of particulates and aerosols, and nutrient sequestration and absorption (UN, 2010) Biotic environment regulation (UN, 2010) Life cycle maintenance (UN, 2010) Reproduction (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Pollination, seed dispersal, habitat for reproduction and bringing up (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Other functions of living beings (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010) Refuge and feeding habitat (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010) Pest and disease regulation (de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Biological control by plants, animals and other microorganisms (de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Biodiversity maintenance (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Regulation of species populations, maintenance of species diversity and genetic diversity (Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Forest fires regulation (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Species, vegetation and landscape structures that avoid fire spread and favour recovery after the fire (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 6 other criteria, therefore, there is no need to consider them explicitly. Further references and legislation were revised for describing and explaining the criteria (Table 5). Later on, some forest management experts were consulted about the criteria and their descriptions. They were both invited to participate and explained what the research was about and which the objectives of the consultation services are relevant for humans in forest that are close to urban and industrial areas; fishing takes place in forests located next to a river, and the management of fish populations is a competence of the Central Government (Gobierno de España, 2001). Air flow regulation, water quality regulation and nutrient cycling occur in forests where vegetation and soils are kept in good conditions; these conditions are taken into account in Table 3. Cultural ecosystem services: this category includes psychological benefits (tranquility, reflection, isolation) and social benefits (group activities, maintenance and improvement of cultural heritage, promotion of science and education). They are difficult to measure and subjective in many cases. This table shows the sources where the ecosystem services kinds and examples are taken or inspired from. The ecosystem services examples that are relevant in Mediterranean forests are underlined. S. Class S. Group Service Type Examples Symbolic and inspirational (UN, 2010) Cultural heritage and aesthetic (UN, 2010) Visual landscape (UN, 2010) Aesthetic significance and information, outstanding features of the landscape, general appearance (de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Cultural landscape (UN, 2010) Sense of place, physical features (natural or manmade) holding a cultural/historical meaning (de Groot et al., 2002; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Spiritual and religious (UN, 2010) Naturalness (UN, 2010) Tranquility, isolation (UN, 2010) Sacred character (UN, 2010) Sacred places or species (UN, 2010) Intellectual development (Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Experience and spiritual enrichment (meditation, yoga, reflection) (de Groot et al., 2010; Chiabai et al., 2011; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Creativity (de Groot et al., 2002; de Groot et al., 2010) Inspiration for culture, art and design (books, films, paintings, etc.) (de Groot et al., 2002; de Groot et al., 2010) Information and knowledge (UN, 2010) Leisure activities (UN, 2010) Sports (de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Land, air and water sports (de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Ecological-kind (de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Fauna, flora and natural habitats observation and enjoyment (de Groot et al., 2010; UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Hunting and fishing (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Small and big game hunting, trout (UN, 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Recreation (de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Use of infrastructures (camping and recreation areas) (de Groot et al., 2010; Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a) Social relationships (MA, 2005) Implicit in all leisure activities when practiced in groups (MA, 2005) Knowledge (UN, 2010) Scientific research (de Groot et al., 2002; UN, 2010) Pollen records, tree ring records, genetic patterns (UN, 2010) Education (MA, 2005; UN, 2010) Educational excursions, seminars (de Groot et al., 2002) Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 7 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry included by the C&I identified are comprehensive and realistic. For this step, and in order to facilitate the process to participants, the indicators were grouped into aspects, which are defined as the specific issues covered by a criterion. Their meaning is broader and their writing less technical than that of the indicators. The process was open to anyone living there. Participants were asked to value the criteria and, for each criterion, the aspects that it covers. They valued according to their management preferences for a public forest located in the municipality of the village, which is called La Hunde y La Palomera. Several authors of academic papers propose to identify and pre-select C&I based on relevant literature, followed by a process of verification or refinement by stakeholders (Kurka & Blackwood, 