FAO and Plan Bleu. 2018. State of Mediterranean Forests 2018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Plan Bleu, Marseille.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or Plan Bleu pour l’Environnement et le Développement en Méditerranée (Plan Bleu) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO or Plan Bleu in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO or Plan Bleu.

ISBN FAO: 978-92-5-131047-2
ISBN Plan Bleu: 978-2-912081-52-0
E-ISBN 978-92-5-131161-5 (MOBI)

© FAO and Plan Bleu, 2018

FAO and Plan Bleu encourage the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO and Plan Bleu as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s and Plan Bleu’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.

Cover photo: Estérel Mountains, France. © Nelly Bourlion

Foreword

The State of Mediterranean Forests 2018 analyzes the circum-Mediterranean region, a territory encompassing thirty-one countries and a wide range of political, economic, social and environmental contexts. The region has an extremely rich natural and cultural heritage. Here, human and economic development is largely dependent on at times scarce natural resources and a vulnerable environment. Today, human activity has placed substantial pressure on this environment, the impact of which is felt differently in the northern, southern and eastern sub-regions.

Based on a bioclimatic definition of Mediterranean forests, the Mediterranean region includes more than 25 million hectares of forests and about 50 million hectares of other wooded lands. These lands are strongly interconnected with urban and agricultural/rural areas. Mediterranean forests and other wooded lands in the region make vital contributions to rural development, poverty alleviation and food security, as well as to the agriculture, water, tourism, and energy sectors. Such contributions are, however, difficult to quantify. Moreover, changes in climate, societies and lifestyles in the Mediterranean could have serious negative consequences for forests, resulting in the potential loss or diminution of those contributions and to a wide range of economic, social and environmental problems.

In April 2010, at a meeting held in Antalya, Turkey, members of the Committee on Mediterranean Forestry Questions-Silva Mediterranea sought to address the lack of data on Mediterranean forests and provide a sound basis for their future management. They asked the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in collaboration with other institutions, to prepare a report on the state of Mediterranean forests. The first edition of the State of Mediterranean Forests, coordinated by Plan Bleu and FAO and including contributions from 21 institutions, was published in 2013 and launched during the Third Mediterranean Forest Week in Tlemcen, Algeria (March 2013). The State of Mediterranean Forests 2013 successfully documented the main questions on Mediterranean forestry and has since become a reference textbook on Mediterranean forests. Its key findings formed the basis for the subsequent Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests endorsed by the high-level segment of the Third Mediterranean Forest Week (the Tlemcen Declaration).

In order to establish a regional overview, the 2013 edition of the State of Mediterranean Forests relied on systematic data covering all countries in the Mediterranean region. The second edition, while maintaining a regional interest, adopts a more focused geographic and thematic approach.

The State of Mediterranean Forests 2018 is the result of a collaborative process involving many different stakeholders from the Mediterranean region. In total, more than 160 individuals have contributed to this volume on a voluntary basis, whether as chapter coordinators, authors or reviewers. Of these, 41 percent are women. Sixty-one percent of the edition’s contributors originate from the northwest Mediterranean, while 39 percent are from the southeast.

This new edition of the State of Mediterranean Forests aims to demonstrate the importance of Mediterranean forests to implementing solutions to tackle global issues such as climate change and population increase. The report is divided into five parts. After an introduction, the second part highlights the importance of Mediterranean forests and trees, examined with regard to various factors (area, biomass, roles in the landscape, etc.), with special attention paid to trees outside forests, which are particularly important in the Mediterranean context. Despite the important natural capital provided by Mediterranean forests, they are under jeopardy from climate change and population increase and other subsidiary drivers of forest degradation. The third part of the report outlines a number of forest-based solutions to tackle these threats. The goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests, for example, are a valuable asset on which to base sustainable development efforts. Forest and landscape restoration, adaptation of forests and adaptation using forests, climate change mitigation, and conserving biodiversity are complementary approaches that can be successfully implemented in the Mediterranean region to address the drivers of forest degradation to the benefit of populations and the environment. In its fourth part, the report outlines how to create the conditions necessary to scale up and replicate these forest-based solutions across the Mediterranean region. These include changing the way we see the role of forests in the economy, putting in place relevant policies, more widespread participatory approaches and improved governance, a recognition of the economic value of the goods and services provided by forests and, ultimately, creating appropriate financial incentives and tools.

Mediterranean forests also have a global role in helping countries to meet their international commitments on forests, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) and the objectives of the three Rio Conventions. We hope and expect the State of Mediterranean Forests 2018 will prove a useful tool in promoting and highlighting this role, while also supporting efforts specific to the Mediterranean region.

We wish you a pleasant read.

Hiroto Mitsugi
Assistant Director-General
FAO Forestry Department

Elen Lemaître-Curri
Director of Plan Bleu
MAP/UNEP

Contents

Foreword

Acronyms and abbreviations

Contributors

Acknowledgments

IIntroduction

1The Mediterranean region’s development and trends: framework aspects

Considerable natural and cultural resources

Some socioeconomic disparities

A region increasingly under pressure

A governance system constantly evolving

IIThe Mediterranean landscape: importance and threats

2Contribution of Mediterranean forests to the Global Agenda

Introduction

Mediterranean forests and the Sustainable Development Goals

Mediterranean forests and international commitments

Regional Mediterranean forest initiatives which contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Conclusions

3Importance of Mediterranean forests

The extent of the Mediterranean region

Forest definitions and definition of the Mediterranean forest

Forest resources in the Mediterranean

Land use change and pressure

Conclusions

4Trees outside forests in the Mediterranean region

Introduction

TOF systems in the Mediterranean region

Historical relevance of TOF in the region

Current trends and dynamics

Policies and governance

Threats and challenges to the conservation of TOF

Perspectives: expected role to be played by TOF in the Mediterranean region towards the fulfilment of the Global Agenda

5Drivers of degradation and other threats

Introduction: Mediterranean forests at stake

Underlying (indirect) causes of degradation

Direct causes of degradation and principal agents

Consequences of underlying and direct causes of degradation

Geographical and temporal degradation trends: facing the challenge

IIIMediterranean forest-based solutions

6Human needs and ecosystem services

Mediterranean forest ecosystem services

Ecosystem services in response to human needs

Mediterranean forest ecosystem services under pressure

Discussion and conclusions

7Forest and landscape restoration

Introduction

Restoration in the Mediterranean: from past to current efforts

Challenges

Forest and landscape restoration opportunities in the Mediterranean

International commitments and initiatives related to Mediterranean forest and landscape restoration

Conclusions and the way forward

8Adaptation and mitigation

Introduction

Mitigation

Adaptation

9Biodiversity conservation and protected areas in the Mediterranean region

Mediterranean forest biodiversity

Conservation status of Mediterranean forest biodiversity

Threats to forest biodiversity

Conservation actions in the Mediterranean region

IVCreating an enabling environment to scale up solutions

10Mediterranean forests in the green economy

Introduction to the green economy

Green economy and bioeconomy

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy

The role of forests in an African green economy

The contribution of forests to a green economy in North Africa and the Middle East

Mediterranean forests in the national green economy and related strategies

Conclusions

11Policy frameworks as an enabling environment for achieving international commitments on forests

Introduction

Findings

Ecosystem services, wood products and non-wood forest products

Sustainable forest management and forest and landscape restoration

Biodiversity is deeply rooted in forest policies throughout the region

Policies and instruments on climate change mitigation and adaptation are in their initial phase/stage in the region

Wildfire prevention is among major declared policy priorities

Research, communication, coordination, cooperation and capacity building

Next steps and future challenges and opportunities in Mediterranean forest policies

12Participation: a pillar of sustainable forest management in the Mediterranean

What are participatory approaches and the conditions for their implementation?

How can these approaches be put in place for effective and efficient participatory management?

How can these approaches last over time? What affects their sustainability?

13Valuing ecosystem services as part of the decision-making agenda

Forest ecosystem services in space and time

The value of Mediterranean forest ecosystem services

Economic valuation to change forest management scenarios

Possible options for enhancing the value of forest goods and services

Main conclusions and recommendations

14Financial incentives and tools for Mediterranean forests

Public sector expenditure in the forest sector: state of the art

Diversity of financing approaches and mechanisms: current practices and perspectives

From rural development donors to impact investors in ecosystem services

Conclusions and prospects for Mediterranean forest financing

VConclusions

Annexes

AContribution of forests in NDCs, NBSAPs and NAPs

BList of documents related to the green economy and forestry

CDocuments available and analysed per country

DMediterranean countries and international agreements

EStatus of the main instruments in Mediterranean countries

FCountry specific results: Albania

References

Tables

1.1Average annual GDP growth rate by percentage

1.2Country ranking by HDI

2.1Bioclimatic stages representing combinations of thermotypes and ombrotypes where forest can exist

2.2Maps of the Mediterranean region based on biogeographic and bioclimatic approaches

2.3Forest area, percentage of forested area (with respect to land area or to total forest area), forest area growth and area of other wooded lands in Mediterranean countries

2.4Growing stock in forests and other wooded lands, Mediterranean countries, 2015

2.5Annual change in total growing stock in forests, Mediterranean countries, 1990-2015

2.6Carbon stocks in forests of Mediterranean countries in 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015

2.7Trees outside forest cover in the three Mediterranean sub-regions

2.8TOF (sensu stricto) cover trends in the Mediterranean by sub-region from 1990 to 2015 and projected to 2030, as reported in the FAO FRA

2.9TOF cover trends in the Mediterranean by sub-region from 2000 to 2010 and projected to 2030, as reported in the ICRAF “Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land Database”

2.10The technological vs. social approach to developing the bioeconomy: a broad comparison

2.11Demographic changes in Morocco from the first and the latest general population census

2.12Effects of climate change on the Mediterranean forest vegetation

2.13Grazing pressure in different forest sites in Morocco (Maâmora Forest), Algeria (Senalba Forest), Tunisia (Siliana, Barbara and Tabarka forests) and Turkey (Düzlerçamı Forest)

3.1Benefits derived from Mediterranean forest ecosystem services

3.2The specifications of the four IPCC scenarios

3.3Projected wood production, carbon sequestration and recreational values in Mediterranean European forests between 2005 and 2050

3.4Estimates of aboveground biomass carbon removal from forests in some Mediterranean countries

3.5Examples of measures to enhance the mitigation capacity of Mediterranean forests

3.6Climate policy instruments influencing mitigation and adaptation actions in the forest sector

3.7The immediate effects of fuel treatments on factors that affect the ignition of a crown fire

3.8Estimated biodiversity in Mediterranean forest habitats based on the results of the extinction risk assessments by the IUCN Red List

3.9Number of threatened forest species by country and territory

3.10Forested areas in protected areas in Mediterranean countries

4.1Main sectors and pathways towards the green economy

4.2The role of Mediterranean forests in selected green economy or related strategies and policy orientation papers

4.3Linkages between climate change policies and SFM or FLR measures

4.4Enabling conditions for participatory approaches

4.5Tools and methods to promote participatory forest management

4.6Model Forest attempts 2006-2015

4.7Comparison of the current situation and expected results following the implementation of the proposed measures/activities for the collection of acorns in the Maâmora Forest

4.8Values of forest ecosystem services in the three Mediterranean sub-regions

4.9Values of a set of forest ecosystem services in southern and eastern Mediterranean countries

4.10Comparison of willingness to pay results between Spain and Tunisia

4.11Public expenditure on forest management in 2010

4.12Summary of identified financial instruments per Mediterranean country

Figures

1.1Northern, southern and eastern Mediterranean countries

1.2Protected areas and limits of the Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot

1.3Water demand by sector in 2014

1.4Development of water demand by sector in northern Mediterranean countries and southern and eastern Mediterranean countries between 2002 and 2014

1.5UNESCO World Heritage sites and World Heritage Sites in Danger, 2016

1.6Population growth in northern, eastern and southern Mediterranean countries, 1960-2050

1.7Urban and rural population growth in northern, eastern and southern Mediterranean countries

1.8Adjusted demographic density, 2015

1.9Gross Domestic Product per capita in 2016 and average annual growth rates

1.10Ecological footprint, 2013

1.11Human Development Index, 2015 and progress between 1990 and 2010

1.12Global Food Security Index (standardized, 2016)

1.13Number of organic farms

1.14International tourist arrivals in the Mediterranean, 1995-2015

1.15International tourist arrivals in Mediterranean countries in 2015

1.16International tourism receipts in 2015 per capita and as a percentage of GDP in 2000 and 2015

1.17Large Mediterranean cities

1.18Comparison of climate change forecasts in the Mediterranean and around the world since 1880

2.1Tuber melanosporum in Catalonia

2.2Mediterranean bioclimates in the area of study

2.3Thermotypes in the Mediterranean macrobioclimate in the study area

2.4Ombrotypes in the Mediterranean macrobioclimate

2.5Comparison between the Palearctic component of the Mediterranean biome of Olson et al. (2001) and the drylands of Sörensen (2007)

2.6Comparison between the Palearctic component of the Mediterranean biome of Olson et al. (2001) and the Global Ecological Zones (GEZ) of FAO (2012b)

2.7Classes of tree cover in percentage and frequency of plots for each class of each FRA definition

2.8Total forest area growth for Mediterranean countries and average annual rate of change in forest area

2.9Growing stock density, Mediterranean countries, 2015

2.10Carbon stock in Mediterranean countries, 2015

2.11Map of GDA plots showing current land use (2015) as classified by the IPCC

2.12Net change in the land use of plots inside the Mediterranean region surveyed between the years 2000-2015 and density plot showing the frequency of the differences in the HFP index between the years 1993-2009

2.13Map of GDA plots showing main changes in land use over the years 2000 to 2015

2.14Spanish National Forest Inventory monitoring plots using new measurements

2.15Trees outside forests are key elements in the conservation of cultural landscape in central Italy

2.16Holm oak dehesa (Quercus rotundifolia) in Sierra Morena (Andújar, Andalusia)

2.17Married grapevine in Central Italy

2.18Trees outside forests in urban areas, Albaicín district in Granada, Spain

2.19Residents and tourists in Ljubljana, Slovenia, enjoy outdoor leisure time in the shade of a large tree

2.20Suggestions for the promotion of participatory approaches to reduce degradation in Maâmora Forest

2.21Grazing in a cork oak forest in Morocco

3.1Ecosystem service cascade between Mediterranean forests and human society within the Mediterranean region

3.2Aerial view of the first Mediterranean tree diversity experiment in Macomer, Sardinia

3.3The Fenouillet trail, Cavalaire-sur-Mer, France

3.4Rural household annual income composition

3.5Distinction between adaptation and mitigation

3.6El Hondo Natural Park, Spain

3.7Restoration activities in Lebanon

3.8Integrated productive ecosystem for large-scale restoration based on business cases

3.9Map showing areas for potential restoration in the Mediterranean region

3.10Projected status of the Mediterranean climate biome in 2070-2099, compared to 1960-1989

3.11Damage from forest disturbances in Europe, 1971–2030

3.12Annex I and Non-Annex I countries map

3.13Mixed coniferous forest

3.14Water limited plant growth

3.15Fire-risk reduction interactions

3.16Process of co-definition of local adaptation strategies

3.17Primary threats to threatened forest species in the Mediterranean region

3.18Argan (Argania spinosa L.) fruits, Morocco

3.19Representative analysis of forests in protected areas in the Mediterranean

3.20Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus), endemic to North Africa

3.21Hectares of FSC certification in the Mediterranean basin as of January 2017

3.22Global FSC certified area in 2017

4.1Trends in Human Development Index and ecological footprint in Mediterranean countries

4.2Ruscus aculeatus L., a medicinal plant traded in Turkey

4.3Kavala, Greece

4.4Number of documents found and analysed (per country)

4.5Mediterranean countries that have ratified all the main international conventions and agreements and dates (when available)

4.6National forest programmes in the Mediterranean region

4.7Reforestation, Maâmora Forest, Morocco

4.8The engagement wheel

4.9French national network of FTCs

4.10Process for engaging local communities in the management of forest resources in Lebanon 200

4.11Opportunities for public engagement in forest management

4.12Engagement planner

4.13The Logical Framework approach

4.14The shadow of the state

4.15Schematic representation of the concepts, approaches and values in the participatory management process

4.16Moving from use to non-use values in environmental valuation

4.17Sites in Turkey with an economic valuation of forest ecosystems

4.18Financing and expenditure structure of analysed National Forest/Green Funds

4.19Grazing in the Maâmora Forest, Morocco, impacts fodder price

Boxes

1.1The Mediterranean region in numbers

1.2Organic farming operations: rate of change 2011-2015

2.1SDG 2: forests and food security in Turkish national forestry legislation

2.2Barcelona’s green plan

2.3The multi-objective Spanish national forest inventory

2.4The Regional Center for Forest Ownership of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Region, France

2.5Wildfires and policies in the Mediterranean

2.6Practices to promote participatory approaches and the sustainable development of Mediterranean forest ecosystems in the Maâmora forest (Morocco)

2.7The technological approach to the bioeconomy: the thermic central of Gardanne Province (France)

2.8The social approach to the bioeconomy: the Borgotaro Consortium in Parma Province (Italy)

2.9Integral Forest Fire Prevention Teams in Cantabria (Spain)

2.10Coping with climate change: adaptive management for Lebanon’s forests

2.11The 2007 fires in the Peloponnese (Greece)

2.12Pollution of freshwater resources in Turkey

2.13Forest fires and soil degradation

2.14Overgrazing diagnosis in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey

2.15The pine processionary moth Thaumetopoea pityocampa

3.1Examples of Mediterranean forest diversity serving past, present and future prosperity

3.2Cork production and impact on the Portuguese economy

3.3The role of olive trees (Olea europaea) in Mediterranean culture and religion

3.4Tunisia case study

3.5A research project on Mediterranean forest ecosystem services and their future under climate change

3.6European Forest Sector Outlook Study II (EFSOS II)

3.7Learning from the past: Algerian “Barrage Vert” towards the adoption of Forest and Landscape Restoration principles (Algeria)

3.8A wetland reborn: El Hondo de Elche (Alicante, southeast Spain)

3.9The Almendrehesa case of Spain

3.10FLR in the Shouf Biosphere Reserve (Lebanon)

3.11Post-fire restoration: lessons learned in Southern Europe

3.12Conservation of Abies numidica in Algeria

3.13The Forest Stewardship Council®

4.1On the current global contribution of forests to the green economy

4.2Rovaniemi Action Plan in a nutshell

4.3National Forest Programme (Turkey)

4.4Example of promotion of NWFP value chains through PES

4.5Pledges and afforestation plans reflected in the policy documents

4.6Policy instruments to support private sector investments in biodiversity conservation

4.7“Firewise-Lebanon”

4.8Forest fire control in Turkey

4.9PES schemes for wildfire prevention

4.10Model Forest

4.11Forest Territory Charter (FTC)

4.12Participatory forestry in Lebanon: improving forest governance through participatory approaches

4.13Forty forest resource management projects in Morocco

4.14The process of adapting the Spanish FSC standard of sustainable forest management to the new FSC principles and criteria (Spain)

4.15Environmental services vs. Ecosystem services: the need for clarification

4.16Algeria’s experience assessing environmental goods and services

4.17Integrated forest management and biomass supply chain for the development of the local economy: Borgo Val di Taro (northern Italy)

4.18Economic valuation of forest ecosystems, Turkey

4.19EU Rural Development Programme of the Common Agricultural Policy

4.20The Moroccan Forest Fund

4.21Watershed payments for fire and soil erosion prevention

4.22The WWF Green Heart of Cork project in Portugal

Acronyms and abbreviations

ABSAccess and Benefit Sharing

ACPAfrican, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

ADAnno Domini

AFDAgence Française de Développement (France)

Appapplication

BCBefore Christ

CBDConvention on Biological Diversity

CDCCaisse des dépôts et consignations

CDMClean Development Mechanism

CEPFCritical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

CESEFORCentro de Servicios y Promoción Forestal

CO_2carbon dioxide

COPConference of the Parties

CORINECooRdination de l’Information sur l’Environnement

COSTEuropean Copeeration in Science and Technology

CPMFCollaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests

CRICCommittee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention

CSRCorporate Social Responsibility

DNAdeoxyribonucleic acid

EAFRDEuropean Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

ECEuropean Commission

EFFISEuropean Forest Fire Information System

EFSOSEuropean Forest Sector Outlook Study

EIBEuropean Investment Bank

ERA-NetEuropean Research Area Net

ERDFEuropean Regional Development Fund

EUFGISEuropean Information System on Forest Genetic Resources

EUFORGENEuropean forest genetic resources programme

EUReuro

EUEuropean Union

FAOLEXFAO’s Legal Service Database

FAOFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAPDAFood and Agriculture Policy Decisions Analysis

FCPFForest Carbon Partnership Facility

FFEMFonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (France)

FGRForest Genetic Resources

FLRForest and Landscape Restoration

FORESTERRAEnhancing FOrest RESearch in the MediTERRAnean

FRAGlobal Forest Resources Assessment programme

FSCForest Stewardship Council

GCFGreen Climate Fund

GDAGlobal Drylands Assessment

GDPGross Domestic Product

GEFGlobal Environment Facility

GEZGlobal Ecological Zones

GFSGlobal Forest Survey

GHGGreenhouse Gas

GISGeographic Information System

GIZGerman Agency for International Cooperation

GPFLRGlobal Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration

hahectare

HABEaSHotspot Areas for Biodiversity and Ecosystem services

HadCM3Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3

HDIHuman Development Index

HFPHuman Footprint Index

IAFInternational Arrangement on Forests

ICRAFWorld Agroforestry Centre

INDCIntended Nationally Determined Contribution

INFORMEDINtegrated research on FOrest Resilience and Management in the mEDiterranean

INSInstitut National de la Statistique (Tunisia)

IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCNInternational Union for Conservation of Nature

IUFROInternational Union of Forest Research Organizations

LDNLand Degradation Neutrality

LiDARLight Detection and Ranging

LIFEL’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement

LULUCFLand Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

MADMoroccan dirham

MBHMediterranean Basin Hotspot

MEDFORVALHigh ecological value Mediterranean forests network

MENAMiddle East and North Africa countries

MFWMediterranean Forest Week

MFWAMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs

MoAMinistry of Agriculture

MODISModerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer

MSSDMediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development

NAMANationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

NAPNational Action Programme

NASANational Aeronautics and Space Administration

n.a.not available

NBSAPNational Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan

NDCNationally Determined Contribution

NFINational Forest Inventory

NGONon Governmental Organization

NLBINon–Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests

NPVNet Present Value

NRMNatural Resources Management

NWFPNon Wood Forest Product

ONFNational Forests Office

OWLother wooded lands

PAProtected Area

PEFCProgramme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

PESPayment for Ecosystem Service

PPPPurchasing Power Parity

RAPRegional Action Programmes

REDD+Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks

RLTSRed List of Threatened Species

RNAribonucleic acid

SCISites of Community Importance

SDGSustainable Development Goal

SFMSustainable Forest Management

SFMFStrategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests

SIDECMSyndicat Intercommunal Distribution d’Eau Corniche des Maures (France)

SIVOMSyndicat intercommunal à vocation multiple

SLUSmall Livestock Unit

SMEsmall and medium enterprise

SNFISpanish National Forest Inventory

SNPsingle-nucleotide polymorphism

SoEFState of Europe’s Forests

SoMFState of Mediterranean Forests

SPVBStrategjia dhe Plani i Veprimit per Biodiversitetin (Albania)

TCMtravel cost method

tCO_2metric tons of carbon dioxide

TEVtotal economic value

TOFtree outside forests

UNUnited Nations

UNCCDUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDPUnited Nations Development Programme

UNECEUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFCCCUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNFFUnited Nations Forum on Forests

UNFIUnited Nations Forest Instrument

UN-REDDUnited Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

URFMUnité de Recherche des Forêts Méditerranéennes (France)

USAIDUnited States Agency for International Development

USDUnited States dollar

WRIWorld Resources Institute

WWFWorld Wide Fund for Nature

WWF-MedPOWorld Wide Fund for Nature-Mediterranean Programme Office

Contributors

In alphabetical order

Editors

Bourlion NellyPlan Bleu, France

Garavaglia ValentinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Picard NicolasFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Authors

Foreword

Lemaitre-Curri ElenPlan Bleu, France

Mitsugi HirotoFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Chapter 1

Bourlion NellyPlan Bleu, France

Ferrer RémyPlan Bleu, France

Chapter 2

Battistelli AlbertoInstitute of Agro-environmental and Forest Biology (IBAF), Italy

Belen IsmailMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Brand DavidKKL – Jewish National Fund, Israel

Çağatay AyhanMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Çağlar SadıkKastamonu University, Turkey

Garavaglia ValentinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Metaj MehmetAlbaForest Center, Albania

Moshe ItzhakKKL – Jewish National Fund, Israel

Özden SezginÇankırı Karatekin University, Turkey

Picard NicolasFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Sözer BenülÖz-Orman Iş Trade Union, Turkey

Türer AhmetMiddle East Technical University, Turkey

Chapter 3

Alberdi IciarNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain

Calderón-Guerrero CarlosTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

Cañellas IsabelNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain

del Río SaraUniversity of Leon, Spain

García-Montero Luis G.Technical University of Madrid, Spain

García-Robredo FernandoTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

Guerrero SilviaNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain

Hernández LauraNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain

Lasserre BrunoUniversity of Molise, Italy

Marchetti MarcoUniversity of Molise, Italy

Martín-Ortega PabloTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

Martínez-Jauregui MaríaNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain

Özdemir ErayMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Pascual CristinaTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

Penas ÁngelUniversity of Leon, Spain

Picard NicolasFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Rivas-Martínez SalvadorPhytosociological Research Center, Spain

San Miguel AlfonsoTechnical University of Madrid, Spain

Sibelet NicoleCentre for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), France

Vallejo RobertoMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Environment, Spain

Chapter 4

Acil NezhaUniversity of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Borelli SimoneFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Cariñanos Gonzalez PalomaUniversity of Granada, Spain

Castro JoséPolytechnic Institute of Bragança (IPB), Portugal

Conigliaro MichelaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Krajter Ostoic´ SilvijaCroatian Forest Research Institute, Croatia

Salbitano FabioUniversity of Florence, Italy

Teobaldelli MaurizioUniversity of Naples Federico II, Italy

Verlicˇ AndrejSlovenian Forest Institute, Slovenia

Chapter 5

Attorre FabioSapienza University of Rome, Italy

Azevedo JoãoPolytechnic Institute of Bragança (IPB), Portugal

Belen IsmailMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Doblas Miranda EnriqueEcological and Forestry Applications Research Centre (CREAF), Spain

Enríquez Alcalde ElsaMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Environment, Spain

Freitas HelenaUniversity of Coimbra, Portugal

Garavaglia ValentinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Hódar José AntonioUniversity of Granada, Spain

Iritas¸ ÖzlemMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Karaaslan YakupMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Khater CarlaNational Council for Scientific Research (CNRS), Lebanon

Koutsias NikosUniversity of Patras, Greece

Lahlou MehdiNational Institute of Statistics and Applied Economics (INSEA), Morocco

Malkinson DanUniversity of Haifa, Israel

Mansour SophieNational Council for Scientific Research (CNRS), Lebanon

Pettenella DavideUniversity of Padova, Italy

Picard NicolasFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Pino JoanEcological and Forestry Applications Research Centre (CREAF), Spain

Vieira JoanaUniversity of Coimbra, Portugal

Vitale MarcelloSapienza University of Rome, Italy

Chapter 6

Muys BartKU Leuven University, Belgium

Tardieu LéaNational Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), France

Tuffery LaëtitiaAgroParisTech, France

Chapter 7

Berrahmouni NoraFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Cortina JordiUniversity of Alicante, Spain

Ducci FulvioCouncil for Agricultural Research and Analysis of Agricultural Economics (CREA), Italy

Fortas SalihaMinistry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Algeria

Gallo Granizo CarolinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Moreira FranciscoUniversity of Porto, Portugal

Parfondry MarcFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Regato PedroIndependent international consultant, Spain

Yalçın Karakus¸ BaharMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Chapter 8

Ayan SezginKastamonu University, Turkey

Barbati AnnaUniversity of Tuscia, Italy

Blasi EmanueleUniversity of Tuscia, Italy

Calama RafaelNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain

Canaveira PauloSenior consultant for the Portuguese Environment Agency, Portugal

Cicatiello ClaraUniversity of Tuscia, Italy

Collalti AlessioFoundation Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC), Italy and National Research Council (CNR), Italy

Corona PiermariaCouncil for Agricultural Research and Analysis of Agricultural Economics (CREA), Italy

del Río MirenNational Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Spain and University of Valladolid, Spain

Ducci FulvioCouncil for Agricultural Research and Analysis of Agricultural Economics (CREA), Italy

Perugini LuciaFoundation Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC), Italy

Scarascia MugnozzaUniversity of Tuscia, Italy Giuseppe

Chapter 9

Alcázar ElisaIndependent international consultant, Spain

Barrios VioletaInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-Med), Spain

Bourlon SophieLuberon Natural Regional Park, France

Bugalho MiguelUniversity of Lisbon, Portugal and World Wildlife Fund, Portugal

Buse JörnBlack Forest National Park, Germany

Dalla Vecchia IlariaForest Stewardship Council, Italy

Garnier ÉricLuberon Natural Regional Park, France

Kabouya-Loucif IlhamMinistry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Algeria

Lovero MarineInternational Association for Mediterranean Forests (AIFM), France

Mitri GeorgeUniversity of Balamand, Lebanon

Numa CatherineInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-Med), Spain

Pérez Ramos Ignacio ManuelInstitute of Natural Resources and Agrobiology of Seville (IRNAS), Spain

Regato PedroIndependent international consultant, Spain

Valderrábano MarcosInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-Med), Spain

Venturella GiuseppeUniversity of Palermo, Italy

Waters SianDurham University, United Kingdom and Barbary Macaque Conservation in the Rif, Morocco

Chapter 10

Martínez de Arano InazioMediterranean Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFIMED), Spain

Rodriguez CarmenMediterranean Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFIMED), Spain

Chapter 11

Belen IsmailMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey

Buttoud IrinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Garavaglia ValentinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Rojo Serrano LeopoldoMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Environment, Spain

Schioppa AlessandroFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Chapter 12

Estévez Malvar MarcosForest Stewardship Council, Spain

Gouriveau FabriceNational Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), France

Maire MagaliFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Martínez Martínez SilviaForest Stewardship Council, Spain

Qarro MohamedNational School of Forest Engineering (ENFI), Morocco

Robert NicolasEuropean Commission Joint Research Center, Belgium

Segur MiguelCastilla y León Wood & Forest Service Center (CESEFOR), Spain

Sfeir Patricia R.SEEDS-Int, Lebanon

Chapter 13

Bourlion NellyPlan Bleu, France

Daly Hassen HamedNational Observatory of Agriculture (ONAGRI), Tunisia

Gatto PaolaUniversity of Padova, Italy

Górriz Mifsud ElenaMediterranean Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFIMED), Spain

Masiero MauroUniversity of Padova, Italy

Pettenella DavideUniversity of Padova, Italy

Robert NicolasEuropean Commission Joint Research Center, Belgium

Secco LauraUniversity of Padova, Italy

Chapter 14

Bugalho MiguelUniversity of Lisbon, Portugal

Corradini GiuliaUniversity of Padova, Italy

Górriz-Mifsud ElenaMediterranean Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFIMED), Spain

Valbuena PilarUniversity of Valladolid, Spain

Figure and cover layout

Ferrer RémyPlan Bleu, France

Marchetta CaterinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Editing and proofreading

Hildebrand AnnieFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy

Acknowledgments

This publication has been made possible thanks to the contributions in time and expertise of many contributors and organizations on a voluntary basis. Launched in January 2016, the participatory process of the preparation of the State of Mediterranean Forests (SoMF) 2018 included a survey disseminated to many stakeholders in the Mediterranean region, and two meetings of the contributors to the SoMF in April and December 2016. FAO and Plan Bleu would like to thank all authors who agreed to contribute to the SoMF 2018, and particularly the following chapter coordinators for their great efforts in developing the chapters: Ismail Belen for Chapter 1; Pablo Martín-Ortega for Chapter 2; Michela Conigliaro, Fabio Salbitano, and Simone Borelli for Chapter 3; Enrique Doblas Miranda for Chapter 4; Léa Tardieu for Chapter 5; Carolina Gallo Granizo for Chapter 6; Anna Barbati and Giuseppe Scarascia Mugnozza for Chapter 7; Catherine Numa for Chapter 8; Inazio Martínez de Arano for Chapter 9; Irina Buttoud for Chapter 10; Magali Maire for Chapter 11; Nelly Bourlion and Hamed Daly Hassen for Chapter 12; and Elena Górriz-Mifsud for Chapter 13.

Each chapter has been peer-reviewed by external reviewers. Here thanks go to James Aronson, Pedro Calaza Martínez, Lelia Croitoru, Erwin Dreyer, Guillermo José Fernandez Centeno, Conceição Ferreira, Antonio García-Abril, Elen Lemaitre-Curri, Mauro Masiero, Rao Matta, Chadi Mohanna, Irina Prokofieva, Rut Sánchez de Dios, Miguel Segur, Lina Tode, Fernando J. Valladares Ros and Ekrem Yazıcı.

Special acknowledgment goes to Jean de Montgolfier, Eduardo Rojas Briales and Youssef Saadani who accepted to be part of the scientific committee of the SoMF 2018. Together with Yannis Raftoyannis, this scientific committee made an overall review of the whole SoMF 2018 and provided scientific guidance on its content. Thanks to Daowei Zhang, Mette Wilkie and Hiroto Mitsugi for final review.

In addition to authors, the development of the chapters has also been made possible thanks to the crucial contributions of additional experts as follows: Celalettin Akça, Meryem Atik, Sabri Avcı, Sezgin Ayan, Assia Azzi, Çağlar Başsüllü, Züleyha Belen, Türksel Kaya Bensghir, Ghania Bessah, Hande Bilir, Mustafa Çetin, Şaban Çetiner, Eşref Girgin, Özlem Iritaş, Kani Işik, Azer Jamaković, Yakup Karaaslan, Göksel Korkmaz, Ahmet Lojo, Veli Ortaçeşme, Denitsa Pandeva, Kalliopi Radoglou, Leopoldo Rojo Serrano, Temel Sariyildiz, Ahmet Şendağlı, Özlem Yavuz, Serdar Yegül, Nihan Yenilmez Arpa, and Peter Zhelev for Chapter 1; Erdoğan Atmis, and Sylvie Guillerme for Chapter 3; Hamed Daly-Hassen, Mariem Khalfaoui, Inazio Martínez de Arano, and Marion Potschin for Chapter 5; Eda Akdemir, Ismail Belen, Hande Bilir, Blaise Bodin, Michele Bozzano, Eduardo del Palacio, Carlos Martín-Cantarino, Sevilay Sönmez, Yasmeen Telwala, and Özlem Yavuz for Chapter 6; Carolina Gallo Granizo for Chapter 10; Ghania Bessah, and Güven Kaya for Chapter 12; Nelly Bourlion, Ludwig Liagre, and Valérie Merckx for Chapter 13.

The participatory process for the preparation of the SoMF 2018 also benefited from the contributions and time of the following experts: Abdelmalek Abdelfettah, Carla Amongero Noriega, Gonzalo Anguita, Christophe Besacier, Susan Braatz, Jean-Paul Chassany, Renaud Colmant, Hilmi Ergin Dedeoğlu, Francesco de Luca, Bruno Fady, Christine Farcy, Conceição Ferreira, Diego Florian, François Lefèvre, Ali Mahmoudi, Caterina Marchetta, Chadi Mohanna, Ameur Mokhtar, Sven Mutke, Éric Rigolot, Hélène Rousseaux, Ümit Turhan and Michel Vennetier.