2013). The participatory process was publicly announced hanging papers on walls and shop windows, and it was advertised in the local radio. Local associations whose interests are related to forest management or forest conservation were personally contacted (via telephone or face-to-face) in order to get a representation of the different stakeholders involved. Figure 1 displays the structure of the proposed standard for this research. Every participant received a questionnaire with 19 questions, each of them containing a list of elements to value: 15 questions to value the aspects of each criterion, 3 questions to value the criteria of each group and 1 question to value the three groups of criteria. The weighting method selected corresponds to a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) technique described by were. Attached to the e-mail via which they were contacted, a file with the criteria was sent so that they were able to correct and comment on them. A total of 4 experts participated: 2 university academics and 2 civil servants. They were asked the following questions: 1. Do these criteria cover the relevant issues of SFM in the Mediterranean region at the FMU level? 2. Are these criteria applicable? 3. Rephrase or comment on the writing of the criteria and their definitions if you think they could be improved. Next, to identify indicators of SFM, existing international C&I standards were revised: ATO/ITTO, 2003; UNDP/FAO/SADC, 1999; Montréal Process, 2007; ITTO, 2005; FAO, 1999; FAO, 1997; International Expert Meeting on Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on the Progress towards Sustainable Forest Management, 2001; Kotwal et al., 2008; SFI, 2010; GTC-FSC, 2007; AENOR, 2007a; AENOR, 2007b. Other studies that propose C&I were also consulted (Table 7). All the indicators taken from the review were classified according to the criteria identified. After this, indicators were rephrased to be simple and easily understandable, as recommended by Pokorny & Adams (2003). The last task consisted of proposing new indicators in the issues for which less attention had been paid in the literature. Later on, a participatory process in Ayora, a village located 100km southwest from the city of Valencia, was carried out. Its objective was to test if the topics Table 4. Criteria of SFM identified in this research as a result of the association of management actions to the different classes, groups, types and examples of ecosystem services that appear in the classification adapted for this research. Notice that all of the economic criteria are associated to the provisioning services category. The rest of the criteria are associated to specific ecosystem services kinds and examples. Ecosystem services Criteria of SFM Provisioning services Economic criteria Service group leisure activities Recreation Service types visual landscape, intellectual development and creativity, and the example sense of place from the service type cultural landscape Visual character Service type cultural landscape, and service group spiritual and religious Historical and cultural heritage Service type education Education Service type scientific research Research Service class biotic environment regulation Biodiversity and habitats Service groups water flow regulation and soils and their formation, and service type erosion control Hydrological regulation Service type mass flows regulation Mass flows Service class forest fires regulation Forest fires The example greenhouse gases (only refers to CO2), from the service type global climate, from the service group climate regulation Carbon storage Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 8 Table 5. Description of the criteria identified and references consulted (1) for the identification. Criteria Descriptions Persistence and stability of forest resources Management guarantees that a certain quantity of the forest resources stays in the FMU all the time and that it continues when biotic or abiotic disturbances occur (pests, fire). Profitability of forest resources Income generation (in-kind or money) as a result of the management, annual or periodic, variable or regular. Diversified exploitation of forests Inventory and determination of best use of present and potential forest goods and services. Employment and working conditions The number of job posts in the FMU is suitable to the activities necessary to carry out for the management, workers receive suitable training and there exist health and safety measures. Recreation There are infrastructures for the social use in its different kinds: taking a rest, trekking, fauna observation, camping, sports or hunting. Visual character Maintenance of the identifying visual properties of the FMU that make it attractive and improvement of them if they have been degraded. Historical and cultural heritage Management preserves the features and places of the FMU holding a historical or cultural meaning, either tangible (charcoal kilns) or intangible (pilgrimages), natural or artificial. Participatory processes Take account of stakeholders and affected people’s experience and points of view in forest management decisions. Education Forest management favours society’s education and awareness on the cultural, environmental and economic significance of forestry and natural areas. Research The use of forests as an object of scientific studies, either to improve the management (and the information on its goods and services) or to increase the knowledge of other disciplines (ecology). Biodiversity and habitats Management keeps species and habitats diversity and habitats