The preparation of the SoMF 2018 would not have been possible without the financial contribution of the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Introduction

1 The Mediterranean region’s development and trends: framework aspects

Nelly Bourlion, Plan Bleu
Rémy Ferrer, Plan Bleu

With its ancient history and rich heritage, the Mediterranean region is a meeting point between three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. Surrounded by 21 countries,[1] the Mediterranean is the largest semi-enclosed sea in the world. Countries in the Mediterranean region are usually divided into three sub-regions (FAO and Plan Bleu, 2013): the southern, eastern and northern Mediterranean (Figure 1.1).

The Mediterranean region is home to a great variety of ecosystems and species subject to significant pressures. Thirty percent of all international tourists descend on the Mediterranean coast (UNWTO, 2017). The development of large cities and megacities, leading to population growth and increased economic activity, places a strain on coastal areas. The Mediterranean diet and agricultural products are world-renowned, but depend for their sustainability on rural landscapes, resources and decent working conditions.

The significant differences in development between countries, as well as conflicts in the region, make it difficult to envisage a sustainable future for the Mediterranean basin. The region’s fragility is exacerbated by its exposure and sensitivity to climate change: polar regions aside, Mediterranen ecosystems currently experience the greatest impact from the driving forces of global climate change and will continue to do so (Giorgi, 2006; UNEP/MAP, 2016). In order to better understand the issues specifically pertaining to Mediterranean forests, it is necessary to consider the environmental and socioeconomic characteristics of the Mediterranean region as a whole (Box 1.1).

Considerable natural and cultural resources

While the Mediterranean region is rich in natural and cultural resources, these remain fragile and under threat. There are also significant disparities between rural and forest areas on the one hand, and urban and coastal zones on the other.

The Mediterranean region: a biodiversity hotspot

Its variety of marine and coastal ecosystems and wide diversity of fauna and flora make the Mediterranean one of the world’s richest natural habitats. The region is characterized by extraordinary biodiversity, including a large number of endemic species. At the same time, it is threatened by critical levels of habitat loss (Derneği, 2010).

The Mediterranean basin, extending over more than 2 million square kilometres, is the largest of the world’s five Mediterranean Climate regions and the world’s second largest biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al., 2000). The Mediterranean basin is rich in plant diversity (Mittermeier et al., 2004), containing some 25 000 plant species (Myers et al., 2000), 60 percent of which are endemic (Thompson, 2005). The region also contains a great wealth of endemism in trees and shrubs (290 indigenous woody species and subspecies, 201 of which are endemic; Fady-Welterlen, 2005). Quite a number of these are flagship species,[2] such as the cedar tree (Lebanese cedar, Cedrus libani), argan tree (Argania spinosa) and the date palm of Crete (Phoenix theophrasti). The Mediterranean basin is also home to more than 220 species of terrestrial mammals, 25 of which are endemic (11 percent) (Derneği, 2010).

Mediterranean forest ecosystems are very much tied to human activity: the current level of endemism and biodiversity is the result of this interaction. The impact of the increased pressure on these ecosystems will, however, be diffuse. Notably, the loss of biodiversity in these areas will inevitably affect their future economic potential.

Nowadays, protected areas (Figure 1.2) cover only 9 million hectares, representing 4.3 percent of the region’s total surface area. The largest protected area lies in the north (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2017). This number raises questions about the effectiveness of efforts to protect and conserve Mediterranean forests (see Chapter 9).

Scarce water resources

The Mediterranean region is characterized by heavy rainfall in winter and hot and dry summers. While the region’s climate is diverse and spatially variable, a number of areas are classified as arid, semi-arid or desert. The region is a transition zone between a temperate European climate with relatively abundant and constant water resources, and the arid desert climates of Africa and the Middle East, whose water resources are very poor.

A combination of factors have placed severe constraints on the Mediterranean’s water resources. These include climate change, anthropic pressures arising from growing water demand for domestic and industrial uses, the development of irrigated zones and tourism (Figures 1.3 and 1.4). More than half of the world’s “water poor” population is concentrated around the Mediterranean basin, which holds only 3 percent of the world freshwater resources (UNEP/MAP, 2017). These constraints are a major cause of Mediterranean forest degradation (see Chapter 5).

Governments have taken drastic measures to mitigate water scarcity, including large-scale water transfers both within and between countries, as well as the use of expensive non-conventional water resources (sea water desalination and waste water treatment). These necessitate the construction of containment structures to store as much water as possible to meet domestic, industrial and agricultural demands. However, these measures severely interfere with freshwater inputs and related sediments and nutrients in the Mediterranean Sea, endangering ecosystems (most notably coastal wetlands due to coastal erosion and salinization of aquifers).

Diversified rural areas

Due to their history, culture, natural conditions, population density, human settlements, economic structures and human resources, Mediterranean rural areas are relatively diverse. As such, each require different political interventions, but have a shared potential to establish new economic and social development bases. Rich and varied “know-how” exists in these areas, which is often under-exploited due to a lack of means and conditions for valorizing this knowledge.

Natural resources in rural areas are a source of both marketable and non-marketable goods and services. While these are underestimated and frequently go unrecorded, they are nevertheless essential to human development (see Chapter 6). These range from food and water through to aromatic and medicinal plants, fuels, wood and building materials. Maintaining the health of these fragile agrosilvopastoral ecosystems is therefore crucial to conserving both biodiversity and human well-being. Doing so requires a deeper knowledge of the forest resources that deliver these goods and services, which in turn requires large investments.

The sustainable use, management and conservation of natural resources, rural and local development, as well as food production and security are all interdependent aspects of ensuring the well-being of rural communities and provide significant input to downstream industries, from food processing to tourism.

A unique cultural landscape

Home to some of the world’s most ancient human settlements, the Mediterranean region has a unique heritage and culture. Over thousands of years, this has forged strong links between the region’s inhabitants and rural communities. Despite its diversity, centuries of trade and communication have reinforced this regional identity, strengthening the so-called “Mediterranean character.”

The number of UNESCO World Heritage sites in Mediterranean countries continues to grow, increasing from 36 in 1980 to 286 in 2016. Twenty-seven percent of all UNESCO World Heritage sites are located in Mediterranean countries (UNESCO, 2017) (Figure 1.5). There are, however, significant differences in number between countries. Italy (49 sites), Spain (42 sites) and France (39 sites) account for 45 percent of the region’s total Word Heritage sites. Greece and Turkey are far behind this number, with 18 and 16 sites respectively, while a further five countries (Albania, Montenegro, Palestine and Slovenia) account for only two sites each. All of the sites recognized in the Syrian Arab Republic, Libya and Palestine are included in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Moreover, 26 percent of the 55 sites listed as in danger globally are located in the Mediterranean. In addition, 434 Mediterranean sites are currently included on the World Heritage Tentative List (26 percent of the World’s sites), an inventory of the sites State Parties intend to consider for nomination for inscription on the World Heritage list.

This cultural heritage can be seen as a “service” provided by Mediterranean ecosystems and a potential source of development.

Some socioeconomic disparities

The Mediterranean basin is characterized by large socioeconomic disparities, notably between countries in the region’s north, south and east. These disparities have both direct and indirect impacts on Mediterranean forests.

An ever-increasing population

The population of riparian countries in the region increased from 259 million in 1960 to 537 million in 2015 and is projected to reach 670 million by 2050 (World Bank, 2015a). The population distribution in the northern, southern and eastern Mediterranean has also changed significantly during this time. In 1960, for example, southern and eastern countries represented 36 percent of the region’s total population, whilst nowadays this figure stands at 58 percent (Figure 1.6). This increase is associated with significant urban population growth from 48 percent in 1960 to 68 percent in 2015 (Figure 1.7). This urbanization took place predominantly along the region’s coastlines: cities such as Algiers and Tel-Aviv experienced a five to tenfold increase between 1950 and 2010 (World Bank, 2015a).

Approximately one third of the Mediterranean population was concentrated in coastal areas in 2015 (Figure 1.8). The total number of inhabitants in coastal areas was 150 million, while an estimated 250 million lived in hydrological basins, representing 33 and 55 percent of riparian countries’ total population respectively. In southern countries, inhabitants in coastal areas accounted for 65 percent in 2015, with roughly 120 million inhabitants.

While there has been little demographic change in the region’s north, strong demographic growth in the south and east has led to excessive exploitation of natural resources. This has included land clearing, marginal land cultivation, overgrazing and firewood collection. As a result, land productivity has decreased (see Chapter 5).

By contrast, numerous rural areas in northern countries have reported the desertion of farmlands, which have subsequently been invaded by trees and bushes, resulting in revegetation. Southern and eastern Mediterranean countries are experiencing rapid urbanization, with primary demographic growth expected in cities, whilst urbanization rates in the north have remained stable.

Economic heterogeneity between two shores

In 2016, Mediterranean states represented 10.4 percent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a decrease from 11.6 percent in 2010 and 13.6 percent in 2000. While its percentage of global GDP has declined, the Mediterranean population has remained constant at approximately 7 percent of the global population (World Bank, 2015b).

The GDP growth rate of countries in the southern and eastern Mediterranean is significantly higher than that of European Union (EU) member states in the region (Figures 1.9 and Table 1.1). Nevertheless, these rates are considered low when compared with demographic growth rates, particularly high growth rates in the southern Mediterranean.

While growth rates in southern and eastern countries are higher than those of EU member states in the region, significant demographic differences remain: in 2016, the average annual income per capita in southern and eastern countries (approximately USD 15 000) was 1.6 times lower than in the northern Mediterranean, and 1.9 times lower than that of EU member Mediterranean countries (in 2010, annual per capital income was 2.3 times lower at USD 13 000).

Poverty continues to affect many within the region. The Arab Forum for Environment and Development states that poverty affects 65 million people in the Middle East and North Africa (Saab, 2015). This economic insecurity is exacerbated by high unemployment rates, particularly among young people and women. Large income disparities within countries remain present and in some cases growth figures hide natural capital degradation (Figure 1.10).[3]

Economic insecurity in the Middle East and North Africa has an impact on the capacity of Mediterranean economies to reduce current unemployment rates while also creating the millions of jobs needed for new entrants into the job market. Poverty and unemployment also contribute to social marginalization which, exacerbated by income disparity, leads to social and political instability. Increasing economic, social and environmental tensions and their consequences on livelihood security have become unacceptable for many inhabitants. In the absence of sustainable and local development planning, civil and armed conflicts have increased in many countries. Regionally, the impact of current and emerging socioeconomic issues remains a major concern for sustainable and local development (Saab, 2015).

Improving social indicators

Economic growth in southern and eastern countries has been accompanied by significant improvements in social indicators on the Human Development Index (HDI)[4] (Table 1.2). With an average HDI of 0.787 in 2015, the Mediterranean region sits above the global average (0.7) (UNDP, 2016).

However, there remain large disparities between Mediterranean countries: 12 have a high HDI, ten have an HDI between 0.7 and 0.8, while four countries have an HDI below 0.7 (Figure 1.11).

There is more than a ten-year life expectancy gap at birth between Israel (83 years) and the Syrian Arab Republic (70 years). The average length of schooling in Mediterranean countries is nine years, but the range is considerable (from 4.4 years in Morocco to 12.9 years in Israel) (UNDP, 2016) (Figure 1.11). Education rates vary considerably between rural and urban areas, but there is little evidence on which to provide accurate data.

A region increasingly under pressure

While the Mediterranean environment is variable, the region as a whole is subject to many simultaneous, and in some cases protracted, pressures. The primary drivers of environmental degradation are urbanization, tourism, transport, business and industry (including mining and energy operations) and agricultural developments. These are propelled by demographic growth, pollution, overexploitation of natural resources (hunting, gathering and fishing), natural disasters and human disturbances. Changes in climate are already noticeable and will only aggravate this situation over coming decades. It is estimated, for example, that the cost to GDP of environmental degradation is 2.1 percent in Tunisia, 3.4 percent in Lebanon, 3.5 percent in Morocco, 3.7 percent in Algeria and 4.9 percent in Egypt (World Bank, 2015b; Hussein, 2008) (see Chapters 5 and 13).

Agriculture and livestock

As a result of desertion of farmlands and pastures, effective natural recovery and reforestation campaigns have occurred in northern Mediterranean countries. In the region’s south and east, however, particularly in North African countries, pressures on agricultural and forest ecosystems remain significant. This is due to strong demographic pressures on land and water resources, urban sprawl, forest overexploitation and overgrazing.

Mediterranean agro-food industries consume a large portion of rural resources and, as result of processes such as desertification of unproductive soil and pollution from agriculture, are one of the main causes of environmental degradation in the region. At the same time, this sector is key to both the conservation of Mediterranean agricultural landscapes and the provision of subsistence and employment to the region’s inhabitants (UNEP/MAP, 2016).

Food production and security are of paramount importance to the Mediterranean’s rural areas (Figure 1.12). Due to the importance of small and medium-sized holdings in the rural areas of countries in the Mediterranean’s south and east and the mobilization of the family workforce, family farms contribute to the food security of agricultural households and local communities, while guaranteeing supply to local markets.

Furthermore, the social cohesion and family and inter-generational solidarity prevailing in rural households helps to counter food insecurity and the social vulnerability of rural populations at a local level. However, access to land and resources is increasingly open to foreign capital and investment without regard to their impact on agricultural and rural societies.

Southern and eastern Mediterranean countries are vulnerable to international price variation because of their dependence on cereal imports. This makes issues related to agriculture and food security quite sensitive in these areas.

In addition, since the impacts of climate change will result in the degradation of agricultural water resources and the loss of fertile soils, ensuring agricultural practices adapt to climate change is also necessary to protect food security and rural vitality. The effects of climate change will also present a risk to stability in these areas, as they will be felt directly by small farmers. Adaptation strategies and services for agricultural and rural areas, as well as public and private support for these adaptations, are therefore necessary. This includes the promotion of agro-environmental practices, alternative agricultural methods, crop diversification and water and soil conservation, while limiting the consumption of natural resources (Figure 1.13 and Box 1.2).

Tourism

The Mediterranean is the world’s leading tourist destination (including both national and international tourism), with more than 300 million international tourist arrivals in 2015 (representing 30 percent of all global tourist arrivals). International tourist arrivals grew from 58 million in 1970 to more than 349 million in 2015, with a forecasted 500 million by 2030 (UNWTO, 2017) (Figures 1.14 and 1.15).

In 2016, tourism helped generate USD 333 billion in Mediterranean countries (UNWTO, 2017). Over the last 20 years, the direct contribution of tourism to GDP in the Mediterranean region has increased by 53 percent. Tourism is a key pillar of Mediterranean economies, a constant source of employment (11.5 percent of the total number of jobs in 2014) and economic growth (11.3 percent of the region’s GDP) (Figure 1.16). Tourism is vital for many countries in the region: for the economies of coastal regions, tourism represents more than 70 percent of the value of production and gross value added (UNEP/MAP, 2017).

Unfortunately, the prospect of deriving short-term financial benefits from tourism outweigh incentives to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services (Derneği, 2010). Tourism, while currently a source of environmental degradation, can also be considered a service provided by ecosystems, particularly forest ecosystems. Tourism is, therefore, a potential source of income for local populations, under conditions of sustainable management (see Chapters 6 and 14).

Urbanization

Although affected by the economic crisis, urbanization of Mediterranean countries, particularly in the southern coast, has continued at a rapid pace. Two out of three people already live in urban areas, higher than the world average (Figure 1.17). By 2050, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme projects an urban population of about 162 million in the northern rim (145 million in 2010) and over 300 million in the south and east (165 million in 2010).

This population increase will result in serious difficulties. By 2030, for example, some 42 million additional homes will be required, mainly in cities (UN-Habitat, 2008a,b). In addition, most Mediterranean cities, particularly those located on the coast, are not managed sustainably, in the sense that their ecological footprint remains too great, particularly with regard to their capacity. At the same time, the potential of cities as drivers of innovative and sustainable economic and social change is not sufficiently recognized (UNEP/MAP, 2016).

Mediterranean coastal cities are not sufficiently resilient to cope with risks and dangers of natural or human origin. In addition, they are highly energy-dependent; their productive capacity and use of renewable energy, as well as urban agriculture and recycling, remain under-exploited.

Waste production in the region has increased significantly over the last decade, largely due to population pressures and increased consumption. Significant improvements are required in this area: while three-quarters of waste is collected, most is deposited in open dumps, negatively impacting health and the environment. In 2014, less than 10 percent of the waste collected in the Mediterranean region was recycled (AEE, 2015).[5] In many municipalities, residents’ participation in decisions on urban issues remains low, as does access to urban services.

Urban growth in Mediterranean cities has exacerbated current challenges. These include excessive land use, accelerated degradation of built cultural heritage, groundwater pollution and ineffective waste management. These factors have had a cumulative effect on the environment and population health. In this context, if corrective actions and initiatives targeting the territorial, environmental, economic and social imbalances caused by cities are not implemented, Mediterranean societies and ecosystems could suffer serious consequences, especially when combined with the expected negative impacts of climate change and variability. These changes are likely to affect urban coastal areas, where the majority of the population lives.

Sound policies for social and territorial cohesion in rural areas are also needed to ensure sustainable urban development. Urban sustainability is linked to food security and sustainable forms of rural development: poor conditions in rural areas have a profound social and political impact on cities, as they can lead to a rural exodus and attendant increase in urban populations.

Climate change

Climate change is emerging as the primary driver of environmental change in the region. The Mediterranean has been identified as one of the most reactive regions to climate change and defined as a major “hotspot” (Giorgi, 2006) based on the results of global climate change projections. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) identifies the Mediterranean as one of the regions most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming. This reinforces the need to assess the potential impacts of climate change on the Mediterranean, a sensitive region that is likely to become warmer and drier (IPCC, 2007a, 2013) (Figure 1.18).

Environmental changes, both current and projected over coming years, are marked by the speed at which they will occur. Their anticipated impact is also greater, given rapid change does not allow for gradual acclimatization and adaptation by ecosystems and societies.

The primary projected impacts of climate change on the natural environment in the Mediterranean are: rapid change in the water cycle due to increased evaporation and lower precipitation (between 15 and 30 percent by 2030); a decrease in soil water storage capacity (due to changes in porosity resulting from a change in temperatures, making soil drier) and thus an acceleration of desertification already underway (overexploitation and depletion of soils); a northward shift in altitude of marine and terrestrial biodiversity (animals and plants); and extinction of the most climate-sensitive or least mobile species and colonization by new species (see Chapter 5).[6]

A governance system constantly evolving

New governance models

Today, the Mediterranean region has undoubtedly attracted significant international interest. The Arab Spring, the Syrian conflict, the economic crisis and questions regarding the future of Europe as a community, all have a clear international impact. Following the 2011 Arab uprisings in the Mediterranean’s south and east, the region has reached an historical turning point, presenting as many opportunities as challenges. The European Union itself is facing serious financial and economic crises.

Significant differences in levels of development and living standards between countries, as well as conflicts in the region, affect investment and development and represent challenges for the Mediterranean basin’s future sustainability. Sustainable development planning and new models of governance must be supported, geared towards high levels of cooperation, exchange and solidarity (IEMed, 2016).

One of the lessons to be learned from the Arab Spring is the transformation of countries in the Mediterranean south, propelled by a newly educated and mobilized generation, who is open to the world and refuses to be prevented from participating in their countries’ governance. These young people recognize that economic and social rights are inseparable from political and civil rights and that these rights are universal (IEMed, 2016). As a result, governance has been increasingly characterized by the inclusion of non-state actors, such as civil society, the private sector and international organizations, in the decision-making process (see Chapter 12). This is likely to lead to new types of cooperation agreements at both the national and transnational levels. Vertical, multi-level governance has increased decentralization at all government levels. At the same time, a system of multi-polar, horizontal governance, including parallel systems for common rule making, has emerged.

Challenges to effective environmental governance include horizontal and vertical fragmentation of environmental responsibilities, planning and management, lack of enforcement and non-coordination, as well as a lack of human and financial resources in the public sector, particularly at the local level. Other governance challenges confronting Mediterranean countries include inadequate awareness, education, research and innovation and knowledge and information exchanges.

Effective and efficient governance in the Mediterranean requires increased participation in decision-making and cooperation at all levels (local, regional and national) to ensure social justice considerations are taken into account. In order to address inequalities, participation and cooperation must be strengthened and more opportunities for sustainable development must be found. Governance must be flexible, innovative and adaptable; open to new institutional forms based on discussion and participation, as well as innovative regulatory designs and constructive practices directly related to sustainability (UNEP/MAP, 2016).

Strengthening the institutional landscape

The need for cooperation and coordination across the Mediterranean region has long been recognized, resulting in nearly a century of international efforts to protect this fragile and vulnerable ecosystem. These have included: the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) created in 1975; the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean signed in 1976; the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EUROMED); and the Committee on Mediterranean Forestry Questions-Silva Mediterranea. The EUROMED partnership, also known as the “Barcelona Process,” was re-launched in 2008 as the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). In 2005, Euro-Mediterranean partners committed themselves to substantially reducing pollution in the Mediterranean region by 2020. This initiative was named the “Horizon 2020 Initiative” (H2020) and approved in Cairo in 2006 (AEE, 2015).

Silva Mediterranea established in 2011 is now a statutory body of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and works closely with partners in the Mediterranean region to implement international commitments and forestry initiatives. The objective of the Committee is to facilitate exchanges and cooperation on forestry questions between Mediterranean countries and institutions. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of Mediterranean forests to the people who depend on them for their well-being, as well as their socioeconomic role, contribution to biodiversity, climate change and desertification and sustainable forest management and planning.

Other regional initiatives focus on specific issues to be addressed at the regional level, such as the most significant sources of environmental degradation in the Mediterranean region.

The Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD) is an integrative policy framework and strategic guidance document for all stakeholders and partners, translating the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for application at the regional, sub-regional and national level. Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention adopted a first version of the MSSD (2005-2015) in 2005. The second version (2016-2025) was adopted in 2016.

The vision of the MSSD responds to the need to orient the sustainable development agenda towards a “prosperous and peaceful Mediterranean region in which people enjoy a high quality of life and where sustainable development takes place within the carrying capacity of healthy ecosystems” (UNEP/MAP, 2016). It addresses key sectors, including rural and agricultural systems in its second objective, “promoting resource management, food production and food security through sustainable forms of rural development.”

The MSSD calls for the conservation and use of indigenous or traditional plant varieties and domestic animal breeds, valuing traditional knowledge and practices in decisions relating to the management of rural areas. It promotes networks of ecologically protected areas, increasing stakeholder awareness of the value of ecosystem services and of the implications of biodiversity loss. It also recommends inclusive and sustainable rural development, poverty eradication, women’s empowerment, youth employment and equitable access by local producers to basic local services, distribution and market channels, including the tourism market.

The MSSD stresses the need to ensure that national regulatory measures to promote the sustainable use, management and conservation of natural resources and ecosystems are put in place in accordance with international and regional commitments. It provides for effective and participatory management of protected areas and exploitation of renewable natural resources for regulated development in rural areas, including through environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments and licensing processes. The MSSD aims to improve the effectiveness of sustainable rural development and limit the unsustainable use of natural resources and ecosystem goods and services, particularly energy, food and water. It recommends institutional and legal reforms to foster water cooperation programmes in all sectors and across borders. One of its goals is to take urgent and significant measures to reduce the degradation and fragmentation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect endangered species, prevent their extinction and promote adaptation to the effects of climate change.

The Mediterranean landscape: importance and threats

Trees are intimately linked to the Mediterranean landscape. A forest with Aleppo pines, a scrubland with holm oaks, an agroforestry system with olive trees, a forest with cork oaks or a city with stone pines are all immediately identifiable as distinctly Mediterranean. This distinctiveness is not coincidental but the result of long-term interactions with other components of the landscape that have shaped its identity. From an ecological point of view, Mediterranean tree species have evolved in a specific climate, resulting in specific features. Mediterranean flora has the distinction of being both diverse and having a high level of endemism. The Mediterranean region can thus be defined based on its bioclimate or almost equivalently based on the characteristics of its distinctive vegetation, with its typical plant and tree associations.

Since the establishment of civilizations in the Mediterranean thousands of years ago, the identifiability of the region’s tree species has also developed based on the goods and services they provide. Olive groves or cork oak and grazing systems are typical examples. The use of forest ecosystems for the provision of goods and services raises another, more geopolitical, view of the region. Ultimately, one’s definition of the Mediterranean region will depend on the weight given to geographical, biological or political considerations. Nevertheless, forests and vegetation certainly contribute to this definition.

The importance of Mediterranean forests and trees is not only a question of regional identity. It is first and foremost linked to the goods and services they provide. To fully capture the diversity of these goods and services, the notion of “forests” is to be taken as a blanket term including both forests in the strict sense and various other wooded lands and trees, including trees in agroforestry systems and urban and peri-urban forests.

Before considering these goods and services in detail in the second Part of this book, one can gain an idea of their regional importance by considering the extent of Mediterranean forests and trees outside forests. In order to conserve these valuable goods and services for the benefit of populations and the environment, it is important to be aware of their potential, while respecting the natural load these ecosystems can sustainably support. Moreover, in a context of a changing climate, Mediterranean forests have the advantage of foreshadowing the likely future of large forested areas to the north. Hence, the importance of Mediterranean forests derives both from their current value in terms of area and goods and services, and from the role they are likely to play in the future.

Unless action is taken, the future of Mediterranean forests may be undermined by several factors driven by climate change and demographic increase. Climate change will have a significant impact on Mediterranean ecosystems. By 2100, the Mediterranean climate is predicted to experience an average temperature rise of between 2◦C and 4◦C, rainfall is expected to decrease by between 4 and 30 percent and sea levels are projected to increases by between 18 and 59 cm (IPCC, 2007b). In addition to ecological changes, climate change risks include conversion of forests to fire prone shrub communities, outbreaks of pests and pathogens and wildfire and other large-scale disturbances (Resco de Dios et al., 2007). Climate change will have a greater impact on the Mediterranean biome than others because of its exceptional biodiversity and the closeness of the distribution range of the species to the limits of their ecological niche. Due to the uniqueness of the Mediterranean biome, it is likely the impact of global changes will be experienced similarly across the region. It is therefore, advisable to adopt regional approaches to address the impact of climate change on Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Nevertheless, the interplay between climate change, other drivers of change and local particularities means that any regional approaches will require some adaptation to suit local conditions.

It is anticipated that demographic evolution will be another major driver of Mediterranean forest ecosystem change in the near future. The Mediterranean population has grown from 259 million in 1960 to 552 million today, and is expected to increase to 670 million by 2050 (World Bank, 2015a). This trend is not spatially homogeneous, with most of the population growth now occurring in southern and eastern countries, particularly in urban and coastal areas. This population increase and the spatial redistribution of populations within countries (e.g. between rural and urban areas) or across countries (e.g. migration) are already changing the way forest ecosystems are used and managed. Increased population numbers will intensify pressure on the resources provided by forests (fodder, fuelwood, non-wood forest products) with potential escalation of forest degradation. At the same time, rural exodus is already leading to an accumulation of unmanaged biomass and increased risks of large fires. Overall, increased population will highlight needs related to forest management such as access to water. As urban populations increase, recreational peri-urban forests and green urban infrastructure may become a priority.

To understand the challenges Mediterranean forests currently face and will face in the future, we must consider them in a global context. Climate change and population growth are global issues from which the Mediterranean region is not excluded. Under the three Rio Conventions and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, countries have made commitments pertaining to their forests. Mediterranean countries are aware of the important role their forests can play in the global climate change agenda. This can be seen from the role of the forest sector in Mediterranean countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and in their National Action Programmes under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

This Part of the book will aim to demonstrate why and how Mediterranean forests and trees are important and identify the challenges Mediterranean forests currently face. Chapter 2 will establish the importance of Mediterranean forests in the global context, including countries’ commitments under the global sustainable development agenda. Chapter 3 will outline the importance of Mediterranean forests in terms of area, growing stock and biomass. This Chapter will also address the place of forests with respect to other landscape components by assessing land use and land use change in the Mediterranean. Chapter 4 will focus on those trees outside forests making a significant contribution to the goods and services provided by tree-based ecosystems in the Mediterranean. Chapter 5 will demonstrate how the important role of Mediterranean forests and trees could be jeopardized in future if action is not taken to address drivers of degradation and other threats to the region’s forests and trees.

2 Contribution of Mediterranean forests to the Global Agenda

Ismail Belen, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Alberto Battistelli, IBAF
David Brand, KKL
Ayhan Çağatay, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Sadık Çağlar, Kastamonu University
Valentina Garavaglia, FAO
Mehmet Metaj, AlbaForest
Itzhak Moshe, KKL
Sezgin Özden, Çankırı Karatekin University
Nicolas Picard, FAO
Benül Sözer, Öz-Orman Iş Trade Union
Ahmet Türer, METU

Introduction

The combined forest area of Mediterranean countries represents approximately 2 percent of the world’s total forest area (FAO, 2015a), but the importance of Mediterranean forests with respect to global forest goals is far greater than this figure alone suggests. Because of the biodiversity in Mediterranean forests, because the region is one of the world’s primary climate change hotspots (Giorgi, 2006) and because 7.3 percent of the world’s human population lives in Mediterranean countries (World Bank, 2015a), the Mediterranean region is key to addressing global goals on forests.

The global conventions of primary importance related to forests are the three Rio Conventions, which date back from 1992. These are: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). These three Conventions, together with other multilateral agreements, contribute to sustainable forest management by regulating activities within their scope. Recent progress on important UN goals and conventions has put additional emphasis on the role of forests in the global sustainable development agenda:

•Several of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and adopted at the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2015 are directly or indirectly related to forests. SDG 15, in particular, addresses sustainable forest management.

•The Paris Agreement, adopted on 12 December 2015 at the UNFCCC COP 21, emphasized the role of forests in strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. Article 5 of the Paris Agreement specifically encourages Parties to “take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases (…) including forests.”

•The UN Forest Instrument (UNFI), formerly Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI), provides a framework for promoting sustainable forest management. The UNFI articulates a series of agreed policies and measures at the international and national levels to strengthen forest governance, technical and institutional capacity, policy and legal frameworks, forest sector investment and stakeholder participation. Key elements are: (i) to strengthen political commitment and action at all levels to implement effective sustainable management of all types of forests and to achieve the shared global objectives on forests; (ii) to enhance the contribution of forests to the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, in particular with respect to poverty eradication and environmental sustainability; and (iii) to provide a framework for national action and international cooperation.

•The first UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030, adopted at a special session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) on 20 January 2017, defined six Global Forest Goals and 26 associated targets to be achieved by 2030, including the target to expand the world’s forests by 3 percent, or about 120 million hectares, by 2030. These Global Forest Goals are closely connected to the SDGs, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the CBD and the Paris Agreement on climate change, among others.

This chapter aims to demonstrate the particular relevance of Mediterranean forests to the global agenda and how they can contribute, in view of their particularities, to fulfilling international commitments on the environment.

Mediterranean forests and the Sustainable Development Goals

Two SDGs directly address forests, with specific targets:

•Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss;

–15.1. By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements;

–15.2. By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally;

–15.10. Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation.

•Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all;

–6.6. By 2020 protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.

Given their multifunctionality, forests also play a role also in the accomplishment of other SDGs and targets:

•Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere;

•Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture;

•Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages;

•Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls;

•Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all;

•Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all;

•Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable;

•Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

One of the many challenges facing the Mediterranean forestry sector is poverty (SDG 1). As a representative example of most countries in the southern Mediterranean, 15 percent of the Turkish population living in forests or forest-neighbouring villages subsist far below the average national poverty level (as stated by the World Bank in 2001 and 2017). In most cases, these people do not make their living from the forest. Instead, their incomes depend on alternative land uses that often compete with forestry, such as agriculture or grazing. Local villagers, however, depend on forests for firewood, animal fodder and grazing.

Initiatives and projects around the Mediterranean are already contributing to poverty alleviation and the achievement of SDG 1. In Tunisia, for example, community-based organizations and private owners are involved in co-management of forests and rangelands to grapple with poverty issues and reconcile the conservation of forests and rangelands with socioeconomic development by: (1) building capacity and adapting the sector’s institutional and legal framework; (2) optimizing the sector’s contribution to socioeconomic development; (3) maintaining and enhancing the sector’s environmental functions and services; and (4) consolidating and improving the forest and rangelands’ capital (World Bank, 2017).

Incomes from Mediterranean forests not only benefit local villagers but also contribute to national revenue and the population’s overall well-being. Poverty, hunger and food security (SDG 1 and 2) are strictly interrelated. For this reason, national and regional strategies in the Mediterranean region must better reflect an emphasis on the role of forests and agroforestry (Box 2.1).

Mediterranean forests also make a strong contribution to SDG 3. Nowadays the role of forests and nature-based activities in promoting health, well-being and quality of life are well known (Cervinka et al., 2014) and Mediterranean forests are valued and widely preferred over other forests for tourism and recreational activities (UNWTO, 2017).

One of the characteristics of this unique region is its rich biodiversity, reflected in its various habitats. This unique environment can only be maintained by the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of the Mediterranean’s fragile and threatened forest resources (FAO and Plan Bleu, 2013). Various initiatives in this regard are and will continue to contribute to the achievement of SDG 15. Recent initiatives such as the Ankara Initiative, launched at the UNCCD COP 12 and aimed at strengthening implementation of the UNCCD, will support the global sustainable development agenda and leverage the lessons learned from Turkey’s experience and approaches to land management. In 2017, at the Fifth Mediterranean Forest Week (Agadir, March 2017), nine Mediterranean countries – Algeria, France, Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey – endorsed the Agadir Commitment to restore at least 8 million hectares of degraded forest ecosystems by 2030. This regional Mediterranean initiative will encourage political and administrative authorities at the national level, as well as stakeholders involved in the management of Mediterranean forest ecosystems and other wooded lands, to strengthen their respective forest and landscape restoration efforts. These efforts take place in the context of the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030 of the United Nations Forum for Forests and in line with the global Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) objectives of the Rio Conventions and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Regional initiatives such as these are designed to integrate policies and investments at the country level in order to adapt forests to climate change (SDG 13). The Mediterranean region is extremely sensitive to climate change, facing longer and more frequent droughts and heat waves, increasing the risk of large-scale forest fires and severe water scarcity (SDG 6). These impacts will affect both rural and urban populations. Forested watersheds and wetlands supply 75 percent of portable water to these areas. As a result, the region is already subject to significant hydric stress (while the region is home to 7.3 percent of the global population, it can access only 1 percent of the world’s renewable water resources). This exposure will be exacerbated by a predicted reduction in already scarce water resources: almost 290 million people in southeastern Mediterranean countries could face water shortages by 2050 (Birot et al., 2011). It is, therefore, important to recognize the role forest ecosystems play in conserving and regulating water resources.

Mediterranean forests are multifunctional forest resources, providing various non-wood forest products (NWFP). The region’s exceptional species and genetic diversity enable the production and harvesting of a diverse range of products, such as mushrooms, honey, cork, chestnut, resins, truffles, aromatic and medicinal plants and pinecones (Figure 2.1). Although traditional forest management is not typically oriented towards the production of NWFPs (with the exception of cork), these products can be of high importance to local economies, generating income, employment and encouraging rural development (Slovenia Forest Service, 2012). Women often have a key role in the growth and extraction of these products (e.g. medicinal and aromatic plants, beekeeping and the production of argan oil in Morocco) for personal use or in furtherance of traditional non-farming enterprises.

Interest in and use of NWFPs has been increasing over the last decade. This has required regulations in order to prevent collected amounts from exceeding that required for personal use or causing permanent damage to forest resources. In recent years, contract mechanisms, licences or permits for the use of NWFPs, issued by forest owners, have been implemented in some Mediterranean countries (e.g. France, Italy and Turkey). These initiatives, coupled with supporting mechanisms such as loans, grants and technical assistance to enable women to take advantage of these emerging economic opportunities, may also significantly contribute to SDG 5.

The production of timber in Mediterranean forests is limited, particularly in southern Mediterranean countries (Slovenia Forest Service, 2012). More than 62 percent of regional wood production is concentrated in northwestern Mediterranean countries (France, Italy and Spain). These lead both the production of timber (64 percent of overall production in the region) and firewood (62 percent). The northwestern Mediterranean sub-region accounts for up to 81 percent of the total value of firewood. The primary forest product in the south Mediterranean sub-region is firewood (60-64 percent of the value of all wood products in this sub-region) (Masiero et al., 2016).

These figures confirm the importance of forestry resources to local rural communities (especially in the south) and also highlight the need to regulate management of forest resources to maximize their ability to provide affordable and reliable energy to local populations. Governments, recognizing the comparative benefits of wood in terms of increased energy efficiency and reduced carbon footprint when compared to other materials, should promote initiatives that favour both wood and the transition to sustainable energy production in the region (SDG 7).

Many of the benefits Mediterranean forests provide are intangible. Understanding the contribution of Mediterranean forests towards building a green economy (SDG 8), such as generating employment and providing ecosystem services, has been much discussed over recent years. It is now critical for forest managers and governments to account more effectively for forest stocks and flows (see Chapter 10).

Several good practice examples are already occurring in the region (Croitoru and Liagre, 2013) but further efforts are needed to improve governance and inter-sectoral cooperation.

In recent decades, the Mediterranean region has been characterized by increased migration from rural to urban areas. Today, 3.5 billion people, or half the world’s population, live in cities across the globe. It is envisaged that 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030. It is also predicted that 90 percent of urban growth in coming years will be in developing countries. This will result in the depletion and degradation of natural ecosystems in and around urban areas, the drastic loss of vital ecosystem services and, potentially, a lack of resilience to disturbances such as those caused by climate change (Salbitano et al., 2016). Evidence showing the unsustainability of urban growth is increasingly drawing attention to the need to develop sustainable urban models capable of responding to increasing demands for food and basic ecosystem services. Achieving SDG 11, which relates to cities, will depend on the sustainable management of urban and peri-urban Mediterranean forests. Well-designed and managed Mediterranean urban forests make significant contributions to the environmental sustainability, economic viability and habitability of cities (see Box 2.2). They help mitigate climate change and natural disasters, reduce energy costs, poverty and malnutrition and provide ecosystem services and public benefits.

Mediterranean forests and international commitments

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Forests will play a key role in helping parties to meet their climate targets under the UNFCCC (Grassi et al., 2017). According to Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that it intends to achieve. Each NDC defines a country’s emission reduction targets and the steps it will take to address and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Countries published their Intended NDCs in the lead-up to the UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris. Upon ratification of the Paris Agreement, these INDCs became parties’ first NDCs (except in cases where parties decided to submit a new NDC). The often complicated design of each country’s NDC targets can make it difficult to assess and compare respective NDC ambitions (Hargita and Rüter, 2015). Nevertheless, forests often have a prominent role in Mediterranean countries’ NDCs. Annex A lists the role of forests in the NDCs or INDCs of these countries.

Among the various mechanisms developed within the UNFCCC, it is worth mentioning the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) mechanism acknowledged in Article 5 of the Paris Agreement. REDD+ was developed prior to the Paris Agreement to provide incentives to Non-Annex I countries to undertake mitigation activities in the forestry sector. Two Mediterranean countries have joined the UN-REDD Programme: Morocco in October 2012 and Tunisia in December 2013. Tunisia has conducted preliminary studies into implementing a national REDD+ strategy. Other Mediterranean countries have explored the option of NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) to carry out mitigation or adaption activities in the forestry sector (Torres and Martinet, 2016). The relevance of REDD+ and NAMAs to Mediterranean forests is further addressed in Chapter 14.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The Forest Biodiversity Programme is one of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) seven programmes. The Programme is focused on three key elements: (i) reducing threats to forest biological diversity; (ii) the creation of an institutional and socioeconomic environment that will facilitate the conservation and sustainable use of forest biological diversity; and (iii) assessment and monitoring of forest biodiversity. The main instruments for implementing the CBD at a national level are the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Parties to the CBD are required to prepare a national biodiversity strategy (or equivalent instrument) and to ensure the strategy is mainstreamed into the planning and activities of all sectors whose activities could have an impact (positive or negative) on biodiversity. Because Mediterranean forests are the repository of significant biodiversity and because the region has a long history of human occupation, most Mediterranean ecosystems are semi-natural socio-ecosystems of high cultural, economic and biological value (e.g. cork oak forests). Most of the national targets defined in countries’ NBSAPs will concern Mediterranean forests in some way. Annex A lists some of the Mediterranean NBSAP country targets relating specifically to forests.

The CBD implements the Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (FERI) which supports country parties as they develop and operationalize national targets and plans for ecosystem conservation and restoration within the framework of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets, adopted at CBD COP 10 in 2010 in Nagoya, established biodiversity targets which are highly relevant to Mediterranean forests and aligned with the SDGs (CBD, 2017). Forests and degraded lands are explicitly addressed in three Aichi Targets:

•Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

•Target 7: By 2020, areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

•Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 percent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.

The Fifth National Report and Assessment of NBSAPs under the CBD reveals the following level of progress towards these Aichi Targets in the Mediterranean region (CBD, 2017):

•Percentage of Mediterranean countries that have submitted their Fifth National Report to the CBD: 92 percent

•Percentage of Mediterranean countries that have submitted their NBSAP: 48 percent

•Percentage of Mediterranean countries that have set a national target under Target 5: 65 percent

•Percentage of Mediterranean countries that have set a national target under Target 15: 57 percent.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

Forests are among the UNCCD’s six thematic priorities because of their critical role in eradicating poverty in the drylands and providing protection from desertification and drought. The UNCCD promotes both sustainable land and forest management to prevent land and forest degradation and the restoration of already degraded land and forests. Since the adoption of a ten-year Strategy at the UNCCD COP 8 in 2007, parties have been reporting on their implementation of the Convention at various levels. National Action Programmes (NAPs) to combat desertification are the key instruments to implement the UNCCD. Annex A lists forest-related objectives or measures included in the NAPs of Mediterranean countries.

In addition to NAPs, implementation of the UNCCD relies on Regional Action Programmes and Sub-Regional Action Programmes (SRAP) to harmonize, complement and increase the efficiency of NAPs. Regions are listed in the Annexes of the Convention and Mediterranean countries cover four regions: Annex I: Africa, Annex II: Asia, Annex IV: Northern Mediterranean, and Annex V: Central and Eastern Europe. The Union du Maghreb Arabe has detailed a SRAP for the Maghreb region.

The UNCCD has also established a global mechanism called the Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme (LDN TSP). LDN TSP is a voluntary target programme seeking to respond to the following challenge: how do we sustainably intensify the production of food, fuel and fibre to meet future demand without further degrading our finite land resource base? The LDN TSP supports interested countries in their LDN target-setting process, including defining national baselines, targets and associated measures to achieve LDN by 2030. As of September 2017, 110 countries have committed to setting LDN targets, including 12 Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Serbia, Syrian Arab Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey). Three Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Italy and Turkey) have engaged in LDN pilot projects to implement the LDN target-setting approach.

Putting into practice lessons learnt from their LDN Pilot Project, Turkey has initiated an LDN Transformative Project in Upper Sakarya Basin. The project will seek to integrate and implement best practice tools and methods learnt from previous projects. The Project will set out to develop a model for LDN target-setting, planning and implementation in the upper Sakarya basin with the aim of expanding the programme to a national level consistent with SDG target 15.3 and COP 12 on the LDN concept.

Algeria’s LDN pilot project includes a National Reforestation Plan with the aim of rehabilitating 425 000 ha of forest by 2025 and protecting or sustainably managing 2 million ha of overgrazed lands by 2030 (MADRP, 2015). Italy’s LDN targets comprise identifying the causes of forest decline and implementing appropriate rehabilitation measures on 1 325 000 ha of declining lands by 2030, divided as follows: 20 000 ha of dryland forests; 1 200 000 ha of non-dryland forests; 5 000 ha of shrubs, grasslands and sparsely vegetated drylands; and 100 000 ha of shrubs, grasslands and sparsely vegetated non-drylands (MATTM, 2015). Turkey’s LDN targets include: a 5 percent increase in national forest area; afforestation of 15 000 km^2; rehabilitation of 15 000 km^2 of forest lands; a reduction in the average area per fire from 2.7 ha to 2.2 ha and a 3 percent reduction in the number of fires caused by human activity by 2030; rehabilitation of 58 km^2 of mine sites by 2019; a 1 416 decrease in the number of forest crimes; and a 2.7 percent increase in mechanical, biological and biotechnical pest control by 2017 (MFWA, 2016).

Regional Mediterranean forest initiatives which contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Mediterranean forests contribute to the global agenda through various ongoing regional initiatives.

Silva Mediterranea was founded in 1911 to promote regional cooperation and sustainable management of Mediterranean forests. It later became the Committee on Mediterranean Forestry Questions-Silva Mediterranea of FAO. The Committee includes 28 members (27 countries and the European Union). Since its foundation, Silva Mediterranea has worked with the governments and institutes of member countries to examine regional trends in forest and land use, identify priorities for research and implement studies and surveys. Member countries exchange information and technology and share resources and expertise as they work together on selected topics of mutual interest. Silva Mediterranea currently comprises six working groups on forest fires, cork oak and non-timber forest products, forest management and sustainable development, forest genetic resources, urban and peri-urban forestry, and desertification and restoration in Mediterranean drylands.

The Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF) is an international association bringing together various institutions interested in the future of Mediterranean forests and involved in regional cooperation actions aimed at improving forest management and enhancing their social benefits. The CPMF has a number of members: FAO, Plan Bleu, a regional activity centre of the UN Environment/Mediterranean Action Plan, the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), the French Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests, the French Development Agency and French Global Environment Facility (AFD/FFEM), the International Association for Mediterranean Forests (AIFM), the Mediterranean Model Forest Network, the National Forestry Office-International (ONFi), the European Forest Institute’s Mediterranean Office, the Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia (CTFC), the International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), the International Union for Conservation of Nature-Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Mediterranean Programme, the Association of Forest Communities (COFOR International), the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) and the United Nations Development Programme Turkey.

Since 2010, several regional partners have committed to holding a Mediterranean Forest Week (MFW) every two years in a member country. The MFW was conceived as a common regional platform for cooperation on Mediterranean forests, aimed at improving dialogue between the Mediterranean forest research community, policy-makers and relevant stakeholders, as well as communicating the relevance and challenges faced by Mediterranean forests to the international community and society at large.

The Third MFW, held in Tlemcen, Algeria in 2013, adopted the “Strategic framework on Mediterranean Forests: Policy orientations for integrated management of forest ecosystems in Mediterranean landscapes” as a tool to provide a common policy direction for the integrated management of Mediterranean forest ecosystems. During the same event, the high level segment endorsed the Tlemcen Declaration, marking the political commitment of ministers and heads of delegation to consider the policy orientations proposed by Mediterranean experts during the event.

During the Fifth MFW held in Agadir, Morocco in 2017, the high level segment endorsed the Agadir Commitment to improve regional forest and landscape restoration, achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and biodiversity conservation efforts. Under this Commitment, parties undertook to establish a new Regional Mediterranean Initiative on Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) to support the achievement of the Bonn Challenge and Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15). This initiative also encourages national political and administrative authorities, as well as stakeholders involved in the management of Mediterranean forest ecosystems and other wooded lands, to strengthen their FLR efforts in furtherance of the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030 of the United Nations Forum for Forests (UNFF) and in line with the global FLR objectives of the Rio Conventions and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Regional Mediterranean Initiative aims to restore at least 8 million hectares by 2030 and will join other regional initiatives such as the Great Green Wall Initiative for the Sahara and the Sahel and the 3 S Initiative (“Sustainability, Stability and Security in Africa”), which aims to strengthen synergies between the Rio Conventions and the SDGs.

During UNFCCC COP 22 in Marrakech in 2016, Morocco launched the AFMS Initiative entitled “Enhanced Action for Forests in the Med-Sahel Region in the Context of Climate Change,” which aims to establish a regional cooperation and partnership framework. The initiative will reinforce regional FLR and LDN cooperation, particularly through enhancing coordination among organizations. It will also mobilize the Silva Mediterranea expert working group on desertification and restoration of Mediterranean drylands and develop targeted strategic collaborations with regions facing similar challenges in drylands, such as the Sahel.

At UNCCD COP 12 in 2016, the Ankara Initiative was launched to (i) strengthen implementation of the UNCCD; (ii) support implementation of COP decisions; (iii) achieve LDN; and (iv) support the implementation of SDG 15.3. Moreover, this regional initiative will contribute to the global agenda.

Conclusions

The role of Mediterranean forests in contributing to the achievement of the SDGs is already established. This role is attracting increased global attention thanks to several regional initiatives focused on the conservation and sustainable management of Mediterranean forest resources.

Recent international events such as the Twenty-Third Session of the Committee on Forestry (Rome, 2016) and the World Forestry Congress (South Africa, 2015) highlighted the role of Mediterranean forests in tackling climate change and promoting food security.

Action is still needed, however, to promote sustainable forest management to all relevant stakeholders, including local communities, forest owners and managers, farmers, herders, environmentalists, protected area managers and researchers.

Mediterranean forests support both agriculture and human well-being. It is therefore crucial to improve policies and practices to promote sustainable management of forest resources in a way that provides social and economic benefits while also increasing the resilience of ecosystems and societies.

3 Importance of Mediterranean forests

Pablo Martín-Ortega, UPM
Nicolas Picard, FAO
Luis G. García-Montero, UPM
Sara del Río, ULE
Ángel Penas, ULE
Marco Marchetti, UNIMOL
Bruno Lasserre, UNIMOL
Eray Özdemir, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Fernando García-Robredo, UPM
Cristina Pascual, UPM
Carlos Calderón-Guerrero, UPM
Iciar Alberdi, INIA
Isabel Cañellas, INIA
Silvia Guerrero, INIA
Laura Hernández, INIA
María Martínez-Jauregui, INIA
Alfonso San Miguel, UPM
Roberto Vallejo, MAPAMA
Nicole Sibelet, CIRAD
Salvador Rivas-Martínez, CIF

This chapter aims to demonstrate the importance of Mediterranean forests with regard to forest resources. It will review different definitions of the “Mediterranean region,” compiling forest statistics from Mediterranean countries (with regional aggregates) found in the Global Forest Resources Assessment of FAO. Many Mediterranean countries undertake national forest inventories (NFI) including regular monitoring. Theoretically, these country-level statistics could be extrapolated to the regional level. However, the lack of consistency between NFIs across countries makes it difficult to get a consistent regional picture, and using the results of regional studies such as the FAO’s Global Dryland Assessment may still be a preferable means of establishing an overall regional picture of the extent of forest cover.

This chapter provides a snapshot of the state of Mediterranean forests in terms of area, growing stock, carbon stock and land use. It will predominantly base its analysis on the FAO definition of forests in Mediterranean countries, but other definitions will be included. The different figures obtained provide a complementary snapshot of Mediterranean forests captured from different angles.

The extent of the Mediterranean region

Even if a common definition of the core circum-Mediterranean Sea region existed, it is likely the precise extent of the region would differ depending on the emphasis placed on geographical, climatic, ecological or political factors.

All of these factors are relevant in the case of forests. A purely political (e.g. the number of countries containing a Mediterranean coastline) or geographical definition (e.g. the water catchment of the Mediterranean Sea) would exclude large areas with a Mediterranean bioclimate (e.g. Portugal, based on the two definitions given above). Conversely, such definitions could include large areas that do not have a Mediterranean bioclimate (e.g. most French territory, based on a political definition, or a large part of the Alps, based on a water catchment definition).

Biogeography combines disciplines such as biology, climatology, ecology, edafology, evolution and geology to explain the distribution of animal and plant species. Biogeographic approaches to the definition of the Mediterranean region have mostly been based on factors such as vegetation, landform, soil and especially climate variables (i.e. bioclimatic) that influence vegetation growth and survival (FAO, 1999).

Two definitions of the Mediterranean region are based exclusively on bioclimatic variables. The region is characterized by a climate consisting of mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers, and vegetation typified by forests, woodlands and scrubs. Again, the exact parameters of these definitions will depend on how climatic and biotic criteria are applied (Quézel, 1982). On the other hand, altitude and soil type have been less central to biogeographic approaches (Table 2.2). Among early attempts to delimit the Mediterranean bioclimate, Emberger’s diagram using the mean minimum temperatures of the coldest month (m, in ◦C) in abscissa and the bioclimatic coefficient Q = 2000P/(M^2 – m^2) (where P is the annual rainfall in mm, M the mean maximum temperatures of the hottest month in K, and m in K) has been a fruitful approach (Daget, 1977). Inspired by this approach, the UNESCO and FAO (1963) bioclimatic map of the Mediterranean region was based on a classification of ombrothermic diagrams and a xerothermic index (i.e. the index of hot weather drought).

Subsequent global applications of these bioclimatic approaches involved a larger set of bioclimatic variables and multivariate statistical analyses such as cluster analysis. Rivas-Martínez et al. (2011) designed a detailed bioclimatic classification system based on an extensive set of bioclimatic variables. This system classifies the world into five macrobioclimates, including a Mediterranean macrobioclimate divided into eight bioclimates.

The Mediterranean macrobioclimate is one of the largest typological units of the Rivas-Martínez et al. (2011) bioclimatic classification system. This macrobioclimate applies to all extra tropical regions of the Earth at any altitude and with any continentality value belonging to the subtropical and eutemperate zones (23◦ to 52◦N & S), in which there are at least two consecutive arid months during the warmest part of the year, in which the value in millimetres of the average rainfall of the hottest two months of the summer quarter Ps_2 is less than twice the average temperature of the hottest two months of the summer quarter Ts_2 expressed in degrees centigrade (Ps_2 < 2Ts_2).

The Mediterranean macrobioclimate is composed of eight bioclimates: hyperdesertic-oceanic (26.8 percent), pluviseasonal-oceanic (24.9 percent), hyperdesertic-continental (12.9 percent), desertic-oceanic (11.8 percent), pluviseasonal-continental (8.12 percent), desertic-continental (6.96 percent) and xeric-continental (1.75 percent) (Figure 2.2). Forests cannot grow in desertic-oceanic, desertic-continental, hyperdesertic-oceanic or hyperdesertic-continental bioclimates.

A “thermotype” refers to a climate’s thermic category, taking into account various temperature parameters and indices such as the thermicity index (It), the compensated thermicity index (Itc) and the positive annual temperature (Tp). In order to account for regional climatic and vegetation differences, an altitudinal or latitudinal sequence of thermotypes (thermostages) is recognized in each of the macrobioclimates (including the Mediterranean bioclimate, see Figure 2.3).

Ombrotypes categorize precipitation rates. Because of their predictive value in the relationship between the climate and vegetation, the annual ombrothermic index (Io), monthly ombrothermic index (Iom) and summer ombrothermic indices (Ios) are the most widely used. The recognized ombric types are: ultrahyperarid, hyperarid, arid, semiarid, dry, subhumid, humid, hyperhumid and ultrahyperhumid (Figure 2.4).

Finally, bioclimatic stages refer to bioclimatic types conditioned by altitude or latitude. They are delimited according to thermoclimatic (thermotypes, It, Itc, Tp) and ombroclimatic factors (ombrotypes, Io). Each bioclimatic stage contains specific plant formations and communities, giving rise to the expression “vegetation stages.” Although the phenomenon of zoning is universally applicable, thermoclimatic thresholds (It, Itc, Tp) differ in the majority of macrobioclimates. Table 2.1 shows bioclimatic stages in the territory under study, including bioclimates where forests can grow.

Metzger et al. (2013) used 42 bioclimatic variables and hierarchical cluster analysis to classify the world into seven biomes, 18 global environmental zones and 125 global environmental strata.

The Global Ecological Zones (GEZ) of FAO (1999, 2012b) were based primarily on the Köppen-Trewartha climate map but also used vegetation maps to refine the global map and link it to vegetation types. These included the UNESCO and FAO Mediterranean vegetation map for the Middle East 1970. Although the GEZ did not identify a specific Mediterranean zone, instead classifying the world into five domains subdivided into 20 zones, the GEZ is the ecological classification adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Eggleston et al., 2006) to define default values (Tier 1 value in IPCC tiered approach), and thus is important for UNFCCC greenhouse gas inventories. Sörensen (2007) is another worldwide classification system that relied on bioclimate variables (mean annual precipitation and mean annual potential evapotranspiration) to define levels of aridity within drylands. Like FAO’s GEZ, this classification did not specifically identify the Mediterranean region but is relevant to the CBD and the UNCCD.

Other worldwide approaches have attempted to integrate more than bioclimactic information. Based on a worldwide compilation of biogeographic maps, Olson et al. (2001) identified the “Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrub” biome, including 22 ecoregions around the Mediterranean Sea. Building on Metzger et al.’s map of bioclimates and adding information on landform, lithology and land cover, Sayre et al. (2014) identified 3 923 global ecological land units, several of which fall within the Mediterranean region.

All of the above classifications are consistent to some extent. Figure 2.5, for instance, compares the Palearctic component of the Mediterranean biome of Olson et al. (2001) with the drylands of Sörensen (2007) following removal of the hyperarid and arid zones (but including the presumed drylands). The two maps are largely consistent in their classification of the western Mediterranean. In the east, however, large areas of Turkey and Eastern Europe are classified as drylands by Sörensen, but excluded from the Mediterranean biome by Olson et al. The Mediterranean biome of Olson et al. (2001) is also similar in the western Mediterranean to the subtropical zones of the GEZ of FAO (2012b) when excluding subtropical deserts (Figure 2.6). In the east, large areas of Turkey and the Middle East are again classified as subtropical GEZ but excluded from the Mediterranean biome by Olson et al..

The definition used for the Mediterranean region will ultimately determine its size and classification. With the growing availability of worldwide maps containing most bioclimatic, landform, geological, soil and land cover variables, it is likely that defining the Mediterranean region according to threshold values based on these variables will become less and less relevant. The current method used to predict the impact of climate change on the abundance and distribution of Mediterranean tree species, for instance, is to apply species distribution models using large sets of environmental variables but without reference to any specific definition of the Mediterranean basin (Benito Garzón et al., 2008; Attorre et al., 2011). Such definition-free approaches will become increasingly relevant, as it is expected tree species will respond in different ways to climate change rather than as part of a vegetation community. This means the vegetation communities typically associated with Mediterranean ecosystems will shift in composition in response to climate change, thus calling into question the previously accepted definition of “typical” Mediterranean vegetation.

Forest definitions and definition of the Mediterranean forest

In phytosociology, Mediterranean forests refer to typical assemblages of tree species specific to the Mediterranean region, resulting from the interaction between tree species’ ecological requirements and abiotic factors. An alternative to this ecological approach would be to apply a general definition of forests within a region defined as “the Mediterranean.” There are hundreds of country-specific definitions of forests, combining administrative, land use and land cover criteria (Lund, 1999). The FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) (FAO, 2012a) provides a general definition of forests:

Forest: Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.

Other wooded land: Land not defined as “forest,” spanning more than 0.5 hectares; with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of 5-10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds; or with a combined cover of shrubs, bushes and trees above 10 percent. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.

Other land with tree cover: Land considered as “other land” that is predominantly agricultural or urban and has patches of tree cover spanning more than 0.5 hectares with a canopy cover of more than 10 percent of trees able to reach a height of 5 metres at maturity. It includes both forest and non-forest tree species.

Applying a general definition of forests across the Mediterranean raises two additional questions, namely: (a) What is the definition of the Mediterranean region? (b) How to disaggregate country-level forest data to account for Mediterranean versus non-Mediterranean forests within countries?

In this section, we will try to answer these questions using FRA definitions. Because the Mediterranean region is characterized by ongoing human-induced impacts and marked climatic and ecological factors, our interest is not only in typical forests but all areas containing trees – i.e. any type of tree cover. Information on these FRA definitions was collected in 0.5 ha plots as part of the Global Drylands Assessment (GDA) (FAO, 2016d). Tree cover within the plot area was also measured. Using the Mediterranean region defined by the FAO Global Ecological Zones (GEZ) (FAO, 2012b), we found 12 933 plots available for analysis. Among the 31.4 percent of these plots (n = 4 064) that corresponded with FRA definitions, 61 percent (n = 2 502) corresponded to land defined as forest, followed by other land with tree cover at 28 percent (n = 1 122) and other wooded land at 11 percent (n = 440).

Within areas defined as forest, tree cover most frequently ranged from 90 to 100 percent. There was, however, great variability of tree cover ranging from 10 to 89 percent, which together represented most forest plots (66 percent) (Figure 2.7, left). Other land with tree cover frequently presented tree cover ranging from 10 to 29 percent, while other tree cover was minimal (Figure 2.7, middle). Finally, other wooded lands are frequently treeless, although some plots had between 8 and 30 percent tree cover (Figure 2.7, right).

Forest land has the highest percentage of tree cover. When compared against existing datasets such as Globcover 2009, these plots might correspond to intact patches of closed forests, but also to secondary forests and reforested areas. Here, we found the most open (15-40 percent tree cover) to closed (>40 percent tree cover) conifer evergreen forests and broadleaved deciduous forests as classified by Bontemps et al. (2011). Further comparisons demonstrate additional similarities: using maps developed by Bontemps et al. (2011), closed forests occupy 18 percent of the Mediterranean region, whereas our dataset indicates the presence of forest in 19.4 percent of all plots.

Other land with tree cover and other wooded land, which together represent 12 percent of all plots, were more difficult to classify. The abundance of other land with tree cover indicates the importance of trees in human environments, such as settlements or agricultural areas. They also represent most agroforestry open woodlands, olive groves or rain-fed tree crops which so characterize the Mediterranean landscape. Finally, other wooded land could correspond to Mediterranean shrublands or grasslands, both of which contain a sparse number of trees. Bontemps et al. (2011) found mosaics of forest, grassland and shrublands and sparse tree cover across 17.7 percent of the Mediterranean region, which could correspond to these definitions. However, these must include important vegetative formations such as open oak woodlands of Quercus species (known as “Dehesa” in Spain and “Montado” in Portugal).

While these species might also have their place in these definitions, they could be included in lands classified as forests with medium to low tree cover.

Forest resources in the Mediterranean

Forest area

Based on the FAO definition of forests, there were an estimated 88 million ha of forest area in Mediterranean countries[1] in 2015 (Table 2.3), representing 2.20 percent of the world’s total forest area (FAO, 2015a). Forest area in Mediterranean countries has been increasing since 1990 (Figure 2.8). The 0.85 percent/yr net increase in forest area between 1990 and 2010 has largely been the result of forest expansion (0.67 percent/yr), with reforestation contributing 0.23 percent/yr and deforestation remaining at a low level of 0.05 percent/yr (though it is trending upwards). In 2015, forests occupied 10.04 percent of the total area of Mediterranean countries, equivalent to the combined size of Spain and Morocco. Only four countries – Spain, France, Turkey and Italy – make up about 64 percent of the region’s overall forest area. Between 2010 and 2015, total forest area increased by 2.04 percent, a new forest area (1.8 million ha) almost the size of Slovenia. Between 2000 and 2015, there has been a 8 million ha increase in forest area, equivalent to 0.93 percent of the total combined area of Mediterranean countries.

The increase in forest size is both the result of the European Common Agriculture Policy (as in the case of Spain) and forest regeneration in rural areas following abandonment, which can be seen in several Mediterranean countries (Fernández Nogueira and Corbelle Rico, 2017). Because statistics are provided at country level and not according to biogeographical region, a fraction of forest growth has taken place outside the Mediterranean region as defined above, thus accounting for vegetation growth in northern Atlantic regions such as northern Spain or France. In contrast with country-level forest statistics, remote sensing studies focusing on the Mediterranean region show that forest area in the Mediterranean region remains stable (see Section “Land use change” below). Moreover, a stable or increasing forest area according to the FAO definition of forests tells us nothing about forest degradation (see Chapter 5).

To complement the above snapshot using the FAO definition of forests, the Global Forest Watch definition, based on tree cover alone, indicates 85 million ha of land in Mediterranean countries has tree cover ≥ 10 percent and 81 million ha with tree cover ≥ 30 percent (rightmost columns of Table 2.3). Tree cover refers to the biophysical presence of trees, which may be a part of natural forests, plantations, agroforestry systems, or parks within cities. A definition based on tree cover may disregard burnt forests or clear-cut forests (which are included in the FAO definition) but may include agroforestry systems if their tree cover is large enough, even if the land is predominantly used for crops. Differences between the Global Forest Resources Assessment of FAO and Global Forest Watch estimates may also result from methodological limits in assessing tree cover, particularly the use of low-resolution satellite images in areas where tree cover is low (Bastin et al., 2017) and where tree height is around the minimum height of 5 m used by the FAO definition.

Growing stock

The stem volume of living trees, known as “growing stock,” is a basic variable in forest inventory. Its change over time provides basic information for the assessment of the sustainability of forest management. Growing stock information is also used as a basis for estimating the amount of carbon accumulated in living trees and allows forest managers to assess harvesting possibilities and risks of disturbance.

Figures for forest growing stock in almost all countries are available in the Global Forest Resources Assessment of FAO for the years 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. Most countries with data available provided figures on growing stock composition by coniferous and broadleaved tree species in forests. The total growing stock of Mediterranean forests is 10.3 billion m^3 (Table 2.4). Palestine, Portugal and the Syrian Arab Republic failed to provide growing stock data for 2015. The reported total growing stock of other wooded land amounted to 143 million m^3 in 2015, noting that only half of the Mediterranean countries provided data for this year. When interpreting the data for growing stock on other wooded land, it is important to keep in mind that it refers only to the volume of trees; the volume of shrubs is excluded. On the other hand, the definition of other wooded land includes various types of stock, including shrubs. Together with a relatively high percentage of unavailable growing stock data for the other wooded land category (due to high measurement costs and low demand for this information at national levels), there is lower reported growing stock in other wooded land than may actually be the case.

The average growing stock density in Mediterranean forests is 117 m^3/ha. But variability between countries is high. Slovenia has the highest density, with 346 m^3/ha, followed by Croatia with 216 m^3/ha. Bulgaria, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia reported data in the range of 150-200 m^3/ha, while Morocco and Tunisia have the lowest reported stock density at 25 m^3/ha (Figure 2.9). High growing stock densities can be explained mainly by ecological conditions favouring tree growth, forest protection measures, management practices and local terrain conditions hindering the possibility of harvest.

Broadleaved tree species account for 58 percent, or 5.9 billion m^3, of Mediterranean growing stock in forests. The growing stock of coniferous tree species amounts to 4.2 billion m^3. The stem volume of living trees in Mediterranean forests is more or less evenly distributed between broadleaved and coniferous tree species in almost all countries.

Over the past 25 years, growing stock in Mediterranean forests has increased by 137 million m^3 per year. This corresponds to an annual rate of change of 2.0 percent (Table 2.5). The total growing stock in forests did not decrease in any Mediterranean country during the reporting period.[2] Some reported a constant growing stock between 1990 and 2015, which may be due to lack of data from more than one forest inventory. In absolute terms, the increase in total growing stock was highest in France, reaching an average of 34 million m^3 per year over the past 25 years, followed by Spain, with an average increase of 22 million m^3 per year and Italy with an increase of 21 million m^3 per year. Over the same period, the relative rate of growing stock accumulation in forests was highest in Spain, with an average yearly increase of 3.3 percent and Serbia, with an average yearly increase of 3.1 percent. The increase in growing stock may in part be due to the introduction of new sampling-based inventory systems, particularly in several countries in the east, but also to the expansion of forest area in most regions. However, the relative increase in growing stock in forests (2.0 percent/year) was higher than the expansion of forest area during the period 1990 to 2015 (0.78 percent/year).

The reasons for growing stock accumulation in Mediterranean forests are many and complex, and of varying importance. The combined effects of CO_2 concentration and nitrogen deposition can lead to increased growth rates and low levels of harvesting activity (compared to growth) that could be the result of market conditions, increased societal awareness of the multi-functional role of forests, and more effective management of forests aimed at optimal and sustainable development of the goods and services provided by forest ecosystems.

Across the Mediterranean region, the rate of growing stock accumulation in forests was largely stable over the entire period 1990-2015 compared to the period 2005-2015.

Carbon stock

While growing, trees sequester carbon in their biomass. Forests, therefore, contain large stores of carbon in dead organic matter, soil and understorey. The total amount of forest carbon will change depending on forest management practices and climatic conditions. Forests can therefore mitigate or contribute to climate change by acting as a sink for or a source of atmospheric carbon.

On the other hand, changes in climate have had an impact on forest carbon stocks. According to the Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2014a): “Recent indications are that temperate forests and trees are beginning to show signs of climate stress, including a reversal of tree growth enhancement in some regions (North America: Silva et al., 2010; Silva and Anand, 2013, Europe: Charru et al., 2010; Bontemps et al., 2011; Kint et al., 2012), increasing tree mortality (Allen et al., 2010), and changes in fire regimes, insect outbreaks, and pathogen attacks (Adams et al., 2012; Edburg et al., 2012).”

Based on data in the Global Forest Resources Assessment of FAO, forests in the Mediterranean region stored 5 066 billion tonnes of carbon in 2015, equivalent to 1.7 percent of global forest carbon. Between them, France, Turkey, Italy and Spain stored 67.6 percent of total forest carbon stock in the Mediterranean region (Figure 2.10 and Table 2.6).

Forest carbon stock in the Mediterranean region increased by about 1.65 billion tonnes between 1990 and 2015, at a rate of 1.93 percent per year.

Land use change and pressure

Land use and land use change have a strong impact on the weather and may be as important as greenhouse gases in changing climate patterns (Pielke, 2005). Anthropogenic land use activities such as the management of croplands, forests, grasslands, and changes in land cover and land use create both CO_2 sources and sinks and are the driving factor in terrestrial carbon stock change (Schulp et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2014).

It is anticipated that ecosystem services will be particularly vulnerable to land use and land use change. The Mediterranean region in particular will be the most negatively affected by these changes in the medium term (Metzger et al., 2006; Schröter et al., 2005). Increased water stress and higher temperatures will have an impact on vegetation through stronger summer droughts and reduced availability of irrigation water. This will reduce the profitability and competitiveness of Mediterranean agriculture compared to other regions in central and northwestern Europe, which will in turn lead to the extensification and abandonment of agricultural lands (Holman et al., 2017).

This section has a particular focus on Mediterranean forests and forestry. While it is known that annual mean temperatures are projected to increase in the order of 3-4◦C and yearly rainfall is expected to drop by up to 20 percent in Mediterranean forests, less is known about how Mediterranean forests will adapt to these conditions. Schröter et al. (2005) found these changes would have negative effects on vegetation, especially as a result of increased drought, in projected scenarios. In most of these scenarios the burnt area resulting from forest fires would increase and the distribution of typical tree species such as holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) or Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis Mill.) would likely be reduced or forced to shift northwards. Additionally, drought could be a major driver in replacing forest with shrubland or steppe vegetation (Hickler et al., 2012).