conectivity in order to maintain and improve forest capacity to recover after disturbances. Hydrological regulation An important element of the hydrological cycle is vegetation that increases infiltration and reduces the quantity and speed of runoff. This attribute of vegetation offers important services: controls erosion, reduces the number and magnitude of floods and refills aquifers. The aim of this criterion is to maintain and improve these services through the management of vegetation structure and composition. Mass flows Management prevents landslides and avalanches. Forest fires Management prevents forest fires and facilitates extinction, so as to keep the frequency, intensity and consequences of forest fires in an ecologically sustainable and socially acceptable level. Carbon storage Forest management contributes to global climate change mitigation through maximising biomass synthesis and maintaining soil carbon storage capacity. (1) AENOR, 2007a; Ayala et al., 2006; Deshler, 1979; EC (1992, 2000); EU, 2010; Euroquality &ASEMFO, 2002; FAO (2002, 2005); Generalitat Valenciana (1993, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2011b); Gobierno de España (1985, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2011); ILO (1998, 2005); Mackay, 1949; Madrigal, 2003; Pemán & Navarro, 1998; Ruano, 2003; Thompson, 2011. C&I Standard Economic Criteria Ecological Criteria Social Criteria Indicators Aspects Criteria Indicators Aspects Indicators Aspects Figure 1. General structure of the criteria and indicator standard developed in this research. There are three criteria groups: economic, ecological and social; each group consists of several criteria, every criterion is made of various aspects, and a few indicators correspond to every aspect. Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 9 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry 4. The aggregated weight of each element was calculated summing all the new numbers in a row (calculated in step 3) and dividing this sum by the number of participants. The sum of the weights of all the elements in a question should be equal to 1. Results SFM criteria A brief description of the resulting criteria and the bibliography consulted is provided in Table 5. A complete description appears in Suppl. file S1 [PDF on line]. A total of 15 criteria were identified: 3 economic, 7 social and 5 ecological. They take account of the multiple products (diversified exploitation of forests) and services of forests (recreation, historical and cultural heritage, biodiversity and habitats). Mediterranean features are considered in criteria like forest fires or biodiversity and habitats. The applicability of the criteria at the FMU scale can be seen in the fact that no consideration has been given to rural development and regular revenues, which are desirable outcomes of SFM but have to be considered at a regional level because they require association and coordinated actions among several forest owners (Madrigal, 2003). Besides, rural development needs the input of other sectors apart from forestry. Indicators and aspects of the criteria The number of indicators identified was 133; a subgroup of 24 indicators was proposed. The indicators have a simple writing, and a specific content. There are both quantitative and descriptive indicators. Many indicators serve to evaluate the state of the forest, but there are also indicators saying how to carry out certain management actions. Finally, there are indicators that encourage managers to innovate, like the ones referring to thinking of potential recreation activities and studying their demand. The aspects that resulted from grouping the indicators to facilitate the participatory process are displayed in Table 6; this table allows an overview of what issues this research proposes to be relevant for sustainable management of Mediterranean forests. The indicators proposed together with the bibliography reviewed are in Table 7. In Suppl. file S2 [PDF on line] appears next to each indicator the references consulted for its identification. Gómez-Orea (2002) that is applied when participants are asked to value the elements of a list according to a predetermined scale whose values can be repeated. The elements of any question are valued giving a 1 to the most important for the participant and so progressively. As mentioned, the weighting method allowed participants to repeat values: for example, in a question comprising 7 elements, these could be valued 3-4-2-21-5-1; this would mean that for that participant there are two elements in the first order of importance and two in the second. The aggregated weights of every aspect and every criterion, which take into account the values from all participants, are calculated following the method recommended by Gómez-Orea (2002). This method implies that the higher the value the better. However, in this research the lowest value (1) is the best. Therefore, the scale of the answers was inverted like this: value 1 changes into the number of elements of the list and it reduces progressively (this way the answers look like participants had valued according to a scale that equals the number of elements of the list). In the example aforementioned, it would be like asking participants to value 7 elements in a scale from 1 to7, the inverted scale would be: 1→7 2→6 3→5 4→4 5→3 6→2 7→1 The previous scheme shows for this example how would the values of the answers change when inverting the scale: on the left are the old values and on the right the new ones. The result would be 5-4-6-6-7-3-7. The inversion of the scales was done for all the questions of all the participants. Next, aggregated weights were calculated according to the method indicated, which consists of the following steps: 1. In every question a table was made that put the elements in rows and the participants in columns. The table was fulfilled with the inverted values from participants. 