Because socioeconomic factors affect land use and land use change, it is interesting to analyse trends in this regard, particularly since the adaptive capacity of forests and forestry is limited in the Mediterranean region, with large forest areas extensively managed or even unmanaged (Lindner et al., 2010; Metzger et al., 2006). Some authors predict that the abandonment of farmland and grazing lands will provide an opportunity for forest and shrub expansion in most Mediterranean mountain areas (e.g. García-Ruiz et al., 2011).

In order to analyse these changes in land use, we examined current land use and land use change using data from two different datasets: (i) the Global Dryland Assessment (GDA) developed by FAO, spanning 2000 to 2015 (15 years), analysing and comparing data from a Global Forest Survey (GFS) of the Mediterranean, Euro-Siberian and other contiguous and/or comparable regions (such as some areas located in northern Europe, Russia, and North America); and (ii) the Human Footprint Index (HFP) by Venter et al. (2016) spanning 1993 to 2009 (16 years) in the Mediterranean.

•The GDA was developed by FAO. It systematically surveyed 213 783 square plots, each with an area of 0.5 ha, using Google Earth and Collect Earth Technologies (Bey et al., 2016) in order to better understand the characteristics and health of forest ecosystems at a regional/biome level (i.e. independently of country borders). Besides variables related to forest characteristics, information about land use and land use change was also collected following the IPCC guidelines described in Bickel et al. (2006). The GDA analysis used the FAO GEZ (FAO, 2012b) definition of the Mediterranean region. The number of plots available for analysis using this approach totaled 12 933 in the Mediterranean region and 27 851 in the Euro-Siberian and other contiguous and/or comparable regions (García-Montero et al., 2015, 2016).

•The HFP index is an attempt to quantify human pressure, which measures the impact of eight typical human activities, namely: (1) extent of built environments; (2) cropland; (3) pasture land; (4) human population density; (5) night-time lights; (6) railways; (7) roads; and (8) navigable waterways.

The HFP index by Venter et al. (2016) was used here. The cumulative human activities over a given area of 10^6 ha are weighted and added together, resulting in a standardized index ranging from 0 to 50, with 0 indicating very low or no human impact and 50 very high human impact. The HFP map was calculated for the years 1993 and 2009. When the difference between these two years is computed, the resulting map can be interpreted as a trend showing an increase or decrease in the HFP over a 16-year period. Our approach is to use the HFP index as a proxy to validate land use change by interpreting changes found in the GFS plots.

Current land use

In 2015 and referring to the IPCC land use categories, most of the plots surveyed across the Mediterranean region were classified as cropland (35.2 percent). Grassland was the second most common land use detected (26 percent of plots), followed by forest (20.7 percent) and other lands (13.4 percent). Settlement and wetlands accounted for the smallest number of plots, with 3.3 percent and 1.4 percent respectively (Figure 2.11).

Some of the maps used to build the HFP in 2009 showed similar results, reporting 31.2 percent of the region occupied by cropland, 21.5 percent by grassland and 7.3 percent by settlement. The differences found between datasets could be further explained with reference to spatial and temporal resolution. Nevertheless, these results seem to confirm the usefulness and accuracy of both datasets at a regional level.

Regarding the GFS inventory in the Euro-Siberian and other regions contiguous and/or comparable to the Mediterranean, García-Montero et al. (2015, 2016) reported the following patterns: (i) in the drylands of Europe and Russia, 33.83 percent of plots were classified as croplands, 17.71 percent as grasslands, 38.32 percent as forests, 3.42 percent as other lands, 2.56 percent as settlements and 4.15 percent as wetlands; (ii) In the European Euro Siberian region, 36.11 percent of plots were classified as croplands, 11.86 percent as grasslands, 41.37 percent as forests, 1.62 percent as other lands, 7.62 percent as settlements and 1.42 percent as wetlands; and (iii) in the North American region, 15.20 percent of plots were classified as croplands, 5.98 percent as grasslands, 66.91 percent as forests, 1.14 percent as other lands, 2.81 percent as settlements and 7.96 percent as wetlands.

Land use change

Overall land use in most of the plots surveyed (99.03 percent) did not change during the period 2000 to 2015. Only 0.97 percent of all 12 933 plots (n = 126) changed from one land use to another. While there were losses to grassland and other land (–0.23 percent and –0.10 percent respectively), there were net gains to croplands by an increment of 0.04 percent, followed by forest land and wetland which both increased by 0.02 percent (Figure 2.12a). The 0.02 increase in Mediterranean forest area between 2000 and 2015 contrasts with the reported increase of 0.93 percent for the same period according to the Global Forest Resources Assessment of FAO (see Section “Forest area”). This difference could either result from methodological differences, illustrating the difficulty in capturing small trends in forest changes; or it could mean that most of the increased forest area in Mediterranean countries actually occurred outside the part of those countries defined as Mediterranean for the purposes of these studies. The single biggest increase in land use was in the settlement category, with an increase of 0.26 percent. Compared against the HFP index, most plots showed central values (61.4 percent of the values between –1 and 1) during the years 1993 and 2009, meaning that no important changes in the HFP index were detected on those plots. However, 28.2 percent showed an increased HFP index, while 10.4 percent showed a reduction (Figure 2.12b).

When comparing HFP maps, the data shows similar positive and negative trends in land use change: grassland decreased by 4.4 percent, settlement increased by 1.7 percent and cropland increased by about 8 percent.

Analysis of land use change in the Mediterranean against other contiguous and/or comparable regions between 2000 and 2015 showed similar results (García-Montero et al., 2015, 2016):

•In countries located in the Euro-Siberian region, 2.10 percent of plots underwent changes of land use in the 15 years surveyed: 0.71 percent of plots transformed from various types of land use into forests, compared with a transformation of 0.35 percent of forest areas into different land uses;

•In plots located in the North American region, 1 percent of plots underwent changes of use in the 15 years surveyed, transforming 0.14 percent of area of various types of land use into forests, compared with a transformation of 0.64 percent of forests into various land uses and;

•In the drylands of Europe and Russia, 1.18 percent of the territory underwent change, transforming 0.28 percent of the plots subject to various types of land use into forests, compared with a transformation of 0.20 percent of forests into different land uses.

In summary, the Mediterranean region showed an increase in the number of new plots containing cropland which, contrary to Holman et al. (2017) and Schulp et al. (2008), shows a positive trend towards expansion. This expansion seems to be particularly evident in Spain, France, Turkey and North African countries. New plots containing settlements occurred concurrently with this regional expansion in cropland as a result of urbanization and tourism. Forest gains and losses were detected where forests were more abundant, mostly in Spain, France and Turkey (Figure 2.13).

Although we detected an increase in forest plots, mostly due to the colonization of abandoned settlements and croplands, the increase of human environments was greater still. Forests occupy 20.7 percent of the region and it is possible that abandoned grasslands in mountainous and rural areas could be colonized by forests in future. Although we detected movement in this direction, it was occurring at a very slow pace.

Overall, land use in the Mediterranean region is characterized by its stability. The reason small land use changes have been detected, as in other parts of the world, could be the result of temporal or spatial factors. The 15-16 year survey period may also be too small to detect important changes in our study area. Most climate change projections and scenarios are for the years 2040-2100. However, our analysis shows the importance of monitoring and classifying land use to validate longterm predictions or trends.

Conclusions

There is a moderate but stable trend towards increased forest area across the Mediterranean, with a corresponding increase in growing stock and carbon storage. The precise extent of this increase will depend on the definition used to define both forests and the Mediterranean region. To a large extent, it will also depend on the methodologies used to assess forest resources. Countries like Spain have shown an increase in forest area partly as a result of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy, but also resulting from the abandonment of rural areas. Forested areas are at great risk of forest fires and other natural disasters, as predicted in projected climate change scenarios. Moreover, the fragmentation of forested areas can lead to biodiversity loss. The Mediterranean region in particular is at risk of soil erosion and desertification.

Consideration of different approaches such as remote sensing and field-based inventories is a useful way to obtain complementary views on the state of Mediterranean forests. This calls for robust and transparent National Forest Inventories (NFI) that would allow for disaggregation of forest statistics from the country level to the sub-regional Mediterranean level. Some countries have already integrated the multidimensional scope of inventories and collect data on the various dimensions of the forests (see Box 2.3 on Spanish NFI). Harmonization of NFIs at the regional level would be a useful addition for the purposes of obtaining consistent regional data on Mediterranean forests.

Surveying forest area in the Mediterranean region over time has allowed us to conclude there has been a slight net increase in overall forest area at the regional level, even though deforestation may have occurred locally in some Mediterranean countries. This conclusion must be moderated by several questions that will be addressed in subsequent chapters: Will this slight increase in forest area continue in the future in the context of global changes? Is forest degradation occurring in the Mediterranean region? This latter question is trickier to address than assessing forest areas, as it requires a precise assessment of the state of tree populations and forest structures in areas classified as forests.

4 Trees outside forests in the Mediterranean region

Fabio Salbitano, UniFI
Michela Conigliaro, FAO
Nezha Acil, University of Birmingham
Simone Borelli, FAO
Paloma Cariñanos Gonzalez, University of Granada
José Castro, IPB
Andrej Verlič, SFI
Maurizio Teobaldelli, UNINA
Silvija Krajter Ostoić, CFRI

Introduction

Forests play a key role in sustaining the livelihoods of communities across the globe by providing people with ecosystem services, food and products for home consumption and income generation. Over the centuries, however, many forest and wooded areas have been cleared or depleted through unsustainable use or to make way for expanding urban and agricultural areas. As a result, trees scattered across the landscape – so-called trees outside forests (TOF) – play an increasingly relevant role in the provision of ecosystem services and products.

Any trees and shrubs that do not fit into the “forest” or “other wooded lands” category of a country’s forest classification can be considered TOF. As a result, the exact definition of TOF will vary from country to country, depending on how the terms “forest,” “land cover” and/or “land use” are defined. TOF can be found both in rural and urban landscapes. Their presence is either the result of the degradation or fragmentation of a previously forested area or of the purposeful planting of groups or individual trees on a given piece of land.

Due to the large variability and heterogeneity of TOF systems – sometimes characterized by sparse distribution, limited spatial footprint, complex ownership and institutional arrangements – the contribution of trees outside forests to the environment, people’s livelihoods and national economies can be quite diverse. In this regard, several publications and reports have been produced in recent years with the aim of highlighting the economic and environmental importance of TOF in the context of international conventions such as UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD (Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al., 2009; Kumar and Nair, 2011; Metzler, 2013; van Noordwijk, 2013; Barbati et al., 2014; Schnell et al., 2014; Laestadius, 2015). This demonstrates that, in the global context of climate change, financial crises and food insecurity, the role of TOFs in local and national economies is likely to increase.

This chapter will provide an overview of the key role TOF have played in Mediterranean landscapes over centuries. In particular, it will focus on current distribution trends and dynamics, management challenges and risks in the near future, and policy and governance approaches to foster their sustainable management.

TOF systems in the Mediterranean region

Trees outside forests can be found in all climates, land types, land uses and regions, and include a wide range of tree and shrub systems. Spatially, they may be scattered sporadically, appear in small groups, or grow in lines. Their presence and distribution may be spontaneous (e.g. woodlands, peri-urban forests, riparian buffers) or intentional (e.g. agroforestry systems, woodlots, urban forests, food forests, trees in lines). They can be left in their wild state or managed to maximize productivity (e.g. orchards, agroforestry systems, food forests, home gardens). They can serve a protective purpose (e.g. windbreaks, greenbelts, street trees, riparian buffers), and/or ornamental/cultural role (e.g. parks, gardens, linear tree populations, street trees, isolated or grouped heritage trees). TOF are valued for their role in conserving the cultural heritage of landscapes, especially in rural areas, where they contribute to the functional and aesthetic conservation of traditional landscapes (Rackham, 1976; Gibbons et al., 2008; Baffetta et al., 2011; Rossi et al., 2016).

In addition to being found and managed as individual trees within a landscape, TOF are a key component of many tree-based, non-forest systems. In such cases, their presence is intended to generate maximum socioeconomic and environmental benefit, both in rural and urban areas. TOF systems in rural settings include open parkland, home gardens, planted mixtures of a small number of species, intercropping in monoculture tree orchards and trees planted in hedges or on boundaries of fields and farms. Each of these will require different levels of human management. When integrated into agricultural landscapes in agroforestry systems[1] in particular, they contribute to more efficient use of water and nutrient resources, protect soil from erosion, and mitigate the local effects of climate change, thus increasing the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems.

Generally speaking, three main types of agroforestry systems can be identified, based on the components associated with the trees in question: (i) agroforestry or silvicultural systems, where woody perennial trees are integrated with crops; (ii) agrosilvopastoral systems, where woody perennial trees are integrated with both crops and livestock production; and (iii) silvopastoral systems, where woody perennial trees are integrated with livestock production. When integrated into the urban environment, TOF form a key part of so-called urban and peri-urban forests. Urban forests can be defined as the network or system comprising all trees located in and around urban areas. These include small groups of trees, trees in parks and gardens, street trees and trees in alignment, and individual trees. Agroforestry and urban forestry refer to the practice of managing agroforestry systems and urban forests with the aim of optimizing the environmental and socioeconomic benefits provided by trees (and TOF in particular) in order to improve community livelihoods and well-being (Sheets and Manzer, 1991; Lovasi et al., 2008; O’Brian, 2016; WHO, 2016).

Importance, uses and types of TOF

In the Mediterranean region, TOF have been a distinctive feature of both rural and urban landscapes for millennia. Regardless of the typological definition used, the role of TOF as a multifunctional resource remains evident (Paletto et al., 2006). With regard to the productive role of TOF, it is useful to recall, for example, that this resource provides almost 9.5 percent of France’s domestic fuelwood (Guillerme et al., 2009). This figure would further increase if it included hedgerows harvested by private owners. In fact, while the contribution of TOF to the production of forage has been decreasing over recent decades – with TOF in rural areas being used more for aesthetic and landscaping purposes than their productive functions – they continue to play a prominent role in the food security of all Mediterranean countries, particularly those located in the southern part of the basin. TOF provide an affordable source of wood and non-wood forest products including food, medicine, fuel, fodder and timber for local communities, particularly in less developed countries. This is especially true in countries where forest cover is low or there is limited access to forests. In such cases, local communities can rely on TOF for a wide range of goods and ecosystem services. In these countries, trees are perceived and valued as a means of enhancing production systems and supporting community livelihoods, leading to the development of forest policies that give consideration to how farmers and rural people use trees (Bellefontaine et al., 2002).

Across the region, TOF are valued and managed for their protective and regulating role. TOF grown in agricultural lands have a positive impact on soil fertility and play a role as a reservoir of biodiversity and ecological corridors, thus conserving the natural habitat for wildlife, especially birds (Boffa, 1999; Söderström et al., 2001; Guillerme et al., 2009; Sekercioglu, 2012). TOF also provide environmental protection by acting as windbreaks and fixing dunes, helping to combat drought and prevent the spread of deserts (Ben Salem, 1991). In addition, tree systems along hedgerows can provide a habitat for wild plants and animals, representing “islands of biodiversity” in rural landscapes (see Case study 1). By supporting pollinators and insectivore birds, TOF along agricultural plot edges also contribute to biological control of pests. By acting as windbreaks, TOF also have a positive impact on agriculture systems, as they help protect crops and produce better and earlier yields. TOF in rural settings are also recognized for their aesthetic and cultural value. This is the case, for example, for the rows of cypresses lining the rural landscapes of Tuscany (Italy) and Provence (France) (Figure 2.15).

Agroforestry practices, in particular, may be preferable to conventional agriculture as they aim to optimize synergies between tree and crop/animal components to increase and diversify overall land productivity. In the Mediterranean region, some of the most traditional agroforestry systems include fruit tree plantations in Morocco (see Case study 2) and the dehesas/montados systems practised in the Iberian Peninsula. Savannah-like ecosystems (Di Castri and Mooney, 1973) are distinctive landscapes found in many areas of the Mediterranean, of which TOF are key components. Although distributed across the region, these systems are characteristic of western areas of the Mediterranean basin and include the Spanish Dehesa, the Portuguese Montado, the Sardinian Meriagos and low density wooded pastures in general (see Case study 3). Other typical TOF systems characteristic of the regional landscape include isolated trees and trees in rows. These systems are usually managed through heavy pruning (such as pollarding, shredding and topping) in order to maximize the range of products they can produce. These include fodder and foliage (e.g. pollarded Ostrya carpinifolia and Quercus pubescens in Greece, Italy and Balkan countries), wood and fibre (e.g. Quercus ilex topping for firewood across the central/western Mediterranean basin) and material used for rural activities (e.g. willow twigs for baskets, vine ties, tutoring vegetable or flower species). In addition, the Morus alba was historically pollarded to breed Mulberry silkworms in Italy and Slovenia. One of the most notable traditional agricultural techniques developed in ancient times was the married grapevine, which involves attaching the woody-climbing grapevine to a living tree supporting its growth, to increase the overall productivity of the land (see Case study 4).

Discussion and interest in research, governance and uses of TOF in the Mediterranean are moving beyond rural to urban landscapes, reflecting a clear shift in understanding and evaluation of their role and uses. In urban areas, residents and decision-makers increasingly recognize TOF are a key component of a city’s green infrastructure (see Case study 5). Ecosystem services provided by trees in urban areas are increasingly acknowledged, particularly for their contribution to urban communities’ health, increasing air quality, removing pollutants, providing green spaces for open-air actives and recreational spaces in which people can socialize and relax. In some cases, TOF are remnants of the original rural landscape which existed prior to urbanization (see Case study 6). Their presence provides a bridge between urban and rural landscapes, as well as conserving local biodiversity and traditional socio-cultural features (see Case study 7). Such contributions are increasingly acknowledged in the southern part of the Mediterranean basin, where the design and management of urban and peri-urban forests is increasingly directed towards providing urban dwellers with multifunctional recreational spaces. In particular, the ‘urban food forest’[2] (Clark and Nicholas, 2013), is an emerging, TOF-related management practice which seeks to meet food needs in urban areas, while also fostering social inclusion and environmental resilience in urban ecosystems. In the Mediterranean region, TOF are also grown in urban and peri-urban settings for ornamental purposes in gardens, public areas and along streets. These trees can include native, naturalized or recently introduced exotic species. As the international horticultural industry has developed and globalized over recent decades, the exotic component of this ornamental planting has increased.

Relevant case studies from the Mediterranean region

Case study 1: Fragmented forests: conserving remnants of Mediterranean forests. Over centuries, ancient Mediterranean forests have gradually been replaced with grasslands, fields, towns, cities and roads. This has contributed to the process of relegating forest remnants to areas with less favourable soil. In these areas, small remaining fragments of what used to be forest began to populate land in between extensive cultivated plots, forming so-called “tree islands.” Tree islands constitute habitats of community interest under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (Habitats Directive of the European Union). Regardless of their origin or degree of transformation, these tree systems play a prominent role in conserving local biodiversity and maintaining or restoring ecological connectivity, as well as providing important ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control and supplying wood and non-wood forest products. The criteria established for classifying a forest fragment as an “island forest” include:

•size between 1 and 1 000 ha

•remnants of vegetation surrounded by territorial matrix

•tree cover above 50 percent

•not including forest plantations with exotic species.

In Andalusia (Spain), tree islands and hedgerows account for less than 1 percent of the Andalusian forest area and consist mainly of pine forests, oak forests, mixed forests, cork oaks, abandoned tree crops and olive groves.

Case study 2: Trees outside forests for fruit production in Morocco. In Morocco, where “forests” and “other wooded lands” cover less than 14 percent of the country, nearly 3 percent of the land is occupied by trees outside forests (FAO, 2015a). A significant percentage of these tree systems consist of fruit tree plantations, which are of great importance to the local and national economy. The cultivation of traditional olive plantations have been integrated with additional fruit tree species (including citrus, fig, walnut, date palms and almond trees) which, in addition to supplying products for local consumption, help respond to increasing demand from the domestic and export market. Some of these species, such as the carob tree (Ceratonia siliqua), olive tree (Olea europaea), palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera) and Argan tree (Argania spinosa) have a tradition of cultivation. In particular, Ceratonia siliqua is greatly appreciated by local farmers for the multiple products and services it can provide: it supplies fruit for consumption and sale on both the domestic and export markets and also provides fodder for livestock. In addition, many of these species also hold religious value for Muslims. In rural areas, some farmers plant these tree species to indicate identification with or connection to a specific group or place (Mhirit and Et-Tobi, 2002).

Case study 3: Dehesas and Montados: Iberian traditional agrosilvopastoral systems. Agroforestry can play a key role in raising livestock by providing fodder, shade and shelter for animals, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas. The dehesas and montados are traditional multifunctional agrosilvopastoral systems characterizing southern and central Spain (dehesa) and southern Portugal (montado) (Figure 2.16). They result from a intentionally induced simplification (both in terms of structure and species diversity) of the Mediterranean forest: anthropic intervention reduces tree density, removes shrub cover (matorral) and fosters the growth of the grass. Used primarily for grazing, these savannah-like ecosystems produce a variety of products, including non-timber forest products such as wild game, mushrooms, honey, cork and firewood. The tree component is oak, usually holm oak (Quercus ilex) and cork oak (Quercus suber), whose acorns provide food for both livestock and wildlife. Other oaks, including melojo (Quercus pyrenaica) and quejigo (Quercus faginea), may be present in dehesa, while in the central-eastern Mediterranean and the main islands of the basin deciduous oaks (Quercus pubescens and Quercus cerris), olive trees and carob-trees (Ceratonia siliqua) may be present. The latter, in particular, is of considerable social and economic significance in North Africa, Sicily, Greece, Crete and southern Croatia, as it grows in arid to semi-arid Mediterranean areas, adapts well to poor soils and represent a valuable source of food and fodder. At present, dehesas/montados occupy 2.3 million hectares in Spain and 0.7 million hectares in Portugal and represent one of the best conserved low-intensity European farming systems. These systems are highly valued for their exemplary land use management, which integrates traditional land uses conservation, with biodiversity and landscape conservation and increased local production. In addition to supporting grazing by species like the Spanish fighting bull and the Iberian pig (known worldwide and sold for premium prices), these systems also provide farmers with a wide range of products including mushrooms, honey, cork and firewood. Furthermore, dehesas/montados are a suitable habitat for local wildlife species such as the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) and the Spanish imperial eagle (Aquila adalberti), contributing to the conservation of these species classified as endangered and vulnerable respectively under the IUCN Red List. Like other agrosilvopastoral systems, however, dehesas and montados are under threat from agricultural intensification and land abandonment, which in turn threatens their diversity and capacity to provide the above-mentioned services and products. As a result, these systems are increasingly exposed to fire hazards, due to an excess of accumulated biomass, and consequent erosion.

Case study 4: The married grapevine. The married grapevine (English translation for the Italian expression “vite maritata”) is a traditional agricultural technique developed by the Etruscans around the seventh century BC. It consists of associating (“marrying”) the woody-climbing grapevine (Vitis vinifera) to a living tree (the “tutor”) supporting its growth. Two related techniques were developed by the Etruscans: the alberata (in which the vine is tied to a single tree) and the piantata (in which the vine develops its branches along ropes tied to trees in a row). The married grapevine is an interesting example of traditional agroforestry practice used to maximize and diversify the production of a given plot of land. While the grapevine produces grapes for both wine production and direct consumption, the tutor tree provides farmers with an additional source of woodfuel, fodder, rough material for tools to be used in farming activities, as well as fruit (where the tutor is a fruit tree). The married grapevine was usually planted on the edges of fields used for the cultivation of cereals, legumes and other crops to mark the boundaries of properties and to separate the different cultivations. As such, it also acted as a windbreak, protecting crops from possible adverse climatic conditions. Tutor tree species were selected on the basis of limiting possible negative interactions with the grapevine (e.g. excessive shadow, pathogens) and in order to optimize the benefits of their presence (e.g. long tree life, additional source of income). The tree species most commonly used were field maple (Acer campestre), elm (Ulmus minor), poplars (Populus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.).

This local technique, extensively used by Latin populations, was progressively replaced by a practice of cultivating vineyards as small trees supported by wood poles (of Greek and oriental origin), more suitable for intensive monoculture production. In Italy, the use of this ancient technique remained common until the 1960s, especially in Tuscany (from where it originated). Interesting examples of married grapevine (both alberata and piantata) can still be found in some Italian regions. In the Campania region, for instance, examples of alberata married grapevine can be found in the Cilento area, while planted married grapevine cultivations remain in the Caserta countryside (Figure 2.17).

Case study 5: Valuing street trees: the “Right of Trees in the City” Barcelona Declaration. Trees in linear systems are the backbone of the green infrastructure of a city. They increase spatial and functional connectivity between urban and peri-urban green areas while also generating a large number of environmental (Gill et al., 2007), ecological, social (Sullivan et al., 2004) and economic (Wolf, 2004, 2005) services. The “Declaration of the Rights of Trees in the City” was conceived and signed in Barcelona during the first congress of the Spanish Association of Arboriculture (1995). The Declaration recognizes street trees as an essential element of the urban environment and calls for sound planning, design, management and monitoring of this resource, which “helps to establish culture at a local level and improve living conditions in the urban environment.” The Declaration invites cities to commit to:

•Acknowledge the basic role of trees as one of the city’s main heritage resources;

•Develop and promote, in a comprehensive and continuous manner, information, inventories, management techniques, practices, procedures, products, services and standards that promote and support the establishment of trees in the city, under the best possible conditions;

•Raise awareness and educate the general public, various professional groups, the industrial and service sectors, schools, colleges and universities on the key role of trees in the life of the city;

•Establish policies, regulations, norms and practices in administration and governance that guarantee optimal conditions for the life of trees in the city;

•Reconsider all the elements that constitute “urban space” and in future conceive, plan, develop manage, use and reutilize all urban elements from the perspective of the requirements and potentialities of the Urban Trees System.

Since its proclamation, the Declaration has been signed by a large number of towns around Spain. Barcelona, in particular, is an example of a compact and densely populated Mediterranean city which has invested in a “green vision” to create a comprehensive green network. A study implemented with the Urban Forest Effects model estimated that in 2008 Barcelona’s 200 000 trees and shrubs removed 305.6 tonnes of pollutants from the air, the monetary value of which amounts to over EUR 1 million (Chaparro and Terradas, 2009).

Case study 6: The Caffarella Valley: a remnant of ancient Roman countryside. By bridging urban and rural areas, trees and woodlands in peri-urban areas make a valuable contribution to the conservation of local biodiversity and historical landscapes, maintaining an area’s local identity and providing inhabitants with a “piece of nature” close to their homes. Rome’s Caffarella Park is a 250 ha alluvial valley located just outside the Aurelian Walls (the border of the ancient Roman city). This area is distinctive because it conserves the historical rural landscape of the Roman countryside in a highly populated and central part of modern Rome. Composed of a mosaic of croplands, vineyards and olive groves, individual trees and small woodlots, the Caffarella Park shows that trees have been a central element of the rural Mediterranean landscape since ancient times. Numerous paintings and illustrations of the valley reveal that trees and woodlands have characterized and shaped the landscape of this area over centuries. Over time, however, the originally dense forest area of the valley has progressively transformed into agricultural lands and pastures. Today, two residual woodlands comprising specimens of Quercus dalechampii (growing up to 14 m) and Quercus pubescens are still found in the area. Traces of a “sacred wood” also remain visible and testify to the cultural and religious value Mediterranean populations ascribed to trees and woodlands. In past centuries, the valley also housed Roman temples, mausoleums, villas and medieval towers whose ruins are still visible, making the area a fascinating mix of archaeological heritage and ecological features. After decades of neglect, Caffarella Park is now a protected area hosting ponds, woods, more than ten springs, pasture lands and meadows. It is also rich in biodiversity, making it an area of high naturalistic value. In the 1980s, the valley was reclaimed by citizens who (through the establishment of a committee) managed to save the area from urbanization and place it under the protection of the Appia Antica Regional Park. Since its establishment, the Park has been managed by a committee which, in cooperation with municipal councils, has initiated a series of campaigns to raise public awareness about the relevance of this natural heritage. Some farming activities (predominantly sheep farming) are still practised in the area. The park offers several educational and recreational activities (biking, naturalistic visits, etc.), attracting many residents who visit the area to play sports, enjoy picnics and visit its archaeological sites. An educational project, entitled Kindergarten in the Wood, aims to familiarize children aged between three and six with the natural environment of their city. With its significant socio-ecological importance, the Caffarella Park is highly valued and considered one of Rome’s most important urban green areas.

Case study 7: The gardens of the Galician Pazos: where wilderness meets design. Botanical gardens, arboretums or other outstanding tree formations with special botanical, social or historical value are significant examples of trees outside forests. The historic Galician Pazos are traditional noble country houses that typify the rural landscape of Galicia (northwestern Spain). Galician Pazos are famous for their fascinating architecture and beautiful gardens, characterized by a natural convergence of wilderness and design and utility and adornment, resulting in an outstanding mix of formal gardens, working farms and natural landscapes. These gardens are characterized by a variety of vegetation and large old tree specimens, attracting many visitors throughout the year. The Pazo de Santa Cruz de Ribadulla (in La Coruña), for instance, is characterized by a beautiful alignment of centuries-old olive trees. The gardens of the Galician Pazos host more than 8 000 varieties of camellias, including the oldest European specimens of this genus. In the Pazo de Quiñones de León (in Pontevedra), it is possible to encounter a huge camellia specimen whose crown measures over 15 metres in width. Attracting many visitors, this unique specimen is a great source of income for the local community. In light of its botanical, architectural and heritage value, Pazo de Oca (in Estrada) is acknowledged as the most significant representative example of Galician baroque gardening.

Classification of TOF

There are some commonalities in the classification of TOF across the Mediterranean. In most northern Mediterranean countries TOF systems are classified in forest and agriculture inventories (as well as in national statistics) according to their structure and physical features. In Spain, for instance, TOF were reported (and classified) as a separate category for the first time in the third National Forest Inventory (MAPAMA, 2008b). According to the baseline description (MAPAMA, 2008b), the types of TOF recognized in the Spanish NFI are:

•Tree-lined river banks: Ecosystems along the banks of streams and rivers, characterized by a predominance of trees, not ecologically connected to forest ecosystems, populated by autochthonous species, and presenting an irregular structure and high levels of biodiversity. This TOF typology usually consists of multiple patches, small in size and elongated in shape. These systems are usually valued for their environmental, protective and landscaping role.

•Small woodlands: Ecosystems consisting of small (< 0.25 ha) clusters of forest trees, shrubs and scrubland, of either natural or artificial origin, populated by either native or exotic species. These systems are usually valued for their environmental, protective and landscaping role.

•Narrow tree alignments: Ecosystems consisting of rows of forest trees narrower than 25 m in width but significant enough to be identified as a separate element from the surrounding land cover. These systems are usually valued for their environmental, protective and landscaping role.

•Isolated trees: Isolated tree specimens with a canopy cover large enough to create a habitat whose characteristics differ from those of the surrounding environment. These systems are usually valued for their environmental, protective and landscaping role.

In France, the two primary institutions responsible for monitoring TOF are the National Forest Inventory France (Inventaire Forestier National France), which has conducted TOF inventories since 1998 and the Central Bureau of Surveys and Studies (Service Central des Études et des Enquêtes), which has been implementing the Teruti land use survey since 1981. The main categories of TOF in these reports are:

•Small woodlands (i.e. bosquet): Groves covering a land area spanning between 0.05 and 0.5 ha and with a width of 20 m or more, populated by trees covering at least 40 percent of the total area and with at least four trees not growing in aligned systems;

•Line-planting: Large, even-sized trees planted in rows at regular intervals. This includes a dedicated category for poplars;

•Hedgerows: Compact linear formations of small trees, bushes and/or shrubs;

•Scattered trees: Tree formations smaller than 500 m^2, including single trees;

•Fruit-tree meadows: Fruit trees grown on permanent, productive grasslands;

•Orchards: Fruit trees cultivated for fruit production on an area spanning at least 500 m^2.

Italy’s National Forest Inventory still does not include a dedicated TOF category. At present, the only non-forest systems reported in the national inventories are urban parks whose tree component meets the threshold (in terms of size, width and tree height) accorded to forests. The Italian National Forest Inventory framework adopted in 2015 includes the category of TOF (Ottaviano et al., 2014). The proposed definition refers to all trees on lands not belonging to the category of “forest lands” and “other wooded lands,” as well as all trees on lands having the characteristics of Forest and other Wooded Lands but falling within the following cases: (i) size less than 0.5 ha; (ii) trees reaching a mature height of at least 5 m but with a density of less than 5 percent; (iii) trees which do not reach a height of 5 m in situ but with a density of less than 10 percent; and (iv) linear formations and shields of widths spanning less than 20 m (FAO, 2001).

In other areas of the Mediterranean, the classification of TOF is based on their function, potential use and services and products. This is the case for most North African countries, in which the classification proposed for TOF (Mhirit and Et-Tobi, 2003) includes the following types:

•permanent wooded grazing lands

•highly dense fruit orchards

•sparse fruit trees (including particular species such as walnuts, figs and pomegranate) located in family backyards

•plantations for soil conservation, comprising stands of forest species, fruit trees or fodder crops

•green belt and road-alignment plantations

•urban and peri-urban parks

•poplar trees.

In urban areas, TOF classifications may differ from city to city and will be defined by local plans and norms. Also, each of the various sectors dealing with the urban landscape and its components (e.g. urban and ornamental arboriculture, urban forestry and agriculture, landscape architecture and urban planning) adopt different TOF classifications. In the case of Mediterranean cities, the types of TOF systems in urban areas are usually classified according to:

•Setting: squares, streets, public gardens, urban parks, historical parks and gardens, botanical gardens, pocket parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, cemeteries, parking lots, residential lots, home gardens or river banks;

•Structure: isolated trees, street trees, linear tree populations, groups of trees (< 5), or small woodlands (0.5 ha);

•Functions (i.e. the ecosystem services delivered): ornamental and amenity trees, trees for food production, trees filtering noise and/or air pollution, windbreaks, or trees in rain gardens;

•Sociocultural value: veteran or monumental trees (not necessarily isolated), historical and symbolic trees, trees in heritage sites, trees in service and recreational areas, or trees of value in residential areas.

None of the aforementioned classifications are applicable across the region. In fact, due to differences in tradition, history and legislation in the forest, agriculture and landscape sectors, the same tree system could be classified as domesticated woodland in some countries and as cropland in others. This is the case, for instance, with chestnut groves, classified as TOF in France but categorized as woodland in Italy. The same applies to olive groves, considered a full-scale woody agricultural crop in most northern Mediterranean countries, while associated with forest tree formations in several African Mediterranean countries.

Historical relevance of TOF in the region

Historical and archaeological evidence from Mediterranean countries demonstrates that TOF have been managed and valued as an important sociocultural, economic and environmental resource in both urban and rural environments since ancient times (Salbitano, 1988; Mazzoleni et al., 2004; Gates, 2011; Walsh, 2013). Numerous agroforestry systems, urban forest components (e.g. historical parks, sacred woodlands, cemeteries and gardens) and tree systems remain intimately connected to urban and rural landscapes and have attained outstanding cultural value as important elements of historic rural landscapes (e.g. Italy, Agnoletti, 2013). They often attain iconic status in regional landscapes (e.g. the cypress tree lines of Tuscany or umbrella pines of Rome), are relics of ancient practices (i.e. vines trained upon trees), or have a prominent role in cultural heritage sites (i.e. isolated trees, olive trees, palms, trees in gardens or small woodlands in UNESCO sites, e.g. Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín, Granada, Spain) (Figure 2.18).