2. The sum of the inverted values of each participant was calculated at the bottom of each column. 3. Every number that fulfilled the table was divided by the sum of the inverted values that corresponded to its column. Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 16 searchers of this case study argued that the social dimensions of sustainability are more important where the economic role of forestry activities is marginal, like in most Mediterranean forests (Rodriguez-Piñeros & Lewis, 2013). Ecosystem services are important in forests under all type of conditions. However, in Mediterranean forests they gain relevance because their productivity is low but the society appreciates and benefits from these services. Besides, the special characteristics of these forests make some of the ecosystem services, and therefore their associated criteria, very relevant: – Heavy rains and scattered canopies increase the risk of erosion, mass flows and floods. These issues are considered in the criteria hydrological regulation and mass flows. – The risk of big fires and pests make it necessary to manage resistant and resilient forests. This is mainly achieved through biodiversity, which is also worth maintaining because of its high value in Mediterranean forests. These concerns are tackled in the criteria forest fires, persistence and stability of forest resources and biodiversity and habitats. – The cultural character of the landscape due to many years of intervention, addressed in the criterion historical and cultural heritage. – Diversified exploitation as another means to overcome low profitability and because of the different products offered by Mediterranean forests: resins, truffles or cork; referred to in the criterion diversified exploitation of forest. Apart from the benefits mentioned, applying an ecosystem services classification into the thinking of SFM has the advantage of encouraging an integrated approach with other land uses: a common language across sectors and more explicit focus on trade-offs and synergies. Nevertheless, it could happen that an incomaggregated weight corresponds to persistence and stability of forest resources (44%) and the lowest one to profitability of forest resources (22%). Concerning the criterion employment and work conditions (Figure 2), training is the aspect that gets the highest aggregated weight (31%) and job opportunities stays at a very similar level (28%). Recreational activity obtains high values for social use (25%) and infrastructures (24%). Finally, even though the three aspects of forest fires do not differ much, extinction aid silviculture has the lowest weight (27%) and preventative silviculture the highest one (39%). Ecological criteria (Figure 3) do not show big differences in their weights, but it can be noticed that biodiversity and habitats, forest fires and hydrological regulation are slightly higher valued (23%, 22% and 21% respectively) than mass flows and carbon storage (16% and 18%). Discussion This research dives into the considerations of SFM under Mediterranean conditions. A collection of 15 criteria applicable at the FMU level have been identified. These criteria intend to maintain and improve the provision of ecosystem services and cover the three pillars of SFM: economic, social and ecological. The existing C&I standards treat mainly ecological and resource quantity topics. An assortment of 7 of the criteria identified in this research is social. The relevance of this type of issues is emphasized by other works. A similar study developed by Maroto et al. (2013) in the same region as this research (Valencia), but applied at a regional scale, highlights that social criteria of SFM are more important than economic ones for most stakeholder groups. Likewise, in a Mexican local community case study, the health of the forest was highly respected because the forest represented community pride, spiritual enjoyment, personal health and family cohesion. The reFigure 3. Aggregated weight (%) of the criteria of the groups economic and ecological. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Persistence and stability of forest resources Profitability of forest resources Diversified exploitation of forests Economical criteria 44 22 34 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Biodiversity and habitats Hydrological regulation Mass flows Forest fires Carbon storage Ecological criteria 23 21 16 22 18 Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 17 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry can be made among criteria and aspects but, on the other hand, it suggests that the standard proposed is applicable. Similarly, Mendoza & Prabhu (2000) propose the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as the one most involved and also providing the most information but also most complex and time consuming. They recommend the use of AHP to examine the relative weights at the indicator level because it is there where the principles and criteria are measurable and observable, and this is how it is intended to proceed with this research in next stages. A similar study to this one shows that the methods followed is quite common and that the indicators presented here constitute a starting point from which more work is needed. Maes et al. (2011) developed an indicator framework to be applied at stand level in Flanders (Belgium). Their framework was set up by the authors and a few experts, resulting in 19 criteria and 157 indicators, which were selected from literature and assigned to a criterion. Later on, a validation step was carried out. In words of Maes et al. (2011), only a validation procedure can transform a potential set of indicators into a suitable set. Future steps of this research will consider the performance of the indicators in a specific FMU for different management scenarios. Conclusions This research set out to identify C&I of SFM under Mediterranean conditions, adapted to an ecosystem services framework, and applicable at the FMU level. The process followed for the identification includes literature review of themes related to the research topic, an expert consultation to improve a set of criteria previously proposed and a participatory process to verify the issues considered in the C&I set. A standard comprising 15 criteria and 133 indicators has been developed as a result. SFM is based on the multifunctional use and exploitation of forests and it considers the social and environmental implications and consequences associated to forestry. The concept of SFM and its application have to be adapted to the particular conditions of each case; this is especially relevant in Mediterranean forests due to their specific characteristics. Existing C&I standards and studies focus on the ecological and productive issues of SFM; social and cultural ones usually appear all together in a single criterion. The development of a C&I standard based on the maintenance and enhancement of the provision of ecosystem services searches for a balance among the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and ecological. The criteria identified in this research adapt plete valuation of the services pushes attention on the ones that are already quantified and monetised. Besides, emerging markets for single services may discourage multifunctional forests (Quine et al., 2013). Regarding the indicators, an effort has been made for them to be simple and easy to know what has to be measured or considered. These two characteristics are hardly found in existing standards. For example, the indicators of FSC-Spain (GTC-FSC, 2007) are perceived as clear in what they refer to but made of very long sentences. On the other hand, the indicators of PEFC-Spain (AENOR, 2007a; AENOR, 2007b) are seen like having a simpler wording, quite clear in their objectives, but less clear on what variables or qualities to look at. The standard proposed in this work just intends to offer another option for forest managers that overcomes these perceived weaknesses, but not to stay above the work developed by others. Concerning the participatory process developed to verify that the issues addressed by the C&I proposed are sensible, the groups of participants are representative of the stakeholders related to the forest. However, the amount of members in each group is not even but, on the whole, the total number of participants is considered enough to draw conclusions. Results reveal that participants value ecological issues on top, followed by social ones, and noticeably economic ones at the bottom. The study by Maroto et al. (2013) also acknowledges the lesser relevance of economic criteria and the greater importance of ecological criteria in sustainable and participative management of Mediterranean forests. With respect to the valuing and aggregation method, Mendoza & Prabhu (2000) conclude that MCA techniques are excellent for prioritizing a list of C&I. They describe two similar methods (ranking and rating) for establishing a hierarchy among principles and criteria (similar to criteria and aspects, as it has been done in this research). The aggregated weights that result from the participatory process show that participants cannot establish preferences easily. Therefore, few priorities Figure 4. Aggregated weight (%) of the three groups of criteria. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ECONOMICAL SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL Criteria groups 22 35 43 Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 18 Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL, 2007. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics 60: 726-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014 Castañeda F, 2000. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: international processes, current status and the way ahead. Unasylva 203 (51): 34-40. Chiabai A, Travisi CM, Markandya A, Ding H, Nunes PALD, 2011. Economic assessment of forest ecosystem services losses: cost of policy inaction. Environ Resource Econ 50: 405-455.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9478-6 Commonwealth of Australia, 1998. A framework of regional (sub-national) level criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in Australia. Montréal Process Framework of Regional Indicators. Commonwealth of Australia. 120 pp. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ, 2002 A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393-408.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02) 00089-7 de Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Haines-Young RH, Gowdy J, Killeen T, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I, 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Chapter 1 of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study. Deshler WO, 1979. Una guía para la aplicación del concepto de uso múltiple. Documento Técnico de Trabajo nº 1. Proyecto FAO/RLAT/TF. Santiago de Chile, Chile. EC, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Council. Brussels, Belgium. Official Journal of the European Communities L 206 of 22 July 1992. EC, 2000. European Landscape Convention. European Council. Florence, Italy. European Treaty Series 176. EFI, 2010. A Mediterranean Forest Research Agenda 20102020 – MFRA. European Forest Institute, Regional Mediterranean Office (EFIMED). Barcelona, Spain. Eriksson L, Lindhagen A, 2001. A model indicating effects of multipurpose use of forestry on stand level. In: Franc A, Laroussinie O, Karjalainen T (Eds.), Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level. European Forest Institute. EFI Proceedings Nº38, 21-25 March 2000, Nancy (France), pp. 247-260. EU, 2010. Invasive alien species. Nature and Biodiversity. KH-78-09-558-EN-D. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/Invasive%20Alien%20 Species/Invasive_Alien_EN.pdf [13 Feb 15]. EUROQUALITY, ASEMFO, 2002. Manual para la asistencia técnica en prevención de riesgos laborales. Sector forestal. European Quality Assurance, Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales. Madrid, Spain. to an ecosystem services classification and so they cover these three pillars. The indicators proposed overcome another shortfall of existing C&I standards, whose wording is ambiguous and long. A big effort has been done for the indicators to have a simple and specific writing. The results of the participatory process do not reveal big differences for most of the aggregated weights of the elements of the different questions. This findings make it difficult to establish priorities among criteria and aspects, but also suggest that the topics covered by the C&I proposed are suitable to Mediterranean conditions and that a standard adapted to ecosystem services is applicable. This work has been conceived as an exploratory research. It has included top-down and bottom-up approaches to develop a proposal of C&I, which serves as a checklist of “what to look at” when managing Mediterranean forests sustainably. However, it remains to be seen whether the selected C&I can be successfully employed for decision making processes, by testing them in different scenarios in a specific case study. Besides, more case studies are needed to develop a general set applicable in Spanish forests under Mediterranean conditions. Nevertheless, this proposed set can serve for similar research or decision making situations as a starting point for C&I pre-selection. C&I constitute a piece of the puzzle; a sustainable management based on ecosystem services depends upon many drivers, not all of them coming from the forest sector (subsidies, payments for ecosystem services). References AENOR, 2007a. Gestión forestal sostenible. Criterios e indicadores. Parte 1: Genéricos para la unidad de gestión. Norma: UNE162002-1. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación: pp. 18. Madrid, Spain. AENOR, 2007b. Gestión forestal sostenible. Criterios e indicadores. Parte 2: Complementarios para la evaluación a escala regional. Norma: UNE162002-2. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, pp. 18. Madrid, Spain. ATO/ITTO, 2003. ATO/ITTO principles, criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of African natural tropical forests. African Timber Organisation and International Tropical Timber Organisation, pp. 27. Ayala FJ, Olcina J, Laín L, González A, 2006. Riesgos naturales y desarrollo sostenible: impacto, predicción y mitigación. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Madrid, Spain. Barbati A, Corona P, Marchetti M, 2007. A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: the case of European forest types. Plant Biosystems 1: 93-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263500601153842 Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 19 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry Gobierno de España, 2001. Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2001, de 20 de julio, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la ley de aguas. Madrid, Spain. Boletín Oficial del Estado, de 24 de julio de 2001, nº 176. Gobierno de España, 2002. Plan Forestal Español. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid, Spain. Gobierno de España, 2003. Ley 43/2003, de 21 de noviembre, de montes. Madrid, Spain. Boletín Oficial del Estado, de 22 de noviembre de 2003, nº 280. Gobierno de España, 2006. Trabajos forestales. Comisión Nacional de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo. Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social. Madrid, Spain. Gobierno de España, 2007. Ley 42/2007, de 13 de diciembre, del patrimonio natural y de la biodiversidad. Madrid, Spain. Boletín Oficial del Estado, de 14 de diciembre de 2007, nº 299. Gobierno de España, 2011. Real Decreto 139/2011, de 4 de febrero, para el desarrollo del Listado de Especies Silvestres en Régimen de Protección Especial y del Catálogo Español de Especies Amenazadas. Madrid, Spain. Boletín Oficial del Estado, de 23 de febrero de 2011, nº 46. Gómez-Orea, D., 2002. Evaluación de impacto ambiental. Mundi-Prensa. Madrid, Spain. Gough AD, Innes JL, Allen SD, 2008. Development of common indicators of sustainable forest management. Ecological Indicators 8: 425-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2007.03.001 GTC-FSC, 2007. Estándares españoles de gestión forestal para la certificación FSC. Grupo de trabajo español para la certificación FSC, pp. 98. Madrid, Spain. ILO, 1998. ILO code of practice: safety and health in forestry work. International Labour Organisation. Geneva, Switzerland. ILO, 2005. Guidelines for labour inspection in forestry. International Labour Organisation. Geneva, Switzerland. MELIF/2005/8. International expert meeting on monitoring, assessment and reporting on the progress towards sustainable forest management, 2001. Tarapoto Process on the Amazon forest’s sustainability criteria and indicators, pp 16. Yokohama, Japan. ITTO, 2005. Revised ITTO criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of tropical forests including a report template. International Tropical Timber Organisation, pp. 41. Kotwal PC, Omprakash MD, Gairola S, Dugaya D, 2008. Ecological indicators: imperative to sustainable forest management. Ecological Indicators 8: 104-107. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.01.004 Kurka T, Blackwood D, 2013. Participatory selection of sustainability criteria and indicators for bioenergy developments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 24: 92-102.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.062 MA (MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. Washington DC, pp. 137. United States. Mackay E, 1949. Fundamentos y métodos de la ordenación de montes. Segunda parte: ordenación técnica, condiciones de Fabbio G, Merlo M, Tosi V, 2003. Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe – the Mediterranean region. Journal of Environmental Management 67: 67-76.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0301-4797(02)00189-5 FAO, 1997. Results of the FAO-CCAB-AP experts’ meeting on criteria and indicators on sustainable forest management for Central America. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. FAO, 1999. Practical guidelines for the implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in the Near East Region. United Nations Environment Program, Near East Regional Office. El Cairo, Egypt. FAO, 2002. Captura de carbono en los suelos para un mejor manejo de la tierra. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Rome, Italy. Informe sobre recursos mundiales de suelos 96. Available at:ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/ docs/wsrr96s.pdf FAO, 2005. Optimización de la humedad del suelo para la producción vegetal. El significado de la porosidad del suelo. Servicio de Manejo de las Tierras y de la Nutrición de las Plantas. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Rome, Italy. Boletín de Suelos de la FAO 79. Available at:ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y4690s/y4690s00.pdf FAO, 2006. Global forest resources assessment 2005 – Progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry paper 147. Generalitat Valenciana, 1993. Ley 3/1993, de 9 de diciembre, forestal de la Comunidad Valenciana. Valencia, Spain. Diario Oficial de la Generalitat Valenciana, de 21 de diciembre, nº 2168. Generalitat Valenciana, 2004. Decreto 32/2004, de 27 de febrero, del Consell de la Generalitat, por el que se crea y regula el Catálogo Valenciano de Especies de Fauna Amenazadas, y se establecen categorías y normas para su protección. Conselleria de Territori i Habitatge. Valencia, Spain. Diario Oficial de la Generalitat Valenciana, de 4 de marzo, nº 4705. Generalitat Valenciana, 2009. Decreto 70/2009, de 22 de mayo, del Consell, por el que se crea y regula el Catálogo Valenciano de Especies de Flora Amenazadas y se regulan medidas adicionales de conservación. Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Aigua, Urbanisme i Habitatge. Valencia, Spain. Diario Oficial de la Generalitat Valenciana, de 26 de mayo, nº 6021. Generalitat Valenciana, 2010. Pago por servicios ambientales. Una introducción. Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Aigua Urbanisme i Habitatge. Generalitat Valenciana, pp. 16. Valencia, Spain. Generalitat Valenciana, 2011a. Versión preliminar del Plan de Acción Territorial Forestal de la Comunidad Valenciana (PATFOR). Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Aigua Urbanisme i Habitatge. Generalitat Valenciana, pp. 533. Valencia, Spain. Generalitat Valenciana, 2011b. Programa valenciano de conservación de recursos genéticos forestales 2011-2020. ECOGEN. Conselleria de Infraestructuras, Territorio y Medio Ambiente. Valencia, Spain. Gobierno de España, 1985. Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del patrimonio histórico español. Madrid, Spain. Boletín Oficial del Estado, de 29 de junio de 1985, nº 155. Pablo Valls-Donderis, María C. Vallés and Francisco Galiana Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 20 coniferous forests: an Israeli definition. Journal of Forestry, January/February 2008: 38-46. Pemán J, Navarro R, 1998. Repoblaciones forestales. Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida. Lérida, Spain. Plana E, Meya D, 1999. La certificación forestal como instrumento de política forestal, hacia una gestión sostenible de los bosques. IV Forum de Política Forestal (conference). Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya. Solsona, Spain. Pokharel RK, Larsen HO, 2007. Local vs. official criteria and indicators for evaluating community forest management. Forestry 80(2): 183-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ forestry/cpm005 Pokorny B, Adams M, 2003. What do criteria and indicators assess? An analysis of five C&I sets relevant for forest management in the Brazilian Amazon. Internat Forest Rev 5(1): 20-28.http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/IFOR.5.1.20.17434 Quine CP, Bailey SA, Watts K, 2013. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: a practitioner’s perspective. Sustainable forest management in a time of ecosystem services frameworks: common ground and consequences. J Appl Ecol 50: 863-867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12068 Rodriguez-Piñeros S, Lewis DK, 2013. Analysis and deliberation as a mechanism to assess changes in preferences for indicators of sustainable forest management: a case study in Puebla, Mexico. J Environ Manage 128: 5261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.051 Rowe G, Frewer LJ, 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci, Technol Human Values 25(1): 3-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01622439000 2500101 Ruano JR, 2003. Viveros forestales. Manual de cultivo y proyectos. Ediciones Mundi-Prensa. Madrid, Spain. Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Oswald H, Piussi P, Radoglou K, 2000. Forests of the Mediterranean region: gaps in knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manage 132: 97-109. SFI, 2010. Requirements for the SFI 2010-2014 Program. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Inc, pp. 119. Thompson I, 2011. Biodiversidad, umbrales ecosistémicos, resiliencia y degradación forestal. Unasylva 238 62 (2): 25-30. Tolosana E, Ambrosio Y, Vignote S, 2004. Aspectos económicos de la certificación forestal, particularidades del sector (Parte I). Revista del Colegio de Ingenieros de Montes 77: 33-35. Tuler S, Webler T, 1999. Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public participation process. Soc Nat Resource 12(5): 437-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 089419299279524 UN, 2010. Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. Fifth Meeting of the United Nations Committee of Environmental-Economic Accounting. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. pp. 30. New York. UNCED, 1992. Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. aplicación, inventario dasocrático, métodos de ordenación. Escuela Especial de Ingenieros de Montes. Madrid, Spain. Madrigal A, 2003. Ordenación de montes arbolados. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. MARM. Madrid, Spain. Maes WH, Fontaine M, Rongé K, Hermy M, Muys B, 2011. A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management. Ecological Indicators 11: 468-479. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.07.001 MARM, 2008. Anuario de estadística forestal 2008. Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal. Madrid, Spain. MARM, 2010. Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales 2010. Informe nacional, España. Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal. Madrid, Spain. Maroto C, Segura M, Ginestar C, Uriol J, Segura B, 2013. Sustainable forest management in a Mediterranean region: social preferences. Forest Systems 22(3): 546-558.http:// dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2013223-04135 Marraco S, 2004. Gestión forestal sostenible: retos y dificultades. 7ª edición del Congreso Nacional de Medio Ambiente (CONAMA VII). Madrid, Spain. Mendoza GA, Prabhu R, 2000. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. For Ecol Manage 131: 107-126. Menzel S, Nordström EM, Buchecker M, Marques A, Saarikoski H, Kangas A, 2012. Decision support systems in forest management: requirements from a participatory planning perspective. Eur J Forest Res. 131: 13671379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-012-0604-y MMA, 1999. Estrategia Forestal Española. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. Madrid, Spain. Montréal Process, 2007. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Annex F. Third Edition. The Montréal Process, pp. 12. Moote MA, McClaran MP, Chickering DK, 1997. Theory in practice: applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environ Manage 21: 877-889. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900074 Mrosek T, Balsillie D, 2001. Development and testing of a criteria and indicator system for sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level: case study at the Haliburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve Ltd., Ontario, Canada. In: Franc A, Laroussinie O, Karjalainen T (Eds.), Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level. European Forest Institute. EFI Proceedings Nº38, 21-25 March 2000, Nancy (France), pp. 247-260. Mrosek T, Balsillie D, Schleifenbaum P, 2006. Field testing of a criteria and indicator system for sustainable forest management at the local level. Case study results concerning the sustainability of the private forest Haliburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve in Ontario, Canada. Forest Pol Econom 8: 593-609.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.11.002 Osem Y, Ginsberg P, Tauber I, Atzmon N, Perevolotsky A, 2008. Sustainable management of Mediterranean planted Forest Systems April 2015 • Volume 24 • Issue 1 • e004 21 Criteria and indicators for sustainable Mediterranean forestry Stakeholder Views. European Countryside 4/2012: 269282. Varma VK, Ferguson I, Wild I, 2000. Decision support system for the sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manage 128: 49-55. Wijewardana D, 2008. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: the road travelled and the way ahead. Ecological Indicators 8: 115-122. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.003 UNDP/FAO/SADC, 1999. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in SADC countries within the Framework of the Dry-Zone Africa Process. Meeting between the United Nations Development Program, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the South African Development Community, pp. 8. Lilongwe, Malawi. Valls P, Jakesová L, Vallés M, Galiana F, 2012. Sustainability of Mediterranean Spanish Forest Management through