Indeed, the initial use and cultivation of TOF as a human resource dates back to the Neolithic age (about 6000-8000 years ago) concurrent with the commencement of deforestation and land cultivation, when humans began clearing Mediterranean forests and systematizing farming activities (Salbitano, 1988; Mazzoleni et al., 2004; Walsh, 2013). Where slash-and-burn systems were employed, it was common to conserve specific trees with spiritual and/or symbolic value as well as living signs of family or clan farming boundaries.

The symbolism of trees is rooted in the Mediterranean’s prehistoric and paleo-historic human societies (Salbitano, 1988). The umbrella pine (Pinus pinea), for example, was a sacred tree for the Etruscans and it remained a distinguishing symbolic and religious tree during the Roman age. Oak trees were considered sacred by the Celts, ancient Romans and Etruscans. Druids used to gather mistletoe (Viscum album L.) from oak trees, while other ancient Mediterranean populations paid homage to gods by planting trees such as oaks, which were sacred to Zeus, or laurel, sacred to Artemis. In the Balkans, lime trees were considered sacred. Village or city council meetings, wedding celebrations and official proclamations commonly took place beneath the canopy of these trees, which are still common in the centre of town squares in Mediterranean villages and cities.

Trees are an intrinsic part of Mediterranean mythology, history and society. But our Mediterranean ancestors also used trees for practical purposes. Trees left standing following slash-and-burn clearances provided shade, food, fodder and shelter for domestic animals and people, production of firewood, fencing materials and other non-timber forest products.

Pollarding and shredding of trees was widespread and common in the Mediterranean until the first half of the twentieth century. Trees were an important source of fodder and their branches were regularly lopped to allow sheep and cattle to eat their twigs and leaves. The branches were also used for firewood and other purposes. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, pollarding became increasingly rare and virtually died out by the mid-twentieth century. Nevertheless, pollarding remains common in several countries in the Balkans and southern Mediterranean.

Blondel and Aronson (1999) describe the Mediterranean region as follows: “apart from some remote mountain regions, it is very difficult to find a square metre that has not been repeatedly manipulated and redesigned by the man, by the presence of 300 generations of farmers.” The domestication of fruit trees and their countless ways of planting and management are a fundamental trait of this relationship between Mediterranean communities and nature. All over the region, the importance of fruit trees is evident from paleo-botanical remains, archaeological and historical evidences, travel journals, literature and figurative arts. As example, excavations in Sicily, Campania (particularly in Pompeii),Tuscany, Puglia, Lombardy showed the practices of harvesting of wild plants, vines, figs, olive trees, cherry and apple trees dating back to the fourth millennium BC. This is a further evidence of the fundamental role of TOF along Mediterranean history.

Some northern Mediterranean landscapes, characterized by TOF, are linked to pig farming. From the fifteenth century AD, rural landscapes with low-density trees planted in an almost regular pattern became common (isolated oaks frequently dotted the landscape as far back as the middle ages). This agroforestry system, known as plantade in French and plantada in Occitan (from the Latin plantadis, or planted place) is a collective space used to breed pigs. The type of landscaping in which trees are planted more or less regularly at low density is know as alberata and reportedly occurred in central Italy from the fifteenth century AD. It soon became a very popular landscaping device, as can be seen in artworks from that time. These lands with scattered trees were used both for pasture and to produce multiple products. This continued until the first half of the twentieth century, when Mediterranean agriculture became mechanized and farming shifted to monospecific farming, dramatically modifying the landscape hitherto characterized by an agricultural mosaic (Sereni, 1997).

During this time, low density wood pastures (or wooded pastures) became increasingly important, from both an agricultural and ecological perspective. Savannah-like ecosystems (Rackham, 2008), probably one of the oldest landscapes in the Mediterranean (Di Pasquale, 2014), consist of open areas with multiple functions such as grazing, wood, cereal or other crop cultivations. An example of this landscape can be found in the Spanish Dehesas in the Iberian Peninsula (Gómez-Gutiérrez, 1992) and the Portuguese Montados (Pinto-Correia et al., 2011), multifunctional silvopastoral systems together comprising an area of 3.5-4.5 million ha (Moreno and Pulido, 2009; Pinto-Correia et al., 2011) (see Case study 3). Similar landscapes can be found in other Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Greece. In Sardinia (Italy), the local agrosilvopastoral systems “Meriagos” – classified as “Dehesa 84.6” according to the CORINE-Biotopes system – cover an area of approximately 112 668 ha, 96 percent of which is grazed (Pulina et al., 2016).

In Italy’s Umbria and Marche regions, “Querce camporili” or oak trees (generally Quercus pubescens), grew scattered in agricultural fields, or along main roads (Campetella et al., 2002; Clement, 2008), providing shade for travellers, pilgrims, workers and livestock (e.g. bulls, cows and ploughing oxen). At the same time, these trees were used for “pannage,” a practice common to the Middle Ages, but also used during the Roman Empire, in which pigs, sheep, goats and poultry flocks were released to eat acorns and other fallen fruits and leaves (Smith, 2010). This practice was particularly common during the frequent dry and hot Mediterranean summers, when fodder was not readily available (Cañellas et al., 2007; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al., 2009). During arid periods, characterized by fodder shortages, branches of TOF such as Quercus spp., but also Castanea sativa, Fraxinus spp. and Betula spp. (Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al., 2009), Populus spp., Salix spp., Ulmus minor, Acer campestre and probably other species, were pruned to feed animals and enhance fructification in subsequent years.

Other examples of typical landscapes in the circum-Mediterranean basin include landscapes formed by vineyards in which isolated trees are used as living stakes (but also have other uses). It is important to remember that vines were originally a wild rather than domesticated plant species (Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris). The most archaic “vineyards” were therefore shady woody plots in which vines climbed on live trees (see Case study 4). The integration of grapes with TOF represents one of the oldest known wine landscapes, and therefore has important cultural relevance. This form of cultivation was different from the Greek practice of growing vineyards as small trees supported by wood poles.

In Italy, the cultivation of grapevines was partially rationalized and disseminated by the Etruscans about 2 500 years ago, in a vast area from Veneto to central Italy, to the south of Campania (Di Pasquale et al., 2012). The species used as living stakes for vineyards were poplars (Populus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), elms (Ulmus spp.) and fruit trees. This type of cultivation still continues in parts of the region, from the Caucasus to Italy (Di Pasquale et al., 2010; Di Pasquale and Russo Ermolli, 2010) where it is typically used to produce well-known wine varities such as Chianti and Brunello, and Portugal where it characterizes the production area of Vinho Verde.

In recent times, TOF systems have been identified in archaeological areas. Their role and function must therefore be considered in a precise historical and cultural context. In some cases, the TOF systems discovered are fragments of an agricultural landscape that might be related, to some extent, with a previous archaeological landscape as evinced by the presence of agronomic or even ornamental species.

The various tree formations in urban spaces are well known. In historic gardens and parks in particular, tree lined avenues were used to create optical art effects or to re-qualify the city and improve urban liveability (Panzini, 1993). The use of TOF for landscaping is a recurrent theme of gardens in the southern Mediterranean from Lebanon to Morocco, Sicily to southern Spain. The structure and icon of the “secret garden,” i.e. the fenced “hortus conclusus,” was emblematic of the urban landscapes in southern Mediterranean cities until the end of the middle ages and contributed to shaping the renaissance and modern cities of the region (de Wit and Aben, 1999).

Tree-lined avenues are the oldest form of greenery in the Mediterranean. The Romans, with their large network of consular roads, laid the foundations of the most important Mediterranean road infrastructure. Trees lined all roads leading to Rome and were used to consolidate and make them permanent and recognizable: tree roots protected unpaved roads from erosion, mitigated the summer heat, offered protection from rain and snow in winter and (in the case of fruit trees) nourished travellers. Furthermore, they provided construction timber and firewood, glue, fodder, honey, etc. Many species of trees were used in this way, including pines, maples, oaks, planes and horse chestnut, but also walnut, hornbeams, mulberries, palms and cypress, as well as various species of fruit trees. Although during the Middle Ages roads and cities in the region went through a period of decline, trees lining roads kept their importance as a valuable multifunctional source for travellers (Peyer, 2009).

For a long time, prior to the arrival of the aggressive Dutch Elm disease (Ophiostoma novo-ulmi), elm trees dominated the roadsides of Mediterranean Europe. The branches, leaves and trunks of trees along avenues also serve an important environmental purpose, connecting ecosystems and providing a habitat suitable for many animal species, sometimes forming true ecological corridors. Visually, these formations were planted in such a way as to create distinguishing features in an otherwise homogeneous and uniform landscape dominated by flat areas where ploughed fields or pastures prevailed. For these reasons, tree-lining has become an almost indelible signifier of the Mediterranean landscape and an act of resistance against the process of landscape simplification taking place over recent decades.

Current trends and dynamics

Existing data on TOF cover

Data on trees outside forests (TOF) remains scarce and incomplete (Schnell et al., 2014). Most institutional assessments only give a partial depiction of the state of TOF, the focus being primarily on a particular typology (e.g. urban forests, tree crops etc.). It is also difficult to reach a consistent and accurate assessment of TOF between countries, particularly as there is not yet a clear, agreed definition of the term.

In our exploration of TOF trends and dynamics in the Mediterranean, we will consider two different data sources: FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2015, based on national inventories, and ICRAF’s Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land Database 2000-2010, based on satellite data. It is worth highlighting that their respective findings cannot be compared or integrated, based as they are on different TOF definitions (see below) and resulting from the application of different methodologies. They can, however, provide an overview of the worldwide distribution of TOF and help predict possible future trends and dynamics.

According to the FAO definition, TOF refer to all tree formations occurring in farmlands, fruit plantations, orchards, urban parks, settlements, along fields, roads or rivers, as isolated woodlots or low density savannas, etc. (TOF sensu lato). Minimum thresholds in terms of tree cover and patch size have, however, been established for assessment purposes under the FAO FRA (TOF sensu stricto). The FAO FRA methodology uses the term “other land with tree cover” for TOF sensu stricto within the category “other lands” (FAO, 2012a). This category includes all lands not fulfilling the criteria necessary for classification as “forests” or “other wooded lands.”

The “other land with tree cover” sub-category includes all “lands predominantly agricultural or urban and whose patches of tree cover span more than 0.5 ha and have a canopy cover of more than 10 percent of trees able to reach 5 m height at maturity” (FAO, 2012a). TOF formations that do not meet these criteria are not included in the FAO FRA. Relying mostly on member countries’ reports, the assessment provides global statistics for the years 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. However, of the 31 countries in the Mediterranean region, only 17 reported on “other land with tree cover” in the last FAO FRA report (FAO, 2015a).

The definition of TOF used in the ICRAF Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land Database 2000-2010 includes all trees located outside forests for agricultural land-use, including intensive cultivations and agroforestry systems, as well as degraded vegetation and forests interspersed with croplands (Zomer et al., 2016). The assessment, conducted using MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) imagery, provides estimates of worldwide canopy cover on agricultural lands for the years 2000 and 2010 (Zomer et al., 2016). Despite the coarse resolution (1 km^2), ICRAF’s datasets have global coverage and can also provide a comprehensive insight into the state of TOF in Mediterranean agricultural landscapes.

Current distribution and differences between Mediterranean sub-regions

According to FRA data for 2015, at least 8.2 million ha of land in the region is covered by TOF sensu stricto, representing 0.9 percent of the 882.6 million ha of the total area of Mediterranean countries (this is a minimum as statistics are lacking for 14 countries). Values range from 0 ha in Gibraltar to 2.9 million ha in Turkey. Three countries, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey, account for 78.5 percent of the total TOF (i.e. 6.4 million ha). Comparisons between sub-regions show that the largest (and almost equivalent) share of TOF is located in the southern (3.5 million ha, i.e. 42.8 percent) and eastern sub-regions (3.5 million ha, i.e. 42.6 percent), while the north accounts for only 14.6 percent of reported TOF (1.2 million ha) (Table 2.7).

According to the ICRAF Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land Database, 12.1 million ha of agricultural landscapes in the Mediterranean region were covered by TOF in 2010 (about 1.4 percent of the total area of Mediterranean countries). France had the largest area in this regard, with 3.4 million ha of agricultural lands covered by TOF. No farmland tree cover could be detected in Andorra, Gibraltar, Monaco or Vatican City. There was significant disparity at the sub-regional level between countries in the north, east and south. With the exception of Turkey (2.0 million ha, second only to France in area) and, to a lesser extent, Egypt and Morocco (0.2 million ha each), TOF in agricultural landscapes were more frequent in the region’s north (with 9.6 million ha) than the east (with 2.0 ha, 97.3 percent of which was found in Turkey) and south (with 0.47 million ha, 79.4 percent of which was found in Egypt and Morocco combined. See Table 2.7). In terms of canopy cover per unit area, 78.1 percent of Mediterranean agricultural lands with high canopy cover (i.e. > 30 percent) and 83.6 percent of Mediterranean agricultural lands with moderate tree cover (i.e. 10-30 percent) were found in the region’s north (i.e. southern European countries). In the Mediterranean’s east and south, most agricultural lands (i.e. 83.2 percent and 88.1 percent of eastern and southern Mediterranean countries respectively), presented low levels of tree cover (i.e. < 10 percent). Exceptions to this pattern were found in Egypt, where 59.4 percent of farmlands (largely confined to the Nile delta) had moderate tree cover (i.e. 10-30 percent), and Spain, where 89.2 percent of agricultural lands had low cover (i.e. < 10 percent).

Trends and projections at the regional and sub-regional level

Given the incomplete data in FAO FRA 2015, it is not easy to project future regional and sub-regional trends with regard to TOF cover. That being said, a country-level analysis based on past trends for the period 1990-2015 suggests relatively stable TOF cover in nine countries (six in the north and three in eastern area of the basin), with a percentage of change lower than ±3 percent. The TOF area appears to have steadily increased in Morocco (+60.9 percent), Slovenia (+22.2 percent), Tunisia (+18.0 percent) and Turkey (+50.6 percent), while a clear decrease can be observed in Cyprus (–61.9 percent), Bulgaria (–25.3 percent), Serbia (–43.0 percent) and the Syrian Arab Republic (–11.8 percent) (Table 2.8).

With regard to TOF in agricultural landscapes, the comparison between the ICRAF Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land Database data in 2000 and 2010 shows a positive regional trend (+10.9 percent), with an annual increase of about 0.12 million ha of tree cover in regional farmlands.

Should this trend continue, agricultural canopy cover in the region’s agricultural landscapes would reach 14.5 million ha by 2030. At the sub-regional level, there a clear difference between the three sub-regions in terms of percentage increase over this 10-year period. Eastern countries showed a 14.7 percent increase, followed by northern countries with a 10.7 percent increase, while the south experienced a negligible increase (0.3 percent), mainly due to the extensive decrease observed in Egypt (–53 774 ha) (Table 2.9).

Six countries in the Region showed an increase in TOF cover exceeding 50 percent, namely Palestine (+62.4 percent), Algeria (+56.7 percent), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (+55.8 percent), Malta (+53.2 percent), Tunisia (+53.2 percent) and Albania (+50.6 percent). Conversely, three countries experienced a substantial decline in TOF cover, namely Libya (–29.5 percent), Egypt (–19.9 percent) and Portugal (–15.1 percent). With regard to the level of canopy cover observed in the region’s agricultural landscapes, areas with a high level of tree cover recorded a 27 percent increase, a 6.5 percent increase was recorded for areas with moderate tree cover, while a 4 percent decrease was observed for areas with low tree canopy cover. Ironically, this recorded decrease was probably due to increased tree cover in some areas, resulting in a re-classification from “low tree cover” in the 2000 assessment to the “moderate tree cover” class in 2010. Only Egypt and (to a lesser extent) Cyprus show patterns of change contrasting with the regional trend, with a clear decline in agricultural lands with high tree canopy cover (–86.1 percent and –40.0 percent respectively) and a significant increase in areas with low tree canopy cover (+16.8 percent and +1.0 percent respectively).

Drivers of change across the region

TOF presence is strongly associated with bioclimatic indicators, particularly aridity. This is reflected in the abundance of TOF in humid zones and their scarcity in hyper-arid drylands (Zomer et al., 2014). In the context of climate change, rising temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns and longer drought periods are expected to significantly alter the distribution of TOF. Land clearing for agricultural use or urban development is one of the main causes of TOF cover decrease and can lead to dramatic changes in their regional distribution, especially if associated with the widespread desertification affecting Mediterranean drylands. An example of this is the Nile delta in Egypt, where farmland tree cover is shrinking at an alarming rate, due to a combination of land degradation, abandonment and conversion to urban settlements (Shalaby et al., 2012). Other potential contributors to TOF reduction are forest fires and overgrazing, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East. On the other hand, drivers of TOF expansion include tree planting for agricultural production, natural tree regrowth on abandoned lands and the implementation of policies promoting green infrastructure, rural landscaping, agroforestry and reforestation. Human activities and population density can also act as positive influencers, eventually overcoming the bioclimatic limitations, where demand for trees is high (Zomer et al., 2014).

Innovative tools for TOF assessment

Significant progress in remote sensing technology and data collection and analysis has been made to facilitate land assessment at different levels (local, national, regional and global). Through the Open Foris initiative, FAO has developed a number of free and open source applications intended to overcome constraints related to cost, time and expertise in massive data processing and analysis. Among these, Collect Earth desktop is a software tool that allows users to combine pre-processed data from multiple publicly accessible sources to produce an augmented visual representation of the data collected (Bey et al., 2016).

A thorough TOF assessment requires fine spatial resolution imagery to detect the presence of individual or small groups of trees. With this in mind, the tool allows users to visualize and interpret very high resolution images (from the Digital Globe archive in Google Earth and Bing Maps), in conjunction with a number of bio-geophysical indices and automatically generated time series data (e.g. derived from Landsat and MODIS data in the Google Earth Engine) (Bey et al., 2016). The tool has already proved efficient in assessing the state of drylands, locating around 13.5 billion TOF in these ecosystems globally (FAO, 2016d).

A few other tools are dedicated to tree inventory in urban settings. These include the i-Tree suite (so far only adapted for application in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia; i-Tree, 2017), Greece’s Urban Tree Management applications (within the programme URBAN; Tasoulas et al., 2013) and the more recent web platform Curio, which relies on crowdsourcing to map trees in cities worldwide (Breadboard Labs and ESA, 2017).

Policies and governance

Rights over a natural resource are primarily determined by the status of the land on which the resource is located. TOF include trees growing on both private and public land in a wide range of possible land-uses. As a consequence, different policies and laws on forestry and/or agriculture (or neither) will govern access, use and management of this resource in any given country.

In Portugal, the management of TOF in rural areas can fall within the national jurisdiction (e.g. for trees along river banks) or local regulations (e.g. for the management of trees in national/natural parks). At present, tree planting is promoted through a national rural development framework, which provides financial support to those willing to increase the tree cover of their land up to a maximum of 80 hardwood trees or 250 non-hardwood trees per ha. Tree felling is only permitted following authorization by municipal/environmental authorities, and this also applies to trees located on private land. In particular, strict management applies to two species: the cork tree (Quercus suber) and holm oak (Quercus ilex), which can only be felled under exceptional circumstances involving new clearing plantations. In urban areas, tree management is often governed by local “green plans,” which provide guidance on which species may be planted and their management. Due to their historical significance, there are strict regulations in place for the management of heritage trees.

In Turkey, unauthorized cutting of trees and shrubs in urban areas is considered a violation of property rights. Property owners may fell trees located outside forests that do not belong to forest species without obtaining authorization from forest administrators. This includes, among others, fruit trees. If a felling request relates to a forest species, however, specific permission must be granted by the forestry authority. For TOF in rural areas, ad hoc laws exist to protect tree species with high economic value, such as olives, pistachios, locust bean, and terebinth (e.g. Olive Trees Protection Law). A National Afforestation and Erosion Control Law (1995) encourages tree planting by public institutions and the private sector in order to increase forest cover and recover the ecological functionality of natural landscapes. Thus far, however, the law’s promotion of afforestation activities has not proved very effective.

In Slovenia, the Forest Act of 1993 provides guidelines for the management of individual and small groups of forest tree species growing outside settlements. The main purpose of the guidelines is to provide indications on how to sustain and enhance the role of these trees towards the conservation and development of the landscape and wildlife. The Slovenia Forest Service records the location of these trees in the “spatial session” of its Forest Management Plan. Until 1973, a specific law existed to protect individual trees in urban areas (regardless of their ownership status) from felling and misuse. Since the abolition of that law, however, no national regulation or decree has existed to protect trees located on private lands in urban areas from being cut or mistreated. At present, each local community is responsible for issuing laws and decrees for the management of their urban trees. In the City of Ljubljana, for instance, the management of municipal street trees, trees in public spaces and urban forests owned by the city falls under the City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Municipal Roads and Public Green Spaces (Figure 2.19). Tree pruning (for which the City Department of Economic Activities and Transport is responsible) is carried out according to the European Arboricultural Council pruning guide, and certified arborists are employed for the management of urban trees as well as the forests in the city’s Forests of Special Purpose (i.e. urban and peri-urban forests acknowledged by a city to play a key role for biodiversity conservation, environmental protection and social functions). Each of the city’s 70 000 trees is annually assessed and assigned a code (which provides information on species, age, health status, height, etc.). A specific decree (based on the National Forest Act) governs the management of Ljubljana’s forests of special purpose. A proposal for including the management of individual trees in the Environmental Protection Act has been advanced over the past few years. However, the government seems to be more inclined to allow cities to regulate the issue as they see fit.

In Morocco, the management of TOF falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Development, Water and Forests and of the Ministry of National Planning, Urban Planning, Housing and Urban Policy. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Sustainable Development also has jurisdiction when the implementation of environmental programmes includes tree planting. At a local level, the management of TOF in urban areas (e.g. urban parks, street trees, isolated trees) falls under the jurisdiction of urban municipalities, while the High Commission for Water, Forests and Combatting Desertification (HCEFLCD) has responsibility for the management of TOF in rural and peri-urban settings. Planning, planting and management of trees are predominantly ruled by national plans. Tree felling is formally banned by law and requires special authorization, but customary laws are also applicable in certain tenure systems. In rural lands owned by the state, usage rights may be granted to local communities, with some restrictions, to ensure the protection of natural resources. Permitted activities may include livestock grazing, firewood and gathering of small-sized wood products (e.g. fallen dead wood) and collection of non-timber products (e.g. fruits, nuts, seeds, fodder, etc.).

In Spain, no national legislation governing the management of TOF exists. The only national laws related to the management of this resource are the Instrument of Ratification of European Landscape Convention and the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Law (the latter acknowledging individual and monumental trees belonging to the Natural Monuments category). In rural areas, the management of TOF is partially ruled by policies aimed at the protection of agricultural lands. For urban areas, a National Strategy of Green Infrastructure and Landscape Connectivity and Ecological Restoration is currently under development, and will include the potential role of TOF in increasing green infrastructure connectivity. Similar to many other countries in the region, TOF management is largely governed at a municipal level. Although some municipal plans already make reference to tree protection and conservation, several cities are following Barcelona’s example and drafting master plans for the management of urban trees or developing catalogues of Monumental trees.

TOF management is also governed at the provincial and autonomous community levels. The autonomous communities of Spain are obliged to develop their Ecological Connectivity and Green Infrastructure Strategy within three years from the date of the publication of the national strategy. Specific laws and decrees governing TOF management at community level include the Law on Protection and Promotion of Urban Trees of the Community of Madrid (8/2005, December 26), Decree 67/2007, regulating the Catalogue of Singular Trees of Galicia, the Catalogue of Singular Trees and Groves of Aragon (article 55 of Law 6/2014 and article 2 of Decree 27/2015), the Catalogue of Singular Trees and Groves and Protected Island Forests in the Community of Andalusia, and the Law on Monumental Arboreal Heritage in the Community of Murcia. Other autonomous communities such as Galicia, Cataluña, Valencia, Andalucía and Cantabria have their own laws on landscape protection which include TOF. An initiative for the development of legislation governing tree protection has been issued by the Barcelona Provincial Council.

In Italy, the governance of TOF in rural areas (including individual trees, trees in rows and small woodlands, i.e woods < 0.2 ha) falls under the local (region or province) policy framework, while in urban areas it is the responsibility of city councils. TOF in rural areas are governed by local rural development plans, issued by regions and autonomous provinces to put the directives of the European Common Agricultural Policy into practice and filtered by the National Rural Network, i.e. the ministerial programme on rural development. While local authorities govern the conservation and management of TOF, some specific issues refer to overarching protection or promotion directives such as the European Union high quality products schemes or the national landscape protection initiatives (e.g. wines, olives, cheese, berries, fruits, etc.). With regard to the governance of TOF in rural areas, Municipal Land Use Plans and their regional-specific technical norms and standards provide clear indications on the level of protection and conservation of different landscape elements (including tree systems). The Plans have a particular focus on the conservation of historical rural landscape features in which TOF often have significant importance. Regional initiatives promote the establishment of a register of heritage trees and define their characteristics. The Abruzzo Region’s law on the Protection of Forests, Pastures and Tree Heritage (2014), as well as the Marche Region’s law on the Protection of Monumental Vegetation Formations (2012) serve this purpose, protecting individual landscape elements including trees, shrubs, small groups of trees in rows and small woodlands. National Law 10/2013 on the development of urban green spaces and its implementing Decree of 23 October 2014, promote the presence and protection of trees in urban areas, based on the wide range of ecosystem services they provide towards improving the quality of urban environments. The Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry’s law on the Protection and Valorization of Environmental and Landscape Heritage (Decree 152/2006) and the Italian Cultural and Landscape Heritage Code (D.Lgs. 42/2004), protect monumental trees and tree systems in rural landscapes.

Trees found in linear formations on roads in Italy are managed by the Ministry of Transport and Communications, while Municipalities are responsible for the management of trees along urban streets. In both cases, however, rules for planting in new developments are governed by the new Italian Road Traffic Code (Decree-Law No 285/92), according to which the minimum distance between the tree and carriage way must not exceed the average maximum height reached by adult trees of that species. This clause may be waived in the case of renewal of existing trees by using the same species as before. Thus far, no references to TOF systems have been made in any of Italy’s forestry policies. As a result of the increasing awareness of the important role played by these tree systems in the conservation of natural landscapes, a proposal to include TOF and small woodlands (< 0.2 ha) has been included in the upcoming national forest strategy.

It is clear that the management of TOF requires specific policies and laws in view of the variety of purposes and settings in which they can be found. It is nevertheless important to ensure these policies are integrated into a coherent policy framework.

With regard to TOF in urban settings, some cities in the Mediterranean region have begun developing green infrastructure strategies and plans. The Paris Greening Programme, for example, aims to reduce the urban heat island effect by planting more than 100 000 trees within Paris proper (excluding woodlands) and covering 23 percent of the Paris region with vegetation by 2020 (Mairie de Paris, 2014). The City of Barcelona has developed the Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020 aimed at conserving urban biodiversity and providing residents with social and health benefits. Despite the relative abundance of green spaces, only 30 percent of urban green spaces in Barcelona are publicly accessible due to the nature of their distribution. One of the planned activities therefore includes incentives for private green space owners to open these areas to the public (Barcelona City Council, 2013). In Turkey, the establishment of urban forests began in 2003. Its General Directorate for Forests aims to establish urban forests in every province and large district in the country. By 2016, 133 urban forests had already been established. According to Atmis¸ (2016), however, some governance problems remain, such as unclear criteria for how urban forests are categorized, limited capacity of forest administrators to deal with urban forest management and transfer of management and maintenance responsibilities to municipalities and private companies. This has resulted in relatively limited usage of urban forests. More broadly, the new Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union promotes the presence and maintenance of TOF in rural settings across Europe. Under this policy, countries must provide incentives to farmers using climate and environmentally friendly farming practices. Among other things, this includes maintaining an ecologically focused area on arable land, consisting of field edges, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape features, biotopes, buffer strips, afforested areas or nitrogen-fixing crops. The policy does not, however, explicitly promote agroforestry practices.

In addition to the implementation of specific policies and their integration into a comprehensive framework, sound management of TOF requires strategic and inclusive governance ensuring involvement by all local actors (i.e. local communities, urban planners, farmers associations etc.) and taking into account all relevant economic, social and environmental indicators. This also requires participation by all relevant disciplines and sectors (including urban planning, sociology, biology, forestry, agriculture, livestock and timber production), as well as close collaboration between municipalities and relevant institutions. Several countries are open to this type of participatory governance (Buijs et al., 2016). In France, the Paris Municipal Government is devolving more responsibility to district authorities. This has resulted in the decentralization of green space management, enabling citizens to plant and maintain tree pits on sidewalks (Pellegrini and Baudry, 2014). In Ljubljana, an NGO initiative helped transform a degraded area characterized by illegal dumping of waste and non-indigenous vegetation into a recreational park with increased bio-cultural diversity, thus improving the quality of this urban ecosystem (Nastran and Regina, 2016). In 2008, the City of Lisbon (Portugal) introduced participatory budgeting at a municipal level. Over time, this had a significant impact on the city’s green infrastructure and increased public involvement in decision-making (Buijs et al., 2016).

Threats and challenges to the conservation of TOF

Climate change poses new challenges to the Mediterranean region, driving problems such as drought/heat-induced tree mortality, increased risk of wildfire, the spread of invasive species and pest and disease outbreaks. With regard to the latter, increased ornamental planting, tree translocation and the introduction of exotic species further exposes non-forest areas to insects and pathogens, and increases the risks of their spread into natural forests.

The detection of colonies of pine processionary moths in Paris and eastern France, beyond their historical distribution range in the south, illustrates this risk. Their presence in the area is presumably the result of transplanting adult pine trees with soil intact, and their successful establishment has been aided by changed climatic conditions, resulting from climate warming (Robinet et al., 2012; Rossi et al., 2016). Another notable example is the rapid spread of the bacteria Xylella fastidiosa, which originates from America, but now ravages olive plantations in southern Europe, particularly Italy (White et al., 2017). Other major challenges facing the conservation of TOF in Mediterranean agricultural landscapes include overgrazing, which is severe in North Africa, leading to the degradation of cork oak-based systems in Morocco, and the abandonment of agrosilvopastoral practices and land clearing in favour of intensive monoculture farming, which is more prevalent in Europe (Laouina et al., 2010; Kizos and Plieninger, 2008; Kigomo, 2003). In urban and peri-urban areas, patches of remnant forest, vacant wooded lots and other fragments of natural habitat are severely threatened by population growth and associated high demand for grey infrastructure, predominantly housing and transportation. This has led to uncontrolled urban sprawl, particularly in the southern and eastern Mediterranean (Houpin, 2011; CIDOB, 2015). Threats posed by illegal logging and vandalism are also worth noting here.

Despite their long history in the region, TOF are often found in isolated areas with low species diversity. In Spain, 56 percent of all trees planted in paved areas represent only six genera (García Martín and García Valdecanto, 2001). In the absence of natural selection, choosing and planting trees solely for their productive or aesthetic traits may lead to genetic erosion. This has a significant impact on small populations, compromising their adaptive capacities and reproductive success (although there are a few exceptions to this rule in the Mediterranean, such as the impoverished but geographically widespread Pinus pinea (Vendramin et al., 2008) and the genetically diverse Cedrus brevifolia endemic to Cyprus (Eliades et al., 2011). Planting trees in a new habitat, whether in urban, peri-urban or rural settings, may affect local environmental conditions and community interactions, such as competition for resources. To ensure the sound and efficient management of TOF, it is therefore important to adopt a multidisciplinary and holistic approach. Issues related to structural stability, toxicity, the risk of hosting parasites and pathogens, invasive behaviour, gene flows and cross-breeding should be given particular attention before introducing new species. As much as possible, TOF landscapes should be built with regard to projected challenges and conditions, without losing sight of sub-regional specificities and societal realities.

In the coming decades, new urban/peri-urban environmentally-oriented approaches might emerge from traditional agroforestry models. This will also necessitate a solid TOF framework linking diversity, performance, knowledge and management. At the same time, forestry-related education must be updated to integrate topics and skills relevant to the new global agenda, including adaptive management, traditional and local knowledge and equitable benefit-sharing. Promising advances in observational technologies, such as NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation LiDAR (GEDI), measuring the vertical structure of forests at a global level and the growing use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles open up new possibilities for TOF assessment and monitoring with high spatio-temporal resolution and low costs.

Perspectives: expected role to be played by TOF in the Mediterranean region towards the fulfilment of the Global Agenda

Formerly overlooked, TOF are increasingly recognized for the environmental, socioeconomic and cultural services they provide. In the context of global change, their functions have shifted from simple food/wood productivity or ornamental uses to a multi-purpose role contributing to environmental protection, nature conservation, food security, poverty alleviation and improved liveability. The three Rio conventions (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)) require member countries to take action for the conservation and sustainable management of all forests and trees, and call for regular monitoring to evaluate progress (United Nations, 1992a,b, 1994). The UNCCD, for example, urges affected countries to encourage farmers to grow more trees and adapt to and foster agroforestry systems in a way that conserves soil and water while capturing additional benefits, such as diversified crop products, fuelwood and forage/fodder for livestock (United Nations, 1994; Wunder et al., 2013). Similarly, they encourage planting trees in urban and peri-urban areas as a means to protect cities from advancing desert, as illustrated by the pilot greenbelt project around Ouarzazate (Morocco) used to decrease soil erosion, halt encroaching dunes and provide a windbreak against sandstorms (UN Environment, 2015).

New perspectives for TOF development and expansion have also emerged through valuation initiatives, promoted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment approach (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a,b,c). Certification schemes for cork and argan oil production, such as those supported by the WWF-MedPO and Rainforest Alliance, are examples of initiatives aimed at conserving Mediterranean silvopastoral systems’ iconic tree species, while improving socioeconomic conditions for smallholders and local communities and conserving habitats for wildlife (Rainforest Alliance, 2008). Consistent with the Instrument on All Types of Forests (which is non-legally binding), strategies using TOF as a tool to promote sustainable livelihoods, rural development, access to fair trade markets, biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration have increasingly been adopted in support of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations, 2015). In keeping with this, the New Urban Agenda – adopted at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (HABITAT III) – calls for an increase in safe, inclusive and accessible green and public spaces providing opportunities for recreation, environmental education, pollution mitigation, climate regulation and even nutrition. The latter, in particular, is highly valued in the Mediterranean, where TOF have traditionally been linked to production (Fraser and Kenney, 2000; Habitat III Secretariat, 2016) even in cultural landscapes of particular value.

5 Drivers of degradation and other threats

Enrique Doblas Miranda, CREAF
Fabio Attorre, Sapienza University
João Azevedo, IPB
Ismail Belen, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Elsa Enríquez Alcalde, MAPAMA
Helena Freitas, University of Coimbra
Valentina Garavaglia, FAO
José Antonio Hódar, University of Granada
Özlem Iritaş, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Yakup Karaaslan, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Carla Khater, CNRS
Nikos Koutsias, University of Patras
Mehdi Lahlou, INSEA
Dan Malkinson, University of Haifa
Sophie Mansour, CNRS
Davide Pettenella, University of Padova
Nicolas Picard, FAO
Joan Pino, CREAF
Joana Vieira, University of Coimbra
Marcello Vitale, Sapienza University

Introduction: Mediterranean forests at stake

Forests in the Mediterranean region have been subject to environmental changes since time immemorial. The region’s geography and location has made it a conducive environment between biomes, resulting in significant biodiversity. Since the beginning of human history, forests have adapted to pressures caused by human development, resulting in a complex socio-ecological balance. These pressures, however, have never been more extreme than they are today.

Global change, understood as the wide range of global forces resulting from human activity, is affecting the entire Mediterranean basin (Doblas-Miranda et al., 2017). The threats caused by global change pose particular risks to the principal characteristics of Mediterranean forests and forested habitats described in previous chapters:

1.Mediterranean forests and shrublands are highly sensitive to global atmospheric changes due to their proximity to arid regions;

2.a long history of land-use change may result in more frequent and intense fires, water scarcity and land degradation and;

3.a singular biota is linked to a higher vulnerability to global change-induced extinction.

Moreover, the wide range of socioeconomic conditions and government policies that characterize the Mediterranean basin affect the intensity and dynamics of these threats.

This chapter outlines the different threats to Mediterranean forest landscapes, structured according to indirect and direct causes of degradation. The anthropogenic origin of current global changes directly affecting Mediterranean forests is considered the underlying cause of degradation. Although in many cases these human forces have a global impact (such as greenhouse gas emissions caused by climate change), this chapter will consider their effect on the Mediterranean region in particular. This chapter will also consider the consequences of direct and indirect threats and the combination of both.

Underlying (indirect) causes of degradation

Local and regional policies

The Mediterranean region is located at the intersection of three continents. Mediterranean countries do not share a common forest strategy recognizing the many functions and values of Mediterranean forests, particularly in view of global changes. As a consequence, forest governance remains the responsibility of national authorities. In some cases, national forest laws and regulations help forest owners to promote sustainable forest management (Box 2.4). At a sub-national level, however, forest policies can easily lose their flexibility and in some cases may inadvertently promote (by not preventing) causes of degradation that are not only environmental but also economic and social (e.g. land abandonment and fuel accumulation, see Box 2.5).

Despite the fragmentation that characterizes regional governance in this area, several and ongoing regional efforts have been undertaken. A scientific Mediterranean Forest Research Agenda was developed for the period 2007-2020, based on a shared and common vision of Mediterranean challenges. It aims to protect the sustainability of Mediterranean forests by sharing and advancing knowledge about how forest ecosystems function and developing new tools for management and governance in the context of global change. Scientific advancement should form the backbone of more structured knowledge-based governance; it is a prerequisite for providing the scientific expertise with which to develop more efficient policies to establish a common Mediterranean vision.

At a policy level, the regional project “Adapting the framework for forestry policy to meet the needs of climate change in the MENA region” (with the support of the German Development Cooperation (GIZ) and under the Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF)), has increased the capacity of national decision-makers to design forest conservation policy. It has also involved additional actors, motivating them to actively cooperate with other sectors. It will only be possible to overcome current challenges associated with global change through improved understanding and recognition of the economic (tourism, livestock farming, water, etc.) and social value of forests, including through better stakeholder coordination. Other initiatives go one step further, by also proposing participatory modes of governance (Box 2.6).

An additional regional tool promoting new policies and initiatives to mitigate Mediterranean forest degradation is the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF), adopted at the Third Mediterranean Forest Week (Tlemcen, Algeria, 2013). It calls for improved governance of policy development, implementation and monitoring, particularly by fostering the participation of all stakeholders at the landscape/territory level. The SFMF has rapidly been integrated in national initiatives. In Algeria, for example, it was considered during the formulation of the country’s National Forest Plan. It nevertheless requires further translation and implementation in practice. The initiatives above are only few examples of several activities already undertaken in the Mediterranean region. Nevertheless, more work is still needed to develop a regional strategy supporting the development of revised and common Mediterranean forest policies. These are required to reduce degradation and maintain forest quality so that they can continue to provide various ecological and socioeconomic goods and services and contribute to socioeconomic development, based on integrated landscape planning.

Micro and macroeconomy

Economy indirectly affects forest degradation. A key concept used to describe and design development policies in Mediterranean countries is the so-called “bioeconomy” (Bugge et al., 2016). There is no consensus in the literature (Pülzl et al., 2014) on whether bioeconomy represents a paradigm, a master narrative, or simply a general concept. However, analysing the implementation of this concept in the forestry sector, we find that there are two opposite views and different underlying perspectives on the role forest resources can play in rural development policies: a technological approach vs. a social approach to the concept of bio-based development. These two approaches have different consequences for Mediterranean forest ecosystems.

The technological approach to bio-based economies is based on the accepted wisdom of externality correction (i.e. “getting prices right” or applying a true value to resources, thus reducing the consumption of natural capital). This “old wine in new bottles” strategy gives technological change a central role, synergizing the food and raw materials produced by forests (e.g. biomass and cork) with agriculture and fisheries for use in new and expanding markets. Biotechnology innovations are the engine for growth in this regard. Bio-refineries are a reference model for this approach in the Mediterranean forest sector (Box 2.7). In seeking to increase the scale of production, companies have tended to focus on supply chain organization (often associated with quite large financial investments) and labour intensive production (raw material procurement is generally based on very large quantities of low quality commodities).

By comparison, a social approach to the bio-based economy (as defined both by OECD, 2011 and UNEP, 2011), emphasizes both the protection of natural capital and the importance of addressing equality and social inclusion to protect the sustainability of socio-ecological systems. This strategy focuses on the forest sector’s social dimensions, in which the most critical innovations relate to land tenure organization and the provision of advisory and other supporting services in rural communities, such as micro-credit, e-marketing, job creation and social inclusiveness (Box 2.8).

The social approach more effectively supports job expansion and added value in rural areas than a purely technological focus (Table 2.10). Unfortunately, the social approach has limited political visibility. It is based on a constellation of niche markets in which products and services are promoted via investments in technical assistance, new contractual agreements and networking services. In many Mediterranean countries, these services are often the most vulnerable to public budget cuts.

Moreover, the diversification of small-scale forest activities has led to increased integration with the farming, tourism and recreational sectors. This has created monitoring and evaluation problems, as limited statistical data is available. Finally, social innovations associated with increased social capital do not attract as much private sector attention as large-scale investments that require significant financial and technological capital. With a view to long-term sustainability, stronger private-public partnerships, focused on protecting and enhancing the non-market functions of the Mediterranean forestry sector, would result in greater balance between these social and technological approaches to managing forest resources in the region.

Cultural and technological factors

Mediterranean forest dynamics depend on interactions between environmental factors and anthropogenic activities, which form a complex feedback pattern and continuous landscape transformation. The modification of landscapes and, consequently, the structure of forests, began when humans first harnessed the use of fire, followed by the commencement of agricultural production and the domestication of livestock.

Pollen and charcoal evidence from the Bronze Age (around 4000 BC) suggests anthropogenic wildfires in Italy led to the replacement of Quercus ilex forests with shrub-lands (Vannière et al., 2008). Similarly, the interaction between climatic changes and human pastoral activities resulted in a transition from maquis forests to steppe vegetation in Mediterranean France (Henry et al., 2010). It is believed that forest clearing was primarily driven by increasing demand for livestock pasture and crop land. Williams (2000) notes that as time progressed and technology evolved, deforestation increased as a result of timber requirements for ship construction, metal smelting and wood as an energy source. During the Middle Ages, a growing human population and subsequent increase in demand led to extensive land degradation and soil erosion.

Although traditional uses of forests persisted during the twentieth century (especially with regard to burning practices; Box 2.9), described trends were reversed in the Mediterranean basin. Accelerated urbanization led to a decreased rural population. During the 1950s the urban population of northern Mediterranean basin countries accounted for about 40 percent of the total, whereas in 2010 it rose to more than 60 percent (Antrop, 2004). In Maghreb countries, urban populations accounted for about 30 percent of the total in 1960, increasing to almost 70 percent in 2015 (World Bank, 2015b). Urbanization and declining rural populations are accompanied by abandonment of agricultural land and marked declines in free-ranging livestock numbers (Lasanta-Martínez et al., 2005). These processes initiate secondary succession and a consequent increase in forest cover.

Urbanization commonly causes the young labour force to migrate to cities, meaning rural areas remain largely populated by the elderly. This demography is less likely to adopt new farming technologies or modern practices. Low income yields have made many small farms in remote, rural areas unprofitable, accelerating abandonment of agricultural practices (MacDonald et al., 2000). In some regions, traditional local populations have been replaced by foreigners and residents from a high socioeconomic class who commute daily to large cities (Sluiter and de Jong, 2007). Rey Benayas et al. (2007) have shown that countries with lower population growth rates and higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are associated with higher land conversion rates.

In North Africa, forests have gradually declined at a rate of 126 thousand ha/yr over the last 50 years (Keenan et al., 2015). This decline is driven by population growth but also by direct demand for fuelwood, food and fibre, which often leads to overgrazing, overexploitation and forest clearing (Palahi et al., 2008). There is also considerable forest expansion in some areas of the south due to afforestation programmes (Hansen and DeFries, 2004), and most of the countries in the southern Mediterranean are reporting stable or slightly increasing forest areas (FAO, 2015a and Table 2.3). These complex socioeconomic interactions and transitions have, over time, resulted in the current Mediterranean landscape.

Demographic patterns and migration

Population increase in many Mediterranean countries is one of the principal factors affecting forest ecosystems throughout the region. While the southern European population is expected to increase slightly to 155 million people by 2050, the North African population is expected to increase by 50 percent to 328 million people over the same period (DESA, 2009). Although depicting population growth as the principal cause of erosion, desertification, deforestation, pest and diseases, pollution and decreased water resources may be a simplification of more complex processes (Auclair et al., 2001), it is undeniably implicated in these environmental threats.

Apart from the migration of local populations from rural to urban areas (resulting in ageing populations) described above, regional migration across the Mediterranean also creates an imbalance between human populations and the environment. Migration is in part a consequence of environmental degradation in countries of origin, and causes a risk that the overexploitation of resources is passed through to countries of arrival (FAO, 2016b).

Morocco provides a good example of this issue. Annual forest loss in Morocco is the result of a combination of different elements which either affect the quality of vegetation cover or lead to reduced prevalence of hardwood or natural species. Population increases in Morocco in the last few decades have placed pressure on the country’s natural resources, especially forests. The annual total population growth rate changed from 2.25 percent in 1961 to 1.17 percent in 2014, showing an almost two-fold decrease in around 50 years (Table 2.11). However, in absolute terms, urban populations experienced a five-fold increase over the same period while rural populations “only” increased by 60 percent. On the one hand, the country’s population increase has necessitated significant urban development, resulting in devitalization of large crop and forest areas and ongoing land demands for construction purposes. On the other hand, forest degradation is also the direct result of grazing, agricultural, building or artisanal activities carried out by rural populations. Excessive wood gathering, in places such as the Middle Atlas cedar forests, has resulted in the loss of vast forest areas (HCEFLCD, 2005). Overgrazing, evinced by the disappearance of pasture plains, prevents forest regeneration. Ecosystem simplification increases vulnerability and decreases vegetation cover, exposing soil surfaces to desiccation and ultimately rainfall erosion, which accelerates soil degradation. This, combined with reduced water reserves, leads to desertification to the south and east of the Atlas Mountains.

Direct causes of degradation and principal agents

Climate change: climate warming, drought and other extreme climatic events

Throughout the Earth’s history, its climate has been characterized by frequent fluctuations between periods of relative warmth and relative cold. However, unusual increases in global temperatures have occurred over the last century and the Mediterranean basin shows no sign of escaping this unequivocal climatic change. Recent data indicates a temperature increase of about 0.85◦C globally and 1.3◦C in the Mediterranean area in the last century, compared to temperatures recorded over the period 1880-1920 (Solomou et al., 2017). The Mediterranean climate is expected to become drier and warmer, with decreasing water available for plants and increasing evapotranspiration (IPCC, 2007b).

The Mediterranean’s vegetative cover is the result of a long, slow evolutionary process influenced by the climatic factors characterizing the region (Valladares et al., 2014). However, socioeconomic pressures have historically affected Mediterranean forests, leading to innumerable anthropogenic afflictions, unsustainable forest practices and neglect of forested lands. Climate change has exacerbated those pressures, adversely affecting forested lands in the region. The current rate of climatic change is much faster than previously and has an attendant higher risk of extreme weather events, such as prolonged periods of drought, frequent and severe storms, flooding and increased extreme heat events (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2000). While Mediterranean plant communities have adapted to survive long, hot summer droughts and prolonged wet winter periods, the current change poses risks to forests’ adaptability and increases their susceptibility to pressures and risks in the absence of adaptive management (Box 2.10).

The combination of climate change, anthropogenic disturbances (overexploitation of forest resources, human-induced fires and deforestation) and other aspects of global change (particularly land use and pollution) will have an effect on Mediterranean forest vegetation (Peñuelas et al., 2010). Impacts are expected to affect the structure and operation of Mediterranean forest ecosystems, as well as the services they currently provide (Table 2.12).

Alteration of wildfire patterns

As outlined above, Mediterranean ecosystems, having evolved in the context of environmental disturbances and centuries of human influences, are undergoing change as a result of extensive rural migrations and land abandonment.

The most productive lands are used intensively, while less productive areas are abandoned or subject to less intensive use and afforestation. Fire systems result from interactions between climate, topography, local micro-environments at smaller spatial and temporal scales, as well as land use and land cover changes. Demographic shifts from rural to urban areas may favour fuel build-up and, consequently, may result in large fires. Conversely, population decreases reduce the probability of human-induced fires (Moreira et al., 2011). According to this hypothesis, less frequent but more intense and large fires are expected (Box 2.11). This alters the principal role of fires in the Mediterranean both as long-term landscape modifiers and as a mechanism to maintain land cover classes in fire-dependent ecosystems (Stamou et al., 2016). Effects may vary from region to region due to differences in regeneration patterns among the main land cover types, topographic constraints and local fire histories (Viedma, 2008).

During the period 1985-2011, Turco et al. (2016) reported a broad decreasing trend in the total annual burned area in Mediterranean countries (with the exception of Portugal), due to improved fire management and prevention (or socioeconomic changes leading to more hazardous landscape configurations in the case of Portugal). Recent studies on forest fires in the Mediterranean basin, however, have recognized a shift in fire frequency and size, an extension of the fire season (Koutsias et al., 2015), and indications of a relationship between increased fire activity and climate change (Moreira et al., 2011; Pausas and Fernández-Muñoz, 2012; although see Bedia et al., 2014 for consideration of various sources of uncertainty on this point).

Biological invasions

By comparing selected regions across the mainland (Chytrý et al., 2008) and observing the presence of invasive plants in the Mediterranean (Vilà et al., 2007) we can conclude that forests are among the least invaded habitats in Europe.

Classical forestry investigations (e.g. di Castri, 1990) suggested Mediterranean forests were particularly resistant to plant invasion due to their environmental resilience and changes over recent millennia. Other studies, however, indicate local human-induced disturbances encourage forest invasion by non-native plants (e.g. Martin et al., 2009). Forest disturbances create an environment conducive to invasion by new and non-native species, yet this often takes place over a limited period while high resource availability is maintained (Pino et al., 2013). Other studies have challenged this paradigm, showing that a significant subset of invasive forest species are neither dependent on disturbances nor restricted to early successional life strategies (Gilbert and Lechowicz, 2005). Thus, many foreign plant species have invaded shaded, relatively undisturbed forest undergrowth in both temperate and tropical regions around the world.

Peri-urban forests are particularly vulnerable to invasion by non-native plants due to their presence in landscapes characterized by high levels of human disturbance and propagule pressure[1] (Clotet et al., 2016). The role human activity plays in encouraging foreign plant establishment in peri-urban habitats is well understood (e.g. González-Moreno et al., 2013). Recent studies in the Barcelona region show that species dispersed by vertebrates and introduced predominantly by horticulture are especially abundant in peri-urban forests (despite the fact that these species do not dominate the invasive species pool).

Previous studies have established that dispersal by vertebrates is an effective mechanism for invasive plant colonization and spread, but estimates of the importance of this dispersal process vary (Buckley et al., 2006). Recent results point to the presence of ecological filters favouring the colonization, establishment and spread of these vertebrate dispersed species in forests (Basnou et al., 2016); yet the composition of these filters is still largely unknown.

Consequences of underlying and direct causes of degradation

Alteration and pollution of water resources

Water scarcity is among the three most important long-term risks worldwide (WEF, 2015). The sustainability of freshwater resources is critical, not only for environmental reasons, but for social and economic sustainability. Several factors are related to the scarcity and quality of freshwater resources: population growth, irrational use of water resources, pollution and climatic and land-use change.

The global population, totalling 7.1 billion in 2012, is expected to grow to 8.3 billion by 2030. Urbanization is anticipated to increase alongside population growth. It is projected that about 60 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas by this time (DESA, 2009). Inequities between total water availability and its distribution throughout the population is a problem for the Mediterranean region, as is the planned use of water resources. Population growth and improved quality of life have increased demand for food, leading to an increase in water used for agricultural purposes. Excessive and uncontrolled use of groundwater is also a major problem. In some areas this has caused groundwater levels to fall between 30 and 60 metres, degrading forests that are in direct need of this resource.

The quality of water resources is rapidly deteriorating due to domestic and industrial wastewater, extreme fertilizers used in agriculture and leachate from pesticides and landfills, mining activities and geothermal activities (Box 2.12). This pollution will pass through hydrological cycles to water resources, soil, forests and vegetation, distorting ecological equilibrium. Mediterranean forests are generally located close to settlements; as a result, untreated solid waste landfills are often established in forest areas. Mining activities, when carried out without taking the necessary precautions, are a serious pollutant, as are the pesticides used to combat forest pests. In some countries, aircrafts use sea water to extinguish forest fires. This salt water, together with waste oil from machines used during forestry activities, can be harmful to forest ecosystems.

Over the last 25 years, precipitation has decreased in the Mediterranean basin by 20 percent. The future of water resources in catchments should, however, be assessed not only with regard to predicted temperature increases and decreased precipitation, but land-cover changes. Climatic shifts, increasing water consumption, but also encroachment of forest cover due to land abandonment, are drivers of decreasing annual trends and changes in flow regimes detected in the historical records of large catchments in southern Europe (e.g. Dahmani and Meddi, 2009; García-Ruiz et al., 2011).

Land degradation and fragmentation

Land degradation is a generic term referring to a system’s reduced productivity and complexity resulting from a combination of physical and anthropogenic factors. Forest fragmentation refers to the process by which forests are divided into smaller, more numerous, more distant or more isolated parts with patchy or uneven edges.

Despite the expansion of total forest area in the Mediterranean over recent decades, various factors and processes contributing to degradation pose a threat to the condition of forests in the region’s northern countries. Mediterranean forests face many threats, particularly as a result of the interaction between land-use/land cover change and climate change, as well as changes to disturbance systems. Soil erosion is a major cause of forest degradation, affecting soil structure and related physical processes (e.g. runoff and flood control), organic matter content, carbon cycling, local diversity, local productivity and the resilience of the system. The degrading impact of soil erosion is more serious in Mediterranean forests where soils are thin and poor, particularly in mountain areas following disturbance events (fires, windstorms and pest outbreaks) (De Rigo et al., 2016). Although precipitation in the Mediterranean is lower than in other regions, alternating drought and intense rainfall events increase the risk of severe hydric erosion in Mediterranean forests (De Rigo et al., 2016). Similar processes are expected to take place in eastern and southern regions. Desertification is one possible result of large-scale land degradation in the Mediterranean basin. This is more likely to occur in the southern rim, which is subject to higher rates of current and projected environmental stress. Open cork and holm oak forests in southern Spain and Portugal are examples of Mediterranean forests vulnerable to desertification in the northern rim.

Forests in Europe are generally fragmented; woodland landscapes, which account for 70 percent of the subcontinent, are poorly connected (Estreguil et al., 2013), making them more vulnerable to fragmentation. Fragmentation in Mediterranean forests is expected to follow the same trend as forest cover and forest degradation. Fragmentation statistics in Europe, however, depend on the particular methods and spatial resolution of the data used. Broadly speaking, forest fragmentation may have decreased slightly in recent years, but this trend is not spatially homogeneous across Europe (Saura et al., 2011; Estreguil et al., 2013). Although forest cover is expanding significantly in the Mediterranean’s northern rim, there is no evidence defragmentation is following the same trend. Factors contributing to either increased or decreased fragmentation include fires (Box 2.13), agriculture, infrastructure expansion and urban sprawl. Fragmentation is likely to have increased in some countries in the southern Mediterranean due to the decrease in forest area and its relationship to habitat loss.

Today, degradation in Mediterranean forests is lower than in areas used for other purposes, such as agriculture and in semi-natural areas. This is expected to remain the case into the future. Forests play a fundamental role in controlling degradation processes such as erosion and preventing desertification. Also, the expansion of forests, including plantations of exotic species in simplified forests, can reduce degradation in many areas where soil quality has been impoverished due to intensive farming or overexploitation. Forests of any kind help to conserve the presence of many species by helping to connect their habitats. The maintenance of forest cover is also essential to the supply of numerous ecosystem services on which populations depend. Maintenance of existing forest areas, in addition to expanding forest cover, is therefore a priority for conserving ecosystems and maintaining population well-being.

Forest dieback and regeneration decline

Even in the Mediterranean region, forest decline is taking place due to the combined effect of warming and drought (Allen et al., 2010). Climate change is emerging as one of the most significant threats to the survival and function of Mediterranean forests (Martínez-Vilalta et al., 2012). Tree species have adopted two primary mechanisms to mitigate the effects of drought: (i) drought avoidance, in which stomata close at a threshold water level to minimize further transpiration and (ii) drought tolerance, in which stomatal closure is less severe and transpiration continues at relatively high levels (McDowell et al., 2008).

Trees adopting the drought tolerant approach can die through cavitation of water columns within the xylem (Gerosa et al., 2009). Continuous stomatal responses through the drought avoidant approach can cause carbon starvation by shutting down photosynthesis while respiration costs continue to deplete carbon stores. Moreover, reduced cellular metabolism limits during drought may constrain the production and translocation of carbohydrates, resins and other secondary metabolites necessary for plant defence against insect attack and the colonization of fungi (McDowell et al., 2008).

The combination of these factors has resulted in several instances of forest decline or dieback of oak, fir, spruce, beech and pine species in Spain, France, Italy and Greece (e.g. Peñuelas et al., 2007; Landmann and Dreyer, 2006; Di Filippo et al., 2010; Tsopelas et al., 2004). Forest dieback has also occurred in the Mediterranean basin’s southern rim, having an enormous impact on Cedrus atlantica in Algeria (but also other tree species including pine, oak and juniper), and especially in the drier mountains closest to the Sahara (Chenchouni et al., 2008).

Dieback processes not only vary between co-occurring tree species, but will also depend on the genetic tolerance/resistance of individual specimens (Gitlin et al., 2006). Dieback processes may also depend on a tree’s age and stand density, characterized by delayed responses by some species. For these reasons, forest dieback is often a non-linear process. This, combined with a lack of quantitative knowledge on the mortality threshold from drought and heat stress for many species (McDowell et al., 2008), significantly reduces the ability to predict rates of forest dieback at a regional and local level.

Deforestation and overgrazing

Changes in Mediterranean forest cover due to deforestation and afforestation are considered in Chapter 3, while their causes are explained in the “Cultural and technological factors” section of this Chapter. Overgrazing may also lead to forest degradation. These lands often present ageing tree populations due to a lack of natural regeneration, weakened and injured trees, decreased resilience to forest fires, shifts in the botanical composition of the undergrowth towards unpalatable species and, over the long term, loss of biodiversity (Ajbilou et al., 2006) and even desertification (Le Houérou, 1990). On the other hand, Mediterranean vegetation is well adapted to grazing (Seligman and Perevolotsky, 1994). Sustainably managing forest areas for grazing can contribute to forests’ economic value and control biomass accumulation, resulting in a decreased risk of major wildfires (Étienne, 2005).

Similar levels of overgrazing to those observed a few decades ago in many parts of Mediterranean Europe have now been observed in the Maghreb (Box 2.14). Even if overgrazing is still reported in some parts of Europe (e.g. Dano, 2005), the issue today is primarily related to disruptions to traditional agrosilvopastoral systems. In many Mediterranean dehesas, current breeding is characterized by a lack of synchronicity between periods of greater fodder supply provided by vegetation and periods of greater feed demand from animals, leading to the degradation of these systems (Enne et al., 2004). Most often, however, the disruption of former systems has led to land abandonment and ungrazing, resulting in uncontrolled biomass accumulation and increased risks of major wildfires.

The big picture that emerges on grazing in the Mediterranean region is the duality between the region’s south and north, both of which result in land degradation (Le Houérou, 1990). Provided that grazing systems are adjusted seasonally, since the availability of food and the demand from animals needs to be synchronized, grazing can be a sustainable management option for Mediterranean forests, with economic benefits and a positive impact on wildfire risk and biodiversity (Figure 2.21).

Pest and disease expansion

Even when scientific understanding about the nature of global climatic change was still developing, scientists were directing their attention to the possible effects of climatic change on pests and diseases. Then, as now, the scientific community agreed that climate change would favour forest pest species: while the survival of many arthropods depends on low temperature thresholds, fungi or pathogens benefit from dry conditions (e.g. Jactel et al., 2012). How this general pattern will apply to specific cases is more uncertain. Increased temperatures could be very beneficial for pest populations at the upper altitudinal or latitudinal limits of their geographical distribution, since in this case low temperatures are limiting, but rear limits should also be taken into account, and in these cases could have the opposite effect. Apart from the direct effect of temperature, in Mediterranean systems, increased temperatures usually result in decreased water availability. The uncertain interaction between higher temperatures and reduced water supply makes predictions difficult. Finally, the impact of temperature and precipitation on the “humanized” landscapes of the Mediterranean will influence the manner in which disease could spread.

A good example of the insect pests common to the Mediterranean is the pine processionary moth (Box 2.15). Climatic change is expected to be conducive to the spread of other insect pests in coming years (Battisti, 2005). Many fungus pathogens are illustrative of the threats facing a large portion of Mediterranean forests due to the combination of increasing dry conditions and land use change (e.g. Bergot et al., 2004; Desprez-Loustau et al., 2006).

Biodiversity loss and genetic erosion

Biodiversity loss is one of the greatest environmental concerns facing mankind in the twenty-first century. Human pressure, wildfires and ecosystem fragmentation all have a detrimental effect on global biodiversity, and the Mediterranean region is no exception. Occupied since the Bronze Age, the Mediterranean has been home to many civilizations. This has had an impact on its landscape, forests and trees. In the Greco-Roman age, Pinus pinea, Cupressus sempervivens and Castanea sativa forests were planted throughout the Mediterranean region. These have become characteristic elements of the landscape (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2000).

Despite this significant human impact, the Mediterranean region is a biodiversity hotspot, with high conservation value (Myers et al., 2000). Its many conifer and broadleaf species, widespread throughout central Europe, also present high genetic variability. The role of Mediterranean forests as biodiversity reservoirs has increased over recent decades as a consequence of European Union policies that have designated some forested habitats as a priority for diversity conservation in the Habitat Directive (Donoghue, 2008). Although the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be decreasing, it has stabilized in forests (Butchart et al., 2010). Some economic improvements have also been made. Dramatic socioeconomic, environmental and land-use problems, however, remain present.

Conservation of genetic diversity – one form of biodiversity – is a fundamental concern in conservation biology. It provides the raw material for evolutionary change and thus the potential for adaptation to changing environments. The method used to regenerate forests is particularly important for forest genetic resources. The most simple and widespread system of forest regeneration following a clear cut is artificial regeneration (Ratnam et al., 2014), which consists of planting seedlings raised in forest nurseries. By changing native gene pools through the use of introduced seed, this system of regeneration disrupts the continuous evolution of tree populations at a given site, disrupting natural breeding patterns, gene flow and genetic diversity. It can, however, improve site productivity through the selection of superior seed sources.

Artificial regeneration of forests, loss of forested areas and fragmentation all have a detrimental effect on their genetic pool. This can lead to genetic erosion – the loss of genetic diversity within a species caused by human activity. Population reduction and fragmentation result in a loss of gene flow (via pollen and seed) and genetic diversity, the basic element of evolution in a species. Smaller populations may experience genetic drift and inbreeding, which changes the allele frequency from one generation to the next, both creating differences between, and decreasing genetic variability within, populations.

Geographical and temporal degradation trends: facing the challenge

This chapter has sought to emphasize the geographic heterogeneity of the drivers and threats of forest degradation, influenced by differing processes in the Mediterranean’s north (land abandonment, forest fires, etc.) and south/east (overgrazing, overexploitation of fuelwood, migration, etc.). These differences are the consequence of contrasting social and economic realities. Although climate change will affect both areas equally, its impact will depend on the particularities of a region’s history of land use change. This leads to another important issue regarding the interaction between different causes of climatic change (Doblas-Miranda et al., 2017). Population pressures, combined with fragmentation, climate change, etc., open the door to a series of new and complex reactions and consequences, which are very difficult to predict (Laczko and Aghazarm, 2009).

Increased environmental pressures are anticipated, especially in relation to climate change (temperature warming, drier conditions and, predominantly, extreme events) and derivative consequences in the form of wildfires and biological alterations (invasive species, extinctions and pest expansion), and energy, water and food requirements (IPCC, 2014b). The challenge for researchers is to understand and project new situations, interactions between threats and their effects on forest ecosystems (Doblas-Miranda et al., 2015). At the same time, local and international efforts at the management and policy levels should explore smarter land use management, including regional policies which balance sustainability and development (e.g. Council of the European Union, 2006). Moreover, it is important to develop new value chains which consider and adapt to the known consequences of degradation. These must include not only those favoured by involved enterprises, but also the creation of new societal values with regard to consumption patterns (United Nations, 2015).

Maintaining Mediterranean forests and the services they provide poses an enormous challenge, but it is one we must face through the adoption of higher standards. Subsequent chapters offer potential strategies and solutions to combat the threats described above and help the Mediterranean socio-ecological system to evolve in support of a better and more sustainable future.

Mediterranean forest-based solutions

Mediterranean forests are an important regional asset but, as shown in Chapter 5, they are currently subject to threats driven by climate change and increasing demography. These threats jeopardize the goods and services provided by forest ecosystems. Secondary processes resulting from climate change and demographic increase, such as conversion from forests to shrublands, wildfires, pest and pathogen outbreaks, overgrazing and land abandonment, may lead to forest degradation and loss of forest benefits. A failure to take action to address these threats and drivers of degradation will eventually lead to a loss of the natural capital provided by forests and trees outside forests in the Mediterranean.

Yet forest-based solutions can be implemented to address this. A central tenet of these solutions is the value of the goods and services provided by forest ecosystems. While timber is the forest product that often comes to mind, Mediterranean forests provide a variety of non-wood forest products and environmental and cultural services. They play a key role in preventing soil erosion and maintaining water quality by protecting watersheds and providing high-quality water to local populations. They are also important for recreation and hunting. Mediterranean forests are rangelands that provide fodder for cattle. They provide fuelwood to many populations. They are also a source of cork, mushrooms, truffles, honey, aromatic and medicinal plants, resins, pine nuts, acorns and other non-wood forest products. The value of Mediterranean forests also lies in the carbon they sequestrate. At the beginning of this Part, Chapter 6 will review the goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests and demonstrate their cross-sectoral importance to food security, energy, water and population health. In order to address these different sectors, including the compromises and negotiations a resolution will require, we must enlarge the scope of the forest sector to include this great diversity of stakeholders.

An integrated approach to addressing the threats and drivers of Mediterranean forest degradations is Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR). This is a process by which ecological functionality and human well-being are enhanced in deforested or degraded forest landscapes. This approach involves trade-offs between agricultural and forestry production and environmental conservation, ensuring the best possible integration at the landscape level.

FLR fully recognizes forests are a component of the landscape that interacts with other components. Forest restoration aims to restore a degraded forest to its original state – that is, to re-establish the presumed structure, productivity and species diversity of the original forest. In the context of climate change, FLR may be combined with adaptation techniques to anticipate changes the ecosystem would have undergone had it not been degraded. FLR complements forest restoration with participatory approaches involving stakeholders in all affected land-use sectors to manage the dynamic and often complex interactions between people, natural resources and land uses. Given the variety of goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests and the multiplicity of actors involved in their management, as well as the numerous opportunities for forest restoration in the Mediterranean, FLR is a particularly relevant forest-based solution for the region. Chapter 7 will be devoted to FLR.

Restoring degraded forests and reforestation are two forest-based options to mitigate climate change. Additional options include: reducing emissions from deforestation, reducing emissions from forest degradation, enhancing forest carbon sinks, product substitution (i.e. the use of woodfuel instead of fossil fuels for energy and the use of wood fibre in place of materials, such as cement, steel and aluminium, whose production emits larger quantities of greenhouse gases), adaptation of forests (i.e. make forests more resilient to climate change) and adaptation using forests (i.e. decreasing the vulnerability of forest-dependent people to climate change). These different options have varying degrees of relevance to Mediterranean forests. As a climate change hotspot and a pool of resources with potential to change forests outside the Mediterranean zone, Mediterranean forests will undoubtedly play a major role in climate change adaptation. The role of Mediterranean forests in addressing climate change is addressed in Chapter 8.

The biodiversity of Mediterranean forests is key to their resilience and adaptation to climate change, but its value extends far beyond this. Biodiversity regulates the services provided by forest ecosystems, including cultural services (e.g. recreation and tourism related to emblematic plants, animals and forest landscapes). Forest-based solutions using conservation actions and programmes, specifically addressing the biodiversity of Mediterranean forests, can be developed. These actions and programmes have actively protected species where the level of degradation was so high as to endanger their survival, reinforced and reintroduced populations and developed innovative models of sustainable forest management. Forest-based solutions targeting the biodiversity of Mediterranean forests will be addressed in Chapter 9.

6 Human needs and ecosystem services

Léa Tardieu, INRA
Bart Muys, KU Leuven
Laëtitia Tuffery, AgroParisTech

Mediterranean forest ecosystem services

Ecosystem services definition

Ecosystem services are the benefits people derive from natural and managed ecosystems. The concept of ecosystem services became prominent thanks to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Synthesis Report (Sukhdev et al., 2010), both of which emphasized the importance of natural capital for socioeconomic systems and warned of the potential socioeconomic drawbacks of ecosystem degradation.

The ecosystem service cascade applied to the social-ecological system of the Mediterranean forest (Figure 3.1) illustrates how ecosystem services link ecosystems and societies. Ecosystem biodiversity (e.g. tree species, herbs, game, mushrooms and insects) supports a range of internal ecosystem functions (e.g. biomass production, nutrient cycling or water retention) which have the potential to deliver ecosystem services to human populations. When people derive benefits from these potential services (i.e. when they are ascribed value as a result of their contribution to prosperity and well-being), they effectively become ecosystem services. There is a feedback loop from societies to ecosystems. This can either cause losses (e.g. as a result of climate change, deforestation, overharvesting or overgrazing) or gains (e.g. fire prevention, forest restoration, adaptive management) to ecosystem services.

According to the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) developed by the European Environment Agency, there are three categories of ecosystem services (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2012):

•Provisioning services, i.e. the material output from ecosystems including timber, biomass for energy, food and water;

•Regulating services, which relate to conserving the quality of our life environment, including maintenance of bio-physical conditions (e.g. climate regulation, pest control) or mediation of flows (erosion control, noise reduction); and

•Cultural services, including experiential, intellectual and spiritual interactions between humans and the ecosystem (e.g. recreation).

Some older frameworks (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003) also mention supporting services, but these refer to the underlying biodiversity and ecosystem functions beneath these other services.

Recent literature on forest ecosystem services shows that either synergistic or antagonistic relationships between them can occur, and that management practices can exacerbate this tendency. Pukkala (2016), for example, examines service provision using different forest management approaches and Vangansbeke et al. (2016) explores whether innovative forest management planning focused on biodiversity conservation can improve delivery of forest services such as wood production and recreation. Lichtenstein and Montgomery (2003) explore efficient land-use patterns established to maximize biodiversity richness while also maintaining a given level of wood production.

Links between Mediterranean biodiversity and ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are a hot topic in contemporary scientific literature, including in the context of Mediterranean forests. The first edition of the State of Mediterranean Forests (FAO and Plan Bleu, 2013) and Mavsar et al. (2014) provide an exhaustive list of ecosystem services delivered by Mediterranean forests. A search in Google Scholar (search string: Mediterranean forest “ecosystem services”) yields about 30 000 hits. The search term “Mediterranean forest” also yields a huge selection of earlier literature on forest resource use in the Mediterranean. Despite this, the role of biodiversity as an essential basis for ecosystem service provision in Mediterranean forests has been seriously neglected, only recently becoming an important subject of study. This chapter will focus on this most fundamental biological basis for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests.

Mediterranean biodiversity as a source of wealth. The Mediterranean region is a global biodiversity hotspot. It is especially rich in plant species, with around 25 000 species, 60 percent of which are endemic to the region (Thompson, 2005). According to the IUCN, the Mediterranean is an outstanding centre of biodiversity, but is also one of the most threatened, largely as a result of human activity (Cuttelod et al., 2009). The region is subjected to several anthropogenic threats. Some of these, such as climate change (see Section “Mediterranean forest ecosystem services under pressure”), agricultural intensification, urbanization, tourism and expansion of invasive species, are relevant to the whole region. Others are more geographically specific, such as deforestation and overgrazing, which predominantly concern the region’s south, or eutrophication and land abandonment, which are relevant to the north.

The Mediterranean’s exceptional diversity of trees, flowers, mammals, birds, amphibians and insects, together with the breathtaking landscapes which house them, represent a unique heritage that, besides providing a range of products and services for human use and consumption, also has intrinsic value. These include so-called bequest values (resulting from the satisfaction people feel when conserving natural or cultural heritage) and existence values (resulting from the simple knowledge that the resource is there). Similar to the large national and international efforts underway to conserve early Mediterranean archaeological sites, our society has a moral duty to protect the Mediterranean biodiversity by intensifying the network of natural parks and reserves, promoting sustainable land and forest management and taking measures to mitigate environmental degradation.

But failing to conserve biodiversity also poses a direct threat to economic prosperity and socio-political stability in the Mediterranean region (see Section “Ecosystem services in response to human needs”). In Box 3.1 we provide examples of typical Mediterranean species or species groups (including but not limited to trees), which have been key to regional economic prosperity and/or stability in the past, but also demonstrate characteristics likely to boost development of the sustainable bioeconomy into the twenty-first century.

Role of tree species diversity for Mediterranean forest productivity and stability. The search for evidence demonstrating the positive effect of biodiversity on ecosystem services has recently become a popular topic in forest science. Important hypotheses include the biodiversity–productivity hypothesis, predicting better tree growth in mixed forests compared to monocultures, and the biodiversity–stability hypothesis, anticipating improved ecosystem health and stability in mixed forests. These hypotheses are currently being tested using forest inventory data, dedicated observational studies and, most recently, well-designed plantation experiments. Vilà et al. (2005) developed one of the first studies on the role of biodiversity for biomass production in Mediterranean forests. Using data from the Catalan forest inventory, the study found increased stemwood production in more mixed forests. This increase was only found in Mediterranean evergreen shrubland, not in conifer or deciduous broadleaved forest. This suggests that the advantages of mixture increase under more stressful conditions. Similar observations were also made using tree ring analysis on the sites of the Functional Significance of Forest Biodiversity in Europe project, where Mediterranean sites clearly showed higher productivity in mixtures than monocultures, but the stabilizing effect of mixtures on productivity over time was less pronounced than in cold temperate sites (Jucker et al., 2014). In multiple ecosystem functions, including soil biological activity, resistance to pests and diseases, tree regeneration, etc., mixed forests performed better than monocultures. This was even more pronounced in water-stressed environments (Ratcliffe et al., 2017).

The only tree diversity experiment in the Mediterranean thus far has been the IDENT Macomer site, coordinated by Sassari University and the CMCC foundation (Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici) in Sardinia (Italy) (Figure 3.2). Established in 2014, the experiment compares monocultures with between two and six species mixtures under irrigated and naturally dry conditions, using a total species pool of 12 native species: Acer monspessulanum, Arbutus unedo, Fraxinus ornus, Olea europaea, Phillyrea latifolia, Pinus halepensis, P. pinaster, P. pinea, Pistacia lentiscus, Quercus ilex, Q. pubescens and Q. suber. The experiment’s earliest results indicate advantages for broadleaved sapling vitalities planted in mixtures with pines (Van de Peer et al., 2018). Researchers found that the vitality of slow-growing, broadleaved seedlings was significantly higher in mixed forest restoration efforts. Due to their fast juvenile growth and sufficient crown light transmission, pines created suitable conditions for these broadleaved trees, supporting the idea that manipulation of tree species composition can overcome barriers of tree settlement in dry environments, and that pines serve well as nurse trees in this context.

It is anticipated that biodiversity function research in Mediterranean forests will further develop in the coming years, producing additional evidence and practical recommendations on how to build and maintain diverse forests to obtain increased and more stable levels of ecosystem service provision.

Ecosystem services in response to human needs

Benefits derived from Mediterranean forest ecosystem services

People derive various benefits at the local, regional and global level from the ecosystem goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests. Generally speaking, these benefits are rarely reported in the literature. Yet these goods and services contribute in many ways to population well-being and to national economies, even if these contributions are not traded on the market. They are key ingredients for agricultural, pharmaceutical and industrial enterprises, and also play a large role in human culture. These benefits can be direct or indirect and material or non-material. Benefits derived from Mediterranean forest services are summarized in Table 3.1.

Food, energy security and contribution to economies at the country level. Wood is generally the first forest product cited as a benefit provided by forests, given it serves as the basis for a vast range of products (e.g. industrial roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels, pulp and paper, particleboard, fibreboard and plywood, engineered lumber components, softwood lumber, flooring, pallets, veneer, etc). The production of fuelwood contributes to countries’ energy security and constitutes the first source of renewable energy in Europe (European Commission, 2017). In 2010, the estimated potential wood production from the total forest growing stock in the Mediterranean was around 9 623 million m^3 (41 percent from conifers and 58 percent from broadleaved species) (FAO and Plan Bleu, 2013).[1] Non-Wood Forests Products (NWFPs) such as mushrooms, olive and carob also contribute to local economies by supplying raw materials to industry and in turn protecting jobs in the sector (see Box 3.2 for the Portuguese cork production example). Mediterranean NWFPs also contribute to local handicrafts such as Moroccan Tan bark (Acacia mollissima), traditionally used for tanning hides into leather, and alfa (Stipa tenacissima) in Algeria and Tunisia, used to produce high quality printing papers or, to a lesser extent, traditional carpets.

Food and energy security at the household level. Mediterranean forests produce many harvesting products, which can be essential to local populations (see sub-section “Spatial heterogeneity of populations’ dependency on ecosystem services”). Game, biomass production, honey, mushrooms, chestnuts, berries, acorns, carob, myrtle, rosemary, pinecones and pine nuts, among others, are harvested, stored and consumed locally. Apart from NWFPs, firewood collected for subsistence plays a crucial role in many southern Mediterranean countries. For example, it accounts for about 81 percent of total forest removal in Tunisia, 94 percent in Morocco and 100 percent in Lebanon (Croitoru, 2007). In Mediterranean Europe, mushroom picking is a recreational experience and mushrooms are marketed according to origin (e.g. France, Italy and Spain) rather than used solely as a direct food source for local communities. Mediterranean forests also contribute indirectly to food security by maintaining good conditions for agricultural activities such as water regulation and pollination.

Protection from risks. Mediterranean forests also contribute indirectly to population well-being by mitigating several risks. Soil erosion control by vegetation, for instance, makes a significant contribution to the sustainability of Mediterranean agroforestry systems. Recently, Guerra et al. (2016) studied erosion prevention in the northern Mediterranean. Results showed a relative increase in the effectiveness of soil erosion prevention in Mediterranean Europe between 2001 and 2013 that was not replicated as a general trend across the Mediterranean region.

Population health. Forest ecosystems contribute to human health in various ways. One notable benefit is the regulation of global climate by carbon sequestration and storage. A recent study by Thurner et al. (2014) mapped total forest carbon density at the Pan-European level. Results show that Mediterranean forests greatly contribute to carbon storage even if the uncertainty related to the assessment in those countries is high. This indirect benefit (e.g. regulation of global climate) is not, however, assessed in a systematic way and often remains site-specific. Forests also contribute to air quality regulation, noise reduction, the provision of medicinal and aromatic plants and have a cooling effect (for peri-urban forests). Finally, exposure to natural environments can have a positive effect on mood (Johnsen and Rydstedt, 2013) and reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and obesity (BFW and ILEN, 2017).[2]

Socio-cultural benefits and cultural services. The importance of recreational benefits has increased tremendously over recent decades (Croitoru, 2007; García-Nieto et al., 2013), both for regional and non-local populations (Figure 3.3). These recreational benefits also contribute to local economies and employment. Travel and tourism directly generated 7 795 000 jobs in 2014[3] (4 percent of total employment) and this is forecast to grow by 3.4 percent in 2015 to 8 060 000 (4.7 percent of total employment). This includes employment by hotels, travel agents, airlines and other passenger transportation services (excluding commuter services). It also includes, for example, those restaurant and leisure industries directly supported by tourists (WTTC, 2015). Beside recreation and eco-tourism, there is emerging recognition of socio-cultural values which recognize the direct or indirect contribution of ecosystem services to the user’s cultural identity and heritage, spiritual values and the development of positive social relationships (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2014; Martín-López et al., 2014). These include the benefits derived from spiritual landscapes, transmission of educational values and opportunities for ritual and spiritual practice. Several emblematic tree species are very important in the Mediterranean culture. In Morocco, for instance, the Argania (Argania spinosa L.) is a sacred tree that plays a key role in traditional rituals. From millennia, argan oil has been valued for its cosmetic, gastronomic and medicinal benefits. See also Box 3.3.

Spatial heterogeneity of populations’ dependency on ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are an inherently territorial concept, intrinsically linked to the place where supply and demand for goods and services takes place. This truism holds for all forest services (see Burkhard and Maes, 2017). This dependency on services for subsistence will vary from country to country, according to demand and poverty levels. Most northern countries, for instance, generate significant income from timber production, while in most southern and eastern countries firewood collection is extremely high, leading in some cases to total wood removal (between 80-100 percent in Tunisia, Morocco and Lebanon) (Croitoru, 2007). In many southern and eastern countries, however, data on illegal harvesting is not available, resulting in underestimates about the benefits of firewood to these populations.

The prevalence of illegal harvesting and hunting is lower in the northern Mediterranean, due to stricter policy controls and lower population dependency on these resources. The extent of harvesting firewood will therefore depend on a country’s political and economic stability. This, too, is influenced by the prices of alternative energy sources (as reported in the press in Greece or the Syrian Arab Republic).[4] There is high demand for NWFPs in the south, specifically those related to grazing. Despite the limited data available for several NWFPs (e.g. mushrooms), the average benefit derived from NWFPs in southern countries is higher than in the north, where data for many other NWFPs is more readily available (e.g. cork). In southern and eastern Mediterranean countries, most forests are publicly owned. Forest communities have some free usage rights (e.g. collection of firewood and grazing), but often have little incentive to conserve forests. A large share of the rural population is poor and thus depends on the benefits provided by forests as a major source of income (see Box 3.4, in the case of Tunisia). The value and classification of a forest “service” will depend on how it is used and by whom. For instance, forests are home to species of game that can be hunted by local populations. In the majority of cases, particularly in northern countries, this would be classified as a recreational activity. But for poor populations dependent on this service, game hunting could be classified as a provisioning service necessary for subsistence. This, in turn, influences which policies are (or can be) implemented for managing services.

The so-called “rural exodus” can also explain this diverse demand for forest services. Populations in northern countries, for example, have undergone significant demographic migration from rural territories to cities or peri-urban areas. As a result, a new and diverse range of stakeholders, who place a different value on Mediterranean forests, has emerged. For a growing number of city dwellers, this includes seeing forests as a place for leisure and relaxation and an appreciation for homes in natural settings. Cultural services have thus become an increasingly large part of the benefits derived from forests by northern populations, while the heritage of the rural forest is maintained by a small number of local actors playing a key role.

Conversely, forests continue to provide indispensable resources to the most disadvantaged members of society in southern and eastern countries (which still occupy a relatively large fringe). In many parts of the region, the forest remains an integral part of the domestic heritage of families and villages, who still rely heavily on its resources to implement original and relatively autonomous management methods.

Mediterranean forest ecosystem services under pressure

Mediterranean forest ecosystem services and socio-climatic change scenarios

Climate change in the Mediterranean basin manifests in increased temperatures, reduced precipitation, an increase in the frequency of natural disasters or extreme events (storms, droughts, floods, etc.), and increased frequency of pathogens and forest fires. Moreover, it is expected that climate change will have an impact on forest dynamics (species occurrence or disappearance, forest growth, etc.), and on the functioning of ecosystems, including their biodiversity and ability to provide goods and services. The impacts of climate change on the future functioning and sustainability of Mediterranean forest ecosystems have already been described (see Mavsar et al., 2014; Plan Bleu, 2016, and Chapter 5). Here, we focus on the impacts of climate change on ecosystem services supply and demand. These impacts are usually assessed using prospective scenarios, including socio-climate changes. Scenarios can differ in terms of population growth, precipitation rate, CO_2 concentration or temperature (e.g. temperature projections from +2.1◦C to +4.4◦C according to the IPCC, 2001). Scenarios referenced in this Chapter are reported in Table 3.2. The studies developed by Ding et al. (2010, 2016) provide a good overview of the impact of socio-climate change scenarios on the supply of three services in Mediterranean European countries:[5] wood provision, carbon sequestration and cultural services (Table 3.3).

Wood provision. Global simulations projected to 2050 show that wood productivity in northern Mediterranean countries is expected to decrease regardless of the scenario used. However, scenarios B1 and B2 (Table 3.2) indicate that the formulation and implementation of sustainable and environmental development policies to change and improve timber production can mitigate the impact of climate change on the industry.

Carbon sequestration. Climate change can also impact potential CO_2 sequestration by Mediterranean forests. At a global level, carbon sequestration tends to decrease using the A-scenarios and increase using the B-scenarios (compared to 2005 levels). As for timber production, environmental development policies can compensate the negative impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems.

Cultural services. Using the regional scenario including the highest population increase (A2) as a benchmark and based on the total values obtained from the marginal values and the forest areas designated for recreation or conservation, the authors observed that only the extensive wood-forest production scenario (A1) had a worse impact on cultural values. Wood production impacts the availability of forests for recreational uses. Conversely, scenarios which include sustainable development and biodiversity protection (B1 and B2 respectively) have a better effect on recreational values than the benchmark.

Focusing on countries within the Mediterranean bioclimatic zone, welfare gains will increase with the application of an environmental scenario (an increase of 86 percent for cultural services, 45 percent for carbon sequestration and 24 percent for wood forest products).

Management practices for the maintenance of ecosystem services under climatic change

Adapting forest management practices to maintain ecosystem services supply in the context of climatic change is becoming one of the major challenges for decision-makers and forest managers. The adaptation of forest practices to face climate change effects will depend on forest type, structure, age, environmental factors, etc. (Mavsar et al., 2014).

There is an increasing need for analysis of the response of forest ecosystem services provision to different management options in the context of climate change (e.g. monoculture/mixed forest species, rotation length, intensities of cutting, thinning). It has been proven, for example, that carbon storage can be enhanced by natural regeneration, mixed uneven forest stands, or the reduction of stand density using selective logging (FAO, 2014). Wood production and carbon sequestration are the most investigated forest services for the purposes of assessment. In the Molise region (Italy), Bottalico et al. (2016) assessed the effect of different forest management options on both services. Three scenarios were selected: the baseline and two alternatives, namely biodiversity conservation policies and intensification of timber production. Results showed that both scenarios and management options could strongly affect production of ecosystem services. The two alternative scenarios increased the total economic value of services from 82 percent to 85 percent respectively, compared with the baseline scenario. Yet Mediterranean forests provide many other services. Due to low data availability and a weakness of projection models, there are still too few studies on Mediterranean forests. Projects are, however, underway to fill this gap (Box 3.5).

Using ecosystem services for climate change mitigation and adaptation

It is also important to highlight the contribution of forest ecosystem services to strategies for to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation relates to reduction of carbon emissions at the international level, while adaptation acts on ecosystems, with local benefits (Figure 3.5).

In the specific case of Mediterranean forests, mitigation relates to the promotion of carbon storage and sequestration in standing trees as well as long-lasting wood products, and the use of wood as a substitute for energy demand. Mitigation results in “well-managed forests which generally hold higher carbon stocks and show greater mitigation potential than disturbed, poorly managed, overexploited or burnt forests which can represent emission sources” (FAO, 2014).

Adaptation aims to reduce risks and improve the resilience of ecosystems and their goods and services. Ecosystem services can contribute in several different ways to Mediterranean forest adaptation (FAO, 2014; Locatelli, 2013):[6]

•Well-managed forest genetic resources constitute a living stockpile of adaptive traits that could be used for climate change adaptation;

•Forest products constitute goods for local communities facing climate shocks. Wood forest products (timber, charcoal, etc.) and NWFP (wild berries, mushrooms, fodder, etc.), have economic, social and cultural importance, promoting the diversification of income sources;

•Watershed purification provides high-quality water used by local populations. Forests regulate watershed hydrological regimes and protect against erosion. They contribute to the regulation of flow during dry seasons and flood flow during rain events. This allows populations to adapt to climate variability and change;

•Forests have an impact on the regional climate.

In this context, national and regional forest policies must adapt in order to integrate new challenges into the conservation of forest goods and services in response to climate change. In the European context, Box 3.6 presents the Second European Forest Sector Outlook Study, EFSOS II. Through national strategies for sustainable forest management, southern Mediterranean countries have defined their own challenges. Tunisia, for instance, has built its public policy objectives around four axes, including adapting the forest sector’s institutional and legal framework, optimizing the sector’s contribution to socioeconomic development and conserving the sustainability of environmental functions and services.

Finally, financial incentives to promote ecosystem services delivery may be necessary, especially when the opportunity cost (i.e. the value of the best land use alternative) is high. In Mediterranean countries, many highly rentable alternatives are possible. These include villas for permanent residents (especially in northern countries); villas for secondary residents and tourist accommodation on the coastlines of all countries; and recreation or transportation infrastructure, etc. In general, these alternatives reduce ecosystem services provision as they require artificializing at least a part of the ecosystem. Without payment for ecosystem services, conversion is an alternative that may offer landowners the best opportunity to benefit from their property.

Discussion and conclusions

Mediterranean forests deliver various ecosystem services that contribute directly or indirectly to human population well-being and supply different human needs. Ecosystem services improve quality of life for Mediterranean populations by contributing to food and energy security, protecting them from risks, energizing local and global economies, and contributing to cultural identity and personal development.

Dependence on the benefits provided by Mediterranean is, however, spatially variable across the Mediterranean basin. Population dependency on ecosystem services for vital subsistence will depend on the country in question, particularly population demand and poverty levels. Climatic change, which is likely to modify the level and spatial pattern of ecosystem services supply and demand, will therefore impact populations in different ways, with the most heavily dependent being the most vulnerable. Adapting forest management practices to maintain the provision and benefits of ecosystem services in the context of climatic change is a major challenge for decision-makers and forest managers.

Aside from geographic variability, ecosystem services may vary over time. One of the major limits of the ecosystem services valuation is that it does not fully account for the variability of benefits derived over time (i.e. the value ascribed to the same service will likely change over time based on changing priorities and demographics). It is therefore difficult to predict future uses of ecosystem services. References to bequest or existence value in the economic literature are a form of palliative to this uncertainty (Pascual et al., 2010).

This point underpins the debate on weak and strong sustainability initiated by Dasgupta and Mäler (2000). The notion of weak sustainability is based on the fact that market growth is maintained by different capital stocks used to produce goods and services (natural, manufactured and human capital). It implicitly assumes that all capital stocks are mutually substitutable. The proposal of strong sustainability posits that human and natural capital cannot be substituted, considering that capital stocks are complementary. It thus calls for separate maintenance of both types of capital. In this analysis, if human societies degrade or deplete any element of an ecosystem faster than it can restore itself, they will eventually cross a threshold after which no net loss of environmental resources will be suffered.

The application of an economic value to ecosystem services implies either weak sustainability or a safe distance from ecological thresholds (Tardieu, 2016), because anything with a monetary value can be exchanged. This statement is obviously not ethically neutral. The point also raises the question of the evolution of environmental values that devalue ecosystem services. Several theoretical and empirical arguments, justifying either a time-declining approach to discounting or an evolution of relative prices for environmental goods over the long-term, have been provided over recent years (Pearce, 2006; Tardieu, 2016). Among these arguments, the issue of inter-generational equity is advanced in order to avoid the imposition of the values of one generation (present or future) over others (Chichilnisky, 1997).

Given that today’s leaders seek to rely on economic or financial figures in making their decisions, ecosystem services valuation can be useful and should not automatically be discounted. Yet applying a value to ecosystem services is inherently uncertain, meaning the application of a fixed value could be unreliable. Valuing the flows of ecosystem services needs a clear objective, and the evaluator needs to clearly state the relativity of the information provided in order to be scientifically credible.

7 Forest and landscape restoration

Carolina Gallo Granizo, FAO
Nora Berrahmouni, FAO
Jordi Cortina, University of Alicante
Fulvio Ducci, CREA
Saliha Fortas, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Algeria
Francisco Moreira, U.Porto
Marc Parfondry, FAO
Pedro Regato, international consultant
Bahar Yalçın Karakuş, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey

Introduction

Over millennia, Mediterranean landscapes have been shaped by the techniques employed by farmers and villagers to adapt to climatic conditions with extremely high variations in temperature and precipitation regimes, and the occurrence of unpredictable extreme events. The influence of intense, prolonged and extensive human activity, dating back at least 5 000 years, has had a major impact on these landscapes, the result of which is environmental variability and heterogeneity and an exceptional diversity of habitats. These include forests, woodlands and patches of grassland, intermingled to form patchwork-like landscapes where land use histories, species composition and intra-specific genetic variation is far greater than in most other areas of the world. This rich diversity and variability is threatened by increasing human pressure and accelerated climate change, leading to habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss, forest and land degradation and desertification, putting human health and livelihoods at risk.

Restoration (including ecological restoration) has been at the core of interventions to combat increasing land degradation and habitat fragmentation. The Society of Ecological Restoration defines ecological restoration as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed (SER, 2004). The term commonly refers to single ecosystems such as lakes, rivers, coral reefs and forests. In contrast, the term Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR),[1] introduced more recently, refers to the restoration of several ecosystems at once, including production systems on well-defined landscape units and urbanized land use units. The objective of FLR is to achieve trade-offs by balancing social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits while minimizing losses to ecosystem health and biodiversity.

The Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR) defines FLR as an active process that brings people together to identify, negotiate and implement practices that restore an agreed optimal balance of the ecological, social and economic benefits of forests and trees within a broader pattern of land uses. Thus, FLR can be seen as an approach that involves stakeholders from a wide variety of land use sectors, applied through participatory decision-making processes (Sabogal et al., 2015).

A related concept is that of Restoring Natural Capital (Aronson et al., 2012). Similar terms tested recently include “a restoration continuum” (McDonald et al., 2016b) and a “family of restorative activities” (Aronson et al., 2017).

Whether restoration actions implemented in the Mediterranean are considered ecological restoration or FLR will depend on the definitions used. Historically, restoration interventions did not seek to recover “pristine” historical ecosystems; their targets were far more practical. Indeed pristine or near-pristine ecosystems can rarely be identified in the Mediterranean, almost all of which have been intensely used and partially transformed by human activity over a long period. Restoration and rehabilitation projects commonly focused on the establishment of single or a small number species and the recovery of specific ecosystem functions related to human welfare, which was probably a major driver of their success (Navarro and Cortina, 2011). Yet simplification is still the norm in ecological restoration projects.

Ecological restoration, reforestation, rehabilitation and afforestation efforts in the region increased dramatically during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Birot et al., 2011; Vallejo, 2005; Blondel et al., 2010), with the objective of maintaining the ecological and socioeconomic functions of Mediterranean forests and agrosilvopastoral landscapes that benefit people in both rural and urban areas. Since the turn of the century (Andersen and Schmidt, 2002), the FLR concept has built upon these efforts and wealth of experience not only to counteract deforestation, fragmentation and degradation but also to contribute to the conservation of ecological and economic sustainability in rural areas.

The lack of understanding and/or uptake of substantive ecological restoration and FLR in the Mediterranean, together with vested political and economic interests, have favoured the overuse of these terms to justify interventions of scant quality. Coastal regression, which authorities repeatedly seek, in vain, to combat with sand dredging, and the simplification of quarry restoration by using green screens and hydro-seeding, are examples of these ineffectual and therefore undesirable practices (Josa et al., 2012; Sardá et al., 2000). Similarly, a narrow definition of ecological restoration has focused efforts on recreating a mythical or ill-defined pristine ecosystem. This has hampered the adoption of effective ecological restoration principles and tools in peri-urban and agricultural areas, which cover large tracts of the region. Fortunately, there has been significant progress towards understanding the limitations of ecological restoration as it is currently understood. Let us now focus on the Mediterranean basin in all its complexity and richness.

Restoration in the Mediterranean: from past to current efforts

A preliminary mapping of past and ongoing restoration initiatives was conducted by FAO in 2017 (Parfondry et al., 2017), analysing data from 40 initiatives in 13 Mediterranean countries. The results indicate a shift away from large-scale monospecific afforestation, often using exotic species, throughout the twentieth century (e.g. “Green Dam or Barrage Vert” in Algeria, see Box 3.7), to a recent trend towards holistic approaches and initiatives with multiple objectives, combining several socioeconomic and environmental benefits (see Boxes 3.8 and 3.9 below). This mapping also indicates that restoration is currently practised through research pilot/small scale projects rather than large-scale programmes. One explanation for this is that research restoration projects are usually well-documented and can be traced through website research, while government projects or programmes are often documented internally and not made accessible.

Several countries including Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Spain and Turkey have developed national strategies to restore forests and landscapes. In 2003, Spain developed a National Plan of Priority Actions for Hydrological Forest Restoration. This framework was implemented by the Directorate-General for Rural Development and Forestry Policy and included in the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification, approved in 2008 (MAPAMA, 2008a). It calls for the following priority actions: (i) reforestation; (ii) reforestation in agricultural lands; (iii) silvicultural treatments; (iv) improvement of pasture and scrub lands; (v) soil conservation practices; and (vi) restoration of riverbanks. This plan identified 18.4 million ha in need of restoration. Over the last ten years, however, due to the economic crisis in Spain, efforts have been limited to the restoration of areas burnt after large fires, with an investment of nearly EUR 70 million for that period.

In Spain, important restoration initiatives in a variety of ecosystems are also being led by private landowners. Box 3.8 describes a restoration initiative in a wetland in southeast Spain that has generated biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic benefits for farmers and fishermen. Another Spanish example, presented in Box 3.9, illustrates the restoration of farmland in rural Granada and Almeria, which generated ecosystem goods and services, including non-timber forest products, to sustain the livelihoods of local communities while also benefiting biodiversity and combating erosion and desertification.

Lebanon has also developed a National Afforestation/Reforestation Programme aiming to increase forest cover from the current level of 13 percent to 20 percent of the country’s surface area by 2030 (Regato and Asmar, 2011). This plan, which commenced reforesting areas of 60 ha ca. in regions across the country in 2002, is ongoing (Figure 3.7). It has taken into consideration the lessons learned from successful restoration projects to formulate its land management and policy frameworks and promote new private-public partnerships. The restoration of Al Shouf Biosphere Reserve is illustrative of this process (Box 3.10).

Turkey’s Forestry Rehabilitation and National Afforestation Campaign, the basis for the preparation of its

National Determined Contributions (NDC), began in 2008. Through this campaign, Turkey has already rehabilitated 2.3 million ha (AGM, 2007) of forest and aims to increase its forest area to 30 percent (current 27 percent) by 2030 through afforestation, erosion control and rehabilitation activities (MFWA, 2016).

Other countries, such as Morocco, have also developed NDCs reflecting these commitments. It has committed to restoring 200 000 ha of forests by 2020 and 600 000 ha by 2030. Algeria has undertaken to restore 1 245 000 ha through its National Reforestation Plan, increasing the woodland/forest cover in northern Algeria from 11 percent to 13 percent of the land area, creating more than 500 000 jobs. Its so-called “Barrage Vert” or Green Dam initiative (Box 3.7) contributes to the national effort to achieve these commitments.

A new regional Mediterranean initiative on FLR has recently been initiated based on the Agadir Commitment, as part of which nine countries have pledged to restore a total of 8 million ha. It is hoped this will encourage countries along the basin to strengthen their national forest and landscape restoration efforts.

In addition to efforts at a national level, several sub-regional initiatives are jointly tackling common issues affecting countries. The Mediterranean region is experiencing a considerable increase in the duration and frequency of droughts and heat waves, resulting in increased water scarcity and risk of large-scale forest fires (Moritz et al., 2012; Pausas and Fernández-Muñoz, 2012). Wildfires in the region constitute a serious environmental problem, with an immediate negative impact on its ecosystems, such as loss of vegetation cover, risk of erosion, effects on wildlife, alteration of the landscape and socioeconomic losses. The research community is leading some of these sub-regional initiatives, including the following COST Actions (EU funded research programmes) that have addressed the issue of restoration:

•The COST Action ES1104 “Arid Lands Restoration and Combat of Desertification: Setting Up a Drylands and Desert Restoration Hub” (2012-2016) (Kotzen, 2017) focused on “practical measures that can be used by practitioners, stakeholders and authorities to restore degraded drylands and manage their recovery.” This Action was largely confined to Europe, but also extended to countries in North Africa and the Near East. Among other achievements, it facilitated the development of fact sheets highlighting good practice in soil management, sustainable land management, revegetation and many other issues linked to restoration. It also made key recommendations to policy-makers and other stakeholders involved in combating desertification and in drylands restoration.

•The COST Action FP0701 “Post-fire forest management in southern Europe” (2005-2012) was established to help respond to the overall question of how to manage 500 000 ha of forests burnt in Europe every year. Its primary objective was therefore to develop and disseminate scientifically-based decision criteria for post-fire management, applicable from stand-level to landscape-level planning. A total of around 170 researchers from 22 countries, including Tunisia and Morocco, were involved in activities divided into five working groups: (1) Fire hazard and resilience; (2) Fire effects and severity and global warming impacts; (3) Economic assessment of damage and current practices in post-fire management; (4) Forest conversion and post-fire management techniques; and (5) Knowledge transfer. The Action, which was closely linked to the European Forest Institute Project Center “Phoenix – Fire ecology and post-fire management” (Birot, 2009), also led to the publication of the book “Post-fire Management and Restoration of Southern European Forests” (Moreira et al., 2012). Some key lessons learnt are presented in Box 3.11.

Challenges

How to better address the fragmentation and multiple uses of Mediterranean landscapes?

In rural landscapes throughout the Mediterranean region, the coexistence of landscape units dedicated to agriculture, forestry and pasture land use can be traced back to the ancient Roman land use categories of ager, saltus and silva (Blondel et al., 2010; Barbera and Cullotta, 2016). The region’s anthropic influence is heterogeneous, dating back thousands of years.

It is easy to observe the variation of the bioclimatic forest life zones (étages, in French) from the Mediterranean scrub to the beech-dominated forests (Fagus sylvatica) in the mountains. The microclimatic variation is equally evident from one slope to the next; within a few metres one may observe evergreen oak forests, chestnut (Castanea sativa) and/or beech forest. This landscape is more complex in some areas as a result of the expansion of urban and peri-urban areas, industrial settlements and infrastructure and heavily mechanized agricultural areas where most traditional landscaping has been replaced. In the past, natural gene flows were to some extent assured by proximity or by the existence of natural corridors. Today, various factors obstruct, reduce or prevent migration and flow between populations.

Some authors have demonstrated how this species fragmentation can promote high landscape-scale biodiversity, inducing inter-population differentiation and genetic erosion (van der Werff and Consiglio, 2004; Piotti, 2009). This usually occurs when population areas are drastically reduced. Ortego et al. (2015) predicted that agricultural lands constitute barriers to gene flow and hypothesized that fragmentation has restricted inter-population dispersal and reduced local levels of genetic diversity. They confirmed that isolation and habitat fragmentation have reduced the genetic diversity of local populations. Landscape genetic analyses showed that agricultural land offers around 1 000 times more resistance to gene flow than semi-natural habitats, indicating that patterns of dispersal are constrained by the spatial configuration of remnant patches of suitable habitat (Ortego et al., 2015). Nowadays, gene pools must also cope with climate change, exacerbating the Mediterranean’s already harsh conditions.

Defending forest genetic resources is key to conserving a heritage that has survived natural changes and human pressure over millennia. Conserving forest trees’ genetic resources means maintaining their evolutionary adaptation potential, the forest community and the entire forest ecosystem in situ. Ex situ methods should be considered the last extreme pragmatic solution or should be used, as usual, for improvement purposes.

Restored forests and landscapes will not be self-sustainable if genetic variability is not taken into consideration at the planning level (Thomas et al., 2014). In order to conserve a forest’s genetic resources, its genetic variability must be protected, as well as its adaptability to natural evolutionary processes and environmental changes, and forest tree breeding. It is also necessary to increase our knowledge in order to identify individual trees which have developed a tolerance to certain diseases and pests (Orlovic´ et al., 2015). Research should be supplemented with data including species inventories, legislation, practical use and coordination at national and pan-Mediterranean levels, together with public awareness campaigns regarding the importance of conserving endangered species in forest ecosystems. Further scientific research to locate ecophysiology and adaptive traits, genetic variation and genomics is also required.

How to enhance restoration efforts and multiple benefits in Mediterranean landscapes?

The costs associated with FLR can be very high: between 1983 and 2013, 1.7 million ha of forest were planted in Spain at an estimated average cost of EUR 3 375/ha (Cuenca et al., 2016). It has been estimated that achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 15 in Europe will cost between EUR 506 million and 10.9 billion. Costs will depend on the strategic framework used and how the terms “degraded” and “restored” are defined (Tucker et al., 2013; FAO, 2015d), making it important to quantify benefits and optimize investments in FLR. Tucker et al. (2013) and the more recent study carried out by FAO and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (FAO, 2015d) also provide a comprehensive discussion on funding opportunities for FLR activities.

Despite the essential goods and environmental services they provide (not to mention benefits to other sectors), trees and forests are often taken for granted. And, while immense efforts are often deployed to combat land degradation in Mediterranean countries, these activities often lack coordination (Cuenca et al., 2016). In order to increase opportunities for complementary action and potential integration of ecological restoration into land planning (FAO, 2015c), communication and collaboration at different levels is required. This includes cooperation between regional and national administrations, as well as the different sectors linked to land management (agriculture, rural development, water, poverty reduction, infrastructure development, etc.).

The adoption of political, rather than ecological and social, timeframes has been the cause of substantial failures in ecological restoration in the Mediterranean. Prioritization of re-greening quarries and roadsides and deficient management of conifer plantations arrest succession and reduce ecosystem resilience against future disturbances (Maestre and Cortina, 2004). We must learn how to integrate short and long-term restoration solutions and ensure funding for adaptive management. This topic is related to the need to plan restoration actions in a timely manner. In some cases, strong initial momentum may be required in early or intermediate successional phases to direct the ecosystem towards desired goals (e.g. by modifying geomorphological features or watering in the months following plantation). In other cases, continuous intervention (such as repeated planting, removal of exotic species, etc.) may better contribute to assembling the plant community and recovering functions and services. Corroborating conceptual models of ecosystem restoration with cost-effectiveness data could help us understand and manipulate successional trajectories in order to achieve restoration goals in the most efficient way possible (Whisenant, 1999; Aronson et al., 2017).

Over the course of the twentieth century, understanding of the need for participative approaches to environmental management and restoration increased. Participatory approaches must be designed and scaled-up so they can efficiently contribute to the success of ecological restoration projects (Derak and Cortina, 2014). Implementing protocols to engage and coordinate the contribution of stakeholders from the planning phase of restoration creates a sense of joint ownership about decisions and actions, increasing stakeholder commitment to an initiative’s objectives and outcomes.

In some cases, ecological restoration may generate enhanced ecosystem goods and services, including the provision of forage, fruits, fuelwood and reliable supplies of clean water (La Notte et al., 2017). Studies analysing the costs and benefits of ecological restoration projects are scarce, but available data suggests that the benefit-to-cost ratio may reach up to 35 in grasslands and 31 in woodlands (de Groot et al., 2013; Wortley et al., 2013). Market goods are complemented by a plethora of ecosystem services (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2012), but monetizing them is often complex and controversial (Rodríguez-Labajos and Martínez-Alier, 2013). The need for monetization can, however, be avoided if services are employed as criteria to identify social preferences in decision-making processes (Granata and Hillman, 1998). We must keep in mind that social preferences are frequently expressed as the result of formal or informal multi-criteria decision models based on subjective valuation and market prices do not always reflect preferred alternatives.

The cost-effectiveness of management interventions has been widely used as a criterion in health sciences where monetizing benefits is often difficult (Muennig and Bounthavong, 2016). Cost-effectiveness analysis in ecological restoration has received less attention, but existing studies have successfully integrated a variety of ecological and socioeconomic criteria (Birch et al., 2010; Kimiti et al., 2017).

Cost-effectiveness is related to other concepts, such as restorability (Lindig-Cisneros et al., 2003; Cortina et al., 2006). It is worth emphasizing the importance of the socioeconomic context and geographic scope for cost-benefit and cost-effective analysis of ecological restoration projects (FAO, 2015d). Thus, ecological restoration activities may be integrated into larger, regional development initiatives providing net benefits, including social and financial benefits (Wang et al., 2011). This opens a significant window of opportunity to partner with the agriculture, rural development, building and tourism industries (among others), which environmental administrations should draw upon where possible.

Prioritizing target areas can increase the efficiency of forest and landscape restoration, while cost-effectiveness can be used to identify priority areas or hotspots for restoration. Most prioritization analyses are based on one or a few criteria – commonly identified by researchers – with few contributions from other stakeholders (European Environmental Agency, 2014). Yet some studies and management tools have succeeded in integrating a variety of criteria identified and weighed according to participative processes (e.g. Plan de Acción Territorial Forestal de la Comunidad Valenciana, PATFOR).[2] We must bear in mind that priority criteria may not be restricted to particular aspects of ecosystem structure, function and services, but may include other features, such as distance to the nearest populated area, accessibility, or the local unemployment rate. Priority maps, based on criteria identified by stakeholders (through participative processes and cost-effectiveness analysis), facilitate the identification of high priority areas that also provide the highest levels of biodiversity and services for a given investment (Cortina et al., 2017). This can also be a step towards increasing the efficiency and support for restoration programmes.

More efficient monitoring of restoration efforts/initiatives in the Mediterranean at multiple stages

Comprehensive information (baseline and impacts) on restoration and rehabilitation initiatives is still difficult to access. Sharing knowledge and experience is crucial if restoration efforts are to succeed on a large scale (Parfondry et al., 2017). Yet, restoration initiatives often lack efficient evaluation and monitoring mechanisms. They require operational protocols to both describe restoration works and evaluate and monitor their impacts using case-specific ecological and socioeconomic criteria. Further, data should be made easily accessible to the wide range of restoration practitioners, including ensuring this data is available in all regional languages (Fazey et al., 2013).

FLR monitoring plays a key role in:

•providing information on FLR progress, achievements and impact;

•communicating results and outcomes to maintain momentum and inspire emulation;

•supporting the implementation of FLR activities;

•supporting reporting to FLR investors and fostering additional investments by demonstrating ability to oversee FLR investments; and

•supporting reporting on national, regional and international commitments.

The most critical FLR monitoring challenges include: improving stakeholder coordination and participation; meeting the needs of different audiences at different levels; implementing sustainable processes of assessment; including socioeconomic aspects; and linking monitoring across all levels (local, national and global).

Since 2013, in preparing its “Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands: building resilience and benefitting livelihoods” (FAO, 2015c), FAO has developed a Monitoring and Reporting Tool for Forest and Landscape Restoration. The tool is used to analyse, report on, monitor and evaluate restoration initiatives and assist users to compile lessons learned and analyse and monitor performance, impacts and successes. Restoration project designers can also use the tool as a checklist to ensure the design includes the primary elements of a restoration. It will be made available online in three languages (English, French and Spanish) through the “Dryland Restoration Initiatives Platform.” The tool has been field-tested and various experts and workshop participants have contributed to its development.

In this context, and building on the collaborative partnership launched in 2015, the so-called “Rome Promise for Monitoring and Assessment of Dryland for Sustainable Management and Restoration,” participants at the FAO “Drylands & Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) Monitoring Week” (April 2016) jointly designed the collaborative roadmap for FLR monitoring.[3] The roadmap seeks to encourage and support countries, in-country actors and other relevant partners to monitor FLR at all levels. The primary objective of the roadmap is to share knowledge and develop monitoring guidance for implementation across different activity streams. The World Resources Institute (WRI) is working closely with FAO to develop a guidance document to help establish more efficient monitoring protocols and provide a set of necessary indicators to measure restoration success (WRI and FAO, in press). The Society of Ecological Restoration is also undertaking similar efforts to provide relevant standards and indicators for FLR monitoring (McDonald et al., 2016a; Gatica-Saavedra et al., 2017).

How to better share FLR technical knowledge and good practice between stakeholders of Mediterranean landscapes?

Improved FLR good practice and knowledge-sharing requires the establishment of common platforms for data and information-sharing across the Mediterranean. This includes encouraging use of global platforms, such as the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR), and regional platforms, such as the MEDFORVAL project,[4] aimed at connecting stakeholders across the Mediterranean in order to share knowledge and experiences.

FAO initiatives have been especially designed to contribute to knowledge sharing on FLR issues. The Knowledge Base for FLR, built jointly with partners, provides access to a wide range of tools for potential use in the Mediterranean. The Community of Practice, providing peer-to-peer online exchanges and regular events (i.e. webinars) in which Mediterranean stakeholders are encouraged to participate, complements this FAO initiative. In addition, the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) toolbox has a specific module focused on FLR, which includes tools, case studies and scientific publications on FLR. The Dryland Restoration Initiatives Platform can play a key role as a common platform to compile, share and disseminate data on FLR in the Mediterranean. This can support exchanges both with other Mediterranean regions and drylands worldwide.

There is also a clear need to improve, enhance and promote study tours for technology and experience transfers between countries experiencing similar issues (e.g. through regional network meetings and COST scientific missions, south-south and north-south cooperation).

Forest and landscape restoration opportunities in the Mediterranean

Assessing restoration opportunities in the Mediterranean: estimating land potential

In attempting to assess the Mediterranean’s restoration opportunities, the authors have used and analysed data collected in the framework of FAO’s Global Drylands Assessment (GDA) on trees, forests and land use in the Mediterranean region (see FAO, 2016d; Bastin et al., 2017, and Chapter 3).

The GDA is an initiative launched in 2015 by FAO, in collaboration with many partners, as a follow-up to the Rome Promise on assessment and monitoring of drylands for sustainable management and restoration. The initiative interprets satellite imagery using Collect Earth (a tool in the Open Foris suite of free, open source software developed by FAO’s Forestry Department in partnership with Google). The results of the GDA were disaggregated at the Mediterranean regional level, providing new and key data on forests, tree cover and land use in Mediterranean drylands.

Data collected by GDA, together with the Human Footprint Index (HFP) and land use data from the map GlobCover 2009 (Arino et al., 2012), was used to map restoration opportunities in the Mediterranean (Martín-Ortega et al., 2017). The methodology proposed a score-based classification system combining this data. Different scores were applied to different land uses depending on their suitability for forest restoration (i.e. high for abandoned croplands and low for forest with a cover > 40 percent). In regard to HFP, higher scores were given to decreasing HFP, whereas low scores were given in areas where HFP increased. Once established, these scores resulted in three restoration opportunity categories: 1) high priority restoration; 2) low priority restoration; and 3) no restoration. By combining priorities 1 and 2, up to 80 Mha had restoration potential regionally, accounting for 40.2 percent of the Mediterranean as defined by FAO GEZ (Figure 3.9).

The aim of this study is to draw attention to the need for restoration in the Mediterranean region and roughly estimate the magnitude of restoration opportunities. Due to the map’s scale and resolution, it is not intended, nor should it be used, to identify restoration objectives, the type of restoration measures required, or specific areas where restoration should occur. This framework can instead be used as a basis for detailed assessments of restoration priority areas that integrate criteria at national and sub-national levels and engage local stakeholders and communities.

Assessing restoration needs in the Mediterranean: managing and recognizing the potential of forest genetic resources

The great environmental variability and special location of the Mediterranean basin (between tropical and temperate latitudes), has resulted in diversity and fine-scale heterogeneity of habitats, species assemblages and genetic variation within species far exceeding that found in most other areas. Due to environmental changes, this diversity is at greater risk than ever before. It is therefore important to implement adaptive management techniques and, in some cases, rescue strategies. It is also important to understand how species react or will react in future. Indeed, the potential for forests to adapt to environmental changes fundamentally depends on genetic resources, but this potential is threatened by a diverse set of pressures including human population growth, forest fragmentation and neglect.

These pressures will gradually increase genetic erosion to the point where forests are at risk of extinction. Thanks to their genetic adaptation processes, however, existing species are the result of successful evolutionary adaptation over an extended period (Eriksson et al., 1993). Large population sizes have facilitated a large number of genetic combinations and adaptive characteristics, which support the adaptive characteristics of populations/species (Eriksson, 1996, 1998; Hamrick, 2004).

The major mechanisms populations use for survival are: adaptation that allows the genetic heritage of a population to adjust to a given environment (Nanson, 2004) and phenotypic plasticity (Schlichting, 1986; Pigliucci, 2001), defined as a quantitative response to change by genotype (Eriksson, 1996; Eriksson et al., 1993). Species, in addition to individual variability, still have the opportunity (apart from random mutations) to exploit adaptation and plasticity.

Micro-environmental variability can play an important role in the development and conservation process of genetic variability. Small, sheltered areas with characteristics suitable for the survival of populations have produced endemisms throughout the Mediterranean. It is clear, however, that if changes are too rapid and intense, these shelters will likely be swept away.

Most genetic resources of the Mediterranean forest tree population are unusual for their marginality. The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources Report (FAO, 2014) recognizes that “Marginal and/or range-limit populations may be vital for tree species’ adaptation to novel environmental extremes.” Marginal and peripheral tree populations are unique and valuable sources of genetic information that enhance forest resilience. They may include specific adaptations that result from evolutionary processes operating over long periods of time in marginal environments. The FAO Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Development of FGR defines its Strategic Priority 7 as “supporting assessment, management and conservation of marginal and/or range limits forest species populations.”

Marginal populations are unique. They should, therefore, be accorded high priority in global and regional conservation and restoration strategies and programmes in order to conserve specific genetic variants and genetic resources that are not found elsewhere. These unique genetic resources could be used to help forests adapt to the challenges of the twenty-first century. Marginal and peripheral tree population FGR are thus a key priority of the Global Plan of Action for Forest Genetic Resources (Fady et al., 2016).

Future restoration activities and management strategies must aim to conserve genetic variability, secure and enhance populations’ adaptive potential and deploy forest reproductive material resistant to future environmental stresses. Genetic variation is a sign of functional and resilient ecosystems and, therefore, an indicator of successful long-term restoration (Thompson et al., 2010).

FAO Silva Mediterranea and other international networks (Euforgen, EUFGIS, IUFRO 2.02.13, Treebreedex, Trees4Future, Cost FP102 MaP FGR, etc.) have demonstrated the need to establish and harmonize shared databases and maps of species distribution, experimental networks, climatic networks and future scenarios. Moreover, existing comparative trial networks are precious and should be carefully conserved, managed and monitored to collect valuable information on adaptation (Besacier et al., 2011), and to integrate marker-assisted selection techniques. Marker-assisted selection is an indirect selection process whereby one or more traits of interest are selected based on a morphological, biochemical or DNA/RNA marker linked to other traits of interest such as growth, quality, pest/disease resistance, or abiotic stress tolerance (Collard and Mackill, 2008).

Managers and decision-makers should better understand these major genetic parameters in order to improve forest restoration and management plans. Understanding the significance of these parameters can improve silvicultural practices and the management of populations and breeding material in nurseries and plantations.

A more professional and biodiverse selection of nursery-grown plant material is required to improve restoration efforts. In addition, a wider range of species of known provenance should be produced and made available for large-scale use. The involvement of tree nursery managers in the success of plantations made with the materials they distribute is desirable. The annotation of the plots in which the reproductive material will be planted should be universally mandatory in order to monitor the success of plantations and to assess the adaptive capacity of the plant materials used across a spectrum of sites.

Several gene transfer techniques, known either as assisted gene flow or assisted migration, may prove useful in some cases, but cannot be used in every situation (Iverson and McKenzie, 2013). Moreover, as mentioned above, marker-assisted selection techniques made possible through the rapid development of genomics can improve the efficiency of adaptive genetic improvement (Mackill et al., 1999; Slafer et al., 2005).

Including genetics in FLR planning, from the point of forest establishment to growth, maturation and monitoring success (Le et al., 2012), will increase the capacity of restored forest ecosystems to adapt to new threats. An ecosystem approach, which considers soil biota, pollinators and seed dispersal to help ensure long-term self-maintenance, is essential to comprehensive and lasting landscape recovery (Bou Dagher Kharrat, 2017).

Stronger links between research and practice should be established (Bozzano et al., 2014), and restoration projects have untapped potential to generate scientific knowledge to improve future restoration. The need for improved knowledge and practical advice will become even more urgent in the future in view of the limited restoration experience of the many new actors likely to emerge in response to major international commitments to restoration goals.

FLR actors should collaborate to establish supportive national strategies that create demand for good quality forest reproductive material of native tree species. These frameworks should explicitly address the importance of adequate selection of sufficiently diverse genetics in ecosystem restoration (Bozzano, 2017).

In addition, the identification of appropriate incentives and financing mechanisms to encourage the evaluation of restoration success in a more holistic way, including the consideration of the FGR to be used in the restoration activities, is urgently required. Such evaluation should include assessments of how the restoration of a resilient ecosystem copes with changes and threats.

International commitments and initiatives related to Mediterranean forest and landscape restoration

UN multilateral conventions and the SDG Agenda

Countries in the Mediterranean region have made commitments to forest and landscape restoration under the Rio Conventions, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF).

The CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets aim to address five different strategic goals for the period 2001-2020. Of the 20 different targets, numbers 5, 14 and 15 are closely related to forest and landscape restoration. Specifically, target 15 aims to restore 15 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2020. Most Mediterranean countries[5] have prepared their national reports and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) in the context of CBD Aichi Targets 5 and 15 (CBD, 2017), reporting on their efforts towards the achievement of these targets.

With regard to the sustainable development goals, target 15.3, which aims to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), is closely linked to FLR. LDN focuses on maintaining and improving the quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security by identifying drivers and measures designed to avoid, reduce and/or reverse land degradation. Mediterranean countries have already embarked on the process of establishing national LDN targets. These include North African countries, namely Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, East Mediterranean countries including Jordan, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey, as well as European Mediterranean countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, Montenegro and Serbia.

As a result of the Paris Agreement adopted in 2016, several countries have included restoration in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). UNFCCC parties are currently preparing their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to translate these intentions into action. In this context, EU member countries submitted a joint INDC, which considers afforestation and reforestation under the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector, but without providing specific measures regarding emissions reductions. Other Mediterranean countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Turkey have reflected restoration and reforestation in their NDCs. These include either specific measures to increase forest cover and carbon stocks or reflect their commitments to implement the NDCs through existing national restoration efforts (e.g. Lebanon and Tunisia).

The Silva Mediterranea Working Group on “Desertification and Restoration of Mediterranean Drylands”

The FAO Committee on Mediterranean Forestry Questions-Silva Mediterranea took a decision to create a working group on “Desertification and Restoration of Mediterranean Drylands” during its twenty-first session in February 2012 in Antalya, Turkey. This working group benefits from strong support (including financial support) from the Turkish Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA), particularly its General Directorate to Combat Desertification and Erosion, from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) and from the Turkish International Cooperation Agency (TIKA). Technical support is provided by FAO’s Forestry Department, drawing from its expertise on dryland forestry matters and dryland restoration-led initiatives.

The working group focuses on the implementation of Strategic Line 6 of the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF) to “Restore degraded Mediterranean forest landscapes” at national/regional levels by:

1.Promoting the dissemination and implementation of FAO’s Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands at the Mediterranean level (FAO, 2015c);

2.Compiling and analysing successful restoration efforts already implemented in the Mediterranean and sharing best practices and lessons learned at the regional level through projects, programmes and other initiatives to restore forests and landscapes in drylands with, in particular, support from FAO’s two complementary initiatives: “Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism” and “Dryland Restoration Initiatives Platform;”

3.Contributing to the organization of Mediterranean Forest Weeks on restoration and the preparation of editions of State of Mediterranean Forests; and

4.Establishing partnerships with organizations supporting the development of innovative financing mechanisms for FLR and LDN.

The working group’s achievements and contributions so far include:

•The 2015 publication of FAO’s country-driven “Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands – Building resilience and benefiting livelihoods,” based on the results of two workshops organized with the support of Turkey (taking place in Konya, Turkey in 2012 and Dakar, Senegal in 2013). These guidelines have been promoted at the Mediterranean level and are available in five languages (English, French, Spanish, Turkish and Arabic). Turkey used these global guidelines as a basis for the preparation of its own national guidelines.

•A FLR monitoring tool was also developed to analyse restoration projects and programmes. The tool was revised and finalized in 2016 and is being published online (2018) in three languages: English, French and Spanish. It will be available on FAO’s website, accessible as “Dryland Restoration Initiative Platform.” This will promote ongoing exchanges about lessons learnt and good practice, both within the Mediterranean and with other dryland regions worldwide.

•Preliminary mapping and analysis of 40 restoration and rehabilitation projects, programmes and initiatives was carried out in the Mediterranean region (Parfondry et al., 2017). The results of this work were presented during the Fifth Mediterranean Forest Week (Agadir, Morocco, March 2017) and published as part of its proceedings.

The Ankara Initiative and the Committee of Forestry Working Group on “Dryland Forests and Agrosilvopastoral Systems”

Turkey is working in partnership with the UNCCD Secretariat and its Global Mechanism and other organizations to support the development of innovative financing mechanisms for FLR and LDN through the Ankara Initiative. This will benefit UNCCD Annex 4 countries (Northern Mediterranean region). Turkey’s Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) is collaborating with FAO’s dryland restoration programme in support of Africa’s Great Green Wall initiative under the Turkey-FAO Forestry Partnership and with support from the Ankara Initiative. The “BRIDGES” (Boosting Restoration, Income, Development and Generating Ecosystem Services) project was developed by FAO with MFWA and three Great Green Wall partner countries (Eritrea, Mauritania and Sudan). Bridging the Mediterranean drylands of Turkey with those in Africa, one of the objectives of the project is to stimulate south-south cooperation between Turkey and Africa’s Great Green Wall countries, as well as across dryland regions globally.

During its Twenty-Third Session in July 2016, the FAO Committee on Forestry (COFO) agreed to establish an expert working group on “dryland forests and agrosilvopastoral systems.” Its purpose was to: review and report to the COFO on the status, trends, issues and developments in dryland forests and agrosilvopastoral systems; contribute to developing a comprehensive understanding of dryland forests and agrosilvopastoral systems and the people who depend on them; and increase the adoption of good practices for the protection, sustainable management and restoration of drylands forests and agrosilvopastoral systems, enhancing environmental and socioeconomic resilience and sustainable livelihoods. The working group provides an opportunity to promote cooperation and share lessons learned between the Mediterranean basin region, other dryland regions and other regions sharing similar climate characteristics.

The Agadir Commitment of the Mediterranean Region

The Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF) (FAO, 2013) provides policy orientations for integrated management of forest ecosystems in Mediterranean landscapes. Nine strategic lines form the key pillars of which strategic line six aims to “Restore degraded Mediterranean forest landscapes.” This is expected to generate the following outcomes:

•Resilience to climate change is enhanced by restoring Mediterranean forest ecosystems with a global vision to cope with desertification issues;

•Forest ecosystem restoration is promoted as an opportunity to enhance food security and livelihoods in Mediterranean drylands;

•Environmental and cultural services (including habitats for native biodiversity) are regained in these restored forest ecosystems;

•Long-term forest restoration is considered using integrated approaches, restored forest ecosystems are managed, monitored and evaluated.

This strategic framework is very well aligned with Aichi Biodiversity Targets 5, 14 and 15, as well as SDG target 15.3.

During the most recent Mediterranean Forest Week in Morocco in 2017, nine countries[6] endorsed the Agadir Commitment, thereby agreeing to restore eight million hectares of degraded forest landscapes by 2030. This commitment is built on current national programmes. In support of this effort, countries agreed to establish a FLR Regional Mediterranean Initiative with the support of FAO and other partners.

These regional restoration undertakings are aligned with the UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forests), the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030, the Rio Conventions and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The endorsed Commitment includes four specific objectives:

•To assess ongoing national efforts on FLR;

•To reinforce regional cooperation on FLR and LDN;

•To strengthen cooperation among interested partners to develop a consensual and diversified strategy for FLR financing efforts and reinforce national capacities;

•To assess respective FLR and LDN efforts through the establishment of a voluntary monitoring and reporting system in the Mediterranean.

Conclusions and the way forward

As stated above, restoration (including ecological restoration and forest and landscape restoration) will play a key role in the Mediterranean Region in the context of the Rio Conventions and other international commitments, including the Paris Agreement and the Bonn Challenge. The implementation of the recently-signed Agadir Commitment will bolster country efforts to restore their degraded ecosystems and, at the same time, meet their 2030 targets. Recognizing the importance of the Bonn Challenge and the added value of collectively mobilizing the GPFLR, the Agadir Commitment will reinforce cooperation and existing regional restoration efforts to adapt Mediterranean forests, landscapes and populations to climate change (and mitigate its negative effects). It will also help to attract additional financial support to increase FLR investments with a view to meeting Paris Agreement targets.

The Agadir Commitment lies well within the regional restoration potential mapped using GDA data (more than 80 million ha across the Mediterranean basin). But additional and more detailed efforts to map and plan priority restoration areas are required at country and sub-national levels, using and analysing biophysical data, socioeconomic needs and opportunities. Country-led restoration and mapping exercises must be prioritized, conducted using a multi-stakeholder planning process built on existing or future LDN and NDC targeting processes. Prioritization and planning should also support the development of restoration objectives that balance the environmental, economic and societal needs of each landscape or landscape unit.

Mediterranean countries have committed to an ambitious restoration programme. In preparing to meet these commitments, efforts must be strengthened and directed towards addressing the mobilization of reproductive material that maximizes the use and propagation of forest genetic resources (diversity, variability of plant species, intra-species population and gene pools). This will help countries meet sustainable development challenges and build landscapes that are resilient to climatic changes. When selecting species for FLR, the use of more adaptive genetic materials should be emphasized, especially in relation to ecological sustainability and the effects of climate change. In view of this, legislation relating to certification and traceability should be more stringently applied, to ensure the propagation material pathway is traceable from source or provenance to the site of restoration.

Fires are a growing threat and challenge in the Mediterranean, particularly in the context of climate change. Restoration after wildfires must, therefore, be carefully designed according to the ecosystem’s response to fire, fire severity and ecosystem type and management objectives, which can differ significantly depending on the geographical and socioeconomic context.

New approaches to socio-ecological restoration must be adopted to protect biodiversity, increase the provision of ecosystem services, reduce the inconvenience of ecological disservices and improve human welfare across the region. In this context, good practice sectoral standards are required to guide ecological restoration and FLR projects and increase restoration success. The FAO Global Guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes, along with many other practices and lessons learned from research projects should be put into practice. Participatory approaches to designing, implementing and monitoring FLR activities, in close collaboration with all relevant groups, should be mainstreamed to ensure restoration efforts are owned and sustained by the appropriate stakeholders.

Initiatives to develop capacity are required to facilitate exchange and transfer of good practices. Tools and approaches such as the MEDFORVAL project, the collaborative roadmap for FLR monitoring and the Dryland Restoration Initiatives Platform will help achieve and assess the success of restoration projects and extend restoration knowledge in the region. Additional strengthening measures include: compiling and exchanging case studies on restoration in the Mediterranean and other dryland regions worldwide; baseline assessment and monitoring of the impact of restoration efforts using tools such as Collect Earth; and regional and international partnerships such as the GPFLR. These measures should be further increased and promoted.

Due to the often high costs of restoration, it is important to optimize these costs by applying cost-effective strategies. But this should involve more than a narrow cost-benefit analysis. In order to maximize the benefits of a given investment, analysis must consider the effectiveness of restoration activities based on broader environmental and socioeconomic factors. Public-private investments should be encouraged; the FAO FLR-Mechanism and other partners can help to identify and broker such win-win partnerships.

Last but not least, government institutions, NGOs and producers currently see FLR not as a choice but an imperative and an opportunity to address many other related SDGs. These including poverty eradication (SDG 1), Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture (SDG 2), Climate (SDG 13) and Life on Land (SDG 15). Addressing restoration at a landscape level, while complex, is the only way to bring sectors and stakeholders together to achieve sustainable development goals.

8 Adaptation and mitigation

Anna Barbati, University of Tuscia
Giuseppe Scarascia Mugnozza, University of Tuscia
Sezgin Ayan, Kastamonu University
Emanuele Blasi, University of Tuscia
Rafael Calama, INIA
Paulo Canaveira, senior consultant
Clara Cicatiello, University of Tuscia
Alessio Collalti, CMCC and CNR
Piermaria Corona, CREA
Miren del Río, INIA and UVa
Fulvio Ducci, CREA
Lucia Perugini, CMCC

Introduction

Mediterranean forests in Europe, North Africa and the Near East are under pressure due to the combined effects of anthropogenic exploitation (fuelwood collection, overgrazing, agricultural conversion, etc.) and stress and disturbances related to climate change (drought, wildfires, pest and diseases) (see Chapter 5). At the same time, Mediterranean forest ecosystems play a key role in regional climate change mitigation, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing carbon. Adjustments to forest management approaches are necessary, both to reduce the adverse effects of human and climate-induced pressures on Mediterranean forests and to enhance their role in climate change mitigation.

This chapter focuses on the linkages between climate change adaptation and mitigation. In particular, it will consider the role of global and regional policies, forest management strategies and social participation in rural governance in implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies. We will consider four overarching questions:

1.What threats are Mediterranean forests facing and what is their current mitigation capacity? (Section “The mitigation role of Mediterranean forests”);

2.How can the current climate policy framework trigger mitigation and adaptation actions in Mediterranean countries? (Section “Climate policy actions in the Mediterranean region: Present and future roles”);

3.How can forest management, including the management of forest genetic resources and fire regimes, be improved to enhance the resilience of Mediterranean forests to climate change-related stress and disturbances? (Sections “Fostering adaptability by silviculture”–“Progress in wildfire management”);

4.How can the governance of Mediterranean rural landscapes interact with stakeholders to develop effective adaptation strategies? (Section “Adaptation strategies and stakeholder involvement in the Mediterranean rural landscape”).

Mitigation

The mitigation role of Mediterranean forests

Forest ecosystems are important components of the global carbon cycle in at least two ways. First, they store nearly 3 billion tonnes of anthropogenic carbon each year through net primary production (Malhi, 2002). This corresponds to about 30 percent of all carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Second, they immobilize a large amount of carbon in their tissue, which roughly corresponds to more than double that present in the atmosphere (Canadell and Raupach, 2008).

Over centuries, Mediterranean forests have demonstrated an ability to cope with external change, particularly changes to climate conditions and anthropic activities. This explains their key role in mitigating the effects of climate change. As climate change is likely to affect the geographic location of the Mediterranean climate biome, with areas of expansion in either the northern or southern Mediterranean region (Figure 3.10), forest management and afforestation will play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation (see also Section “Climate policy actions in the Mediterranean region: Present and future roles”).

Several studies have been conducted to determine carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions by forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean region, based on data from forest carbon inventories, field measurements, remote sensing, laser scanning and growth simulation. Mediterranean forests represent a carbon sink (Pasalodos-Tato et al., 2017) expected to increase over coming decades (Cañellas et al., 2017). Table 3.4 details the amount of carbon sequestered annually in this aboveground biomass. Figures are devised applying biomass conversion and expansion factors provided by Eggleston et al. (2006) to data on net annual increments for the year 2015 in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 (FAO, 2015a). However, as net annual increment is not available for all countries classified as Mediterranean in this report (see Chapter 3), information on aboveground carbon sequestration is limited to around a dozen countries. In these countries, annual aboveground carbon sequestration ranges from 0.2 to 2.4 tC/ha. On average, carbon annually sequestered in stems and branches amounts to 0.7 tC/ha. This falls within the range of estimates reported in the relevant literature (Croitoru and Merlo, 2005). Eddy flux measurements conducted in several Mediterranean forests in Italy indicate annual C absorption by all above and below-ground ecosystems compartments, including soil, ranges from 1 to 5 tC/ha, from Mediterranean macchia shrubs to Mediterranean oak and Montane-Mediterranean pine forests (Fares et al., 2004).

Recent studies on Quercus, Pinus and Eucalyptus-dominated forests in the northern Mediterranean (Italy, Spain and Portugal) (Gratani et al., 2017; Cañellas et al., 2017), show that carbon is not only sequestered in above and below-ground biomass, but that significant quantities are also stored in litter and soil (40 percent of total forest carbon storage). Either way, interactions between climate change and disturbances will have different impacts on forest ecosystems (e.g. increased fire frequency and fire affected areas, reduced growth of drought-stressed trees and increased morbidity after fire), primarily reducing forest productivity and, by extension, climate mitigation capacity (Doblas-Miranda et al., 2017; Reyer et al., 2017).

Wildfires represent the greatest disturbance in the Mediterranean basin by a considerable margin (Figure 3.11) (Seidl et al., 2014; Nabuurs et al., 2013). Exacerbated by climate extremes (Reichstein et al., 2013) fires affect, on average, 450 000 ha in the region each year (Turco et al., 2017). In recent decades (with the notable exception of 2017), total burned area and annual number of fires registered in the Mediterranean’s north and northeast has tended to decrease, despite an increase in the of occurrence of large fires (> 500 ha) (Domingo et al., 2017; Turco et al., 2017). It is estimated that CO_2 emissions caused by fire total about 2 000 TgC globally each year (Fares et al., 2017). Airborne Laser Scanning and simulation model data have been used to establish that a wildfire in a 40 year-old pine forest is estimated to produce an average emission of 60 tonnes of CO_2 equivalent per hectare (Montealegre et al., 2017), compromising resilient species regeneration when the frequency of fire events is above average (Domingo et al., 2017).

Deforestation and forest degradation are also sources of carbon emissions in the Mediterranean region. Deforestation is the result of both direct (agricultural expansion, urbanization, infrastructure development and mining) and indirect causes, related to demographic, economic, technological, social, cultural and political factors (FAO, 2016c) (see Chapter 3). Several studies conducted on forests located in the north and northeast Mediterranean basin locally show a decrease in forested, peri-urban and agriculture areas (Acácio et al., 2016; Symeonakis et al., 2017; Christopoulou, 2011), even if the overall forest area at Mediterranean level is reported to be stable or slightly increasing (Chapter 3). Forest degradation in the Mediterranean is directly caused by grazing and fires and is indirectly related to topographic constraints (Jucker Riva et al., 2017).

Climate policy actions in the Mediterranean region: Present and future roles

The consequences of human pressure on Mediterranean forests are more evident where populations are strongly dependent on forest ecosystems, as is the case in North Africa and the Near East. In this region, forest administrators and managers also face significant technical and financial difficulties which impede the sustainable management of Mediterranean forest ecosystems, not least of which is the establishment of clear land property rights in forest areas.

Table 3.5 provides a list of rural and forest land management measures that could have a positive mitigation impact by either increasing carbon sequestration and/or reducing emissions. In general, there is a strong connection between adaptation and mitigation measures in the forestry sector. Adaptation of wildfire management to a changing climate, and the use of silvicultural measures to reduce vulnerability to water stress, pests and diseases have the capacity to both increase adaptability to climate change and lower GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Some of these measures will be specifically addressed in Section “Adaptation.”

The international climate policy framework recognizes the role of forests in climate change mitigation. Policies and actions to enhance forest carbon stocks in the Mediterranean are already underway. On the other hand, there is currently a lack of active forest management in many parts of the Mediterranean due to the lack of well-developed forest value chains (Valente et al., 2015). A larger effort is required in future to incentivize activities that reinforce mitigation in a changing climate. The transition towards a bioeconomy provides an opportunity to support long-term sustainable wood mobilization in Mediterranean countries (e.g. Lainez et al., 2018) to replace fossil-based products (substitution effect) and to reduce the risk of wildfires associated with expanding and unmanaged forests, resulting in large CO_2 emissions (Verkerk et al., 2018).

Forests in the current climate policy framework. The United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) establishes country obligations with regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation, but also urges countries to cooperate in financing, technology transfer and capacity building in this sector.

The UNFCCC architecture consists of general Convention obligations, supplemented by other instruments that have evolved over time (Table 3.6): the Kyoto Protocol, the Cancun Agreements and the Paris Agreement.

The land sector, which includes forests, is widely recognized as one sector with high potential for mitigation actions, both in terms of sequestration of carbon dioxide and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

These instruments have resulted in two main frameworks applicable to forests: the current Kyoto Protocol land-use and forestry accounting rules, which details how to account for the contribution of forests to developed countries’ targets under the Kyoto Protocol; and the REDD+ framework intended to support developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. In the forthcoming Paris Agreement framework this strict distinction will no longer be valid; forests will enter and be accounted for in the NDCs of all Parties. This is reflective of the Agreement’s emphasis on moving towards economy-wide emissions reduction or limitation targets. REDD+, however, will continue to reward developing countries for their efforts to reduce emissions and enhance forest sequestration.

If the transition towards a true bioeconomy is taking place in Europe, the forest sector could also become instrumental in energy substitution (biomass and liquid biofuels), storing carbon in products (Harvested Wood Products) and substituting more energy intensive materials. Importantly, however, mitigation and adaptation policies in EU Mediterranean countries cannot be compared with those of non-EU Mediterranean countries, where the forest sector is under enormous pressure to meet the demands of food, fibre and energy to cater to an ever-growing population. Accordingly, the following section provides an overview of the variable role of the forest sector in the climate policies of EU and non-EU Mediterranean countries.

Forests in the climate policies of Mediterranean countries: EU countries. Under the Kyoto Protocol, EU countries (28 member states plus Iceland) agreed to jointly meet a 20 percent reduction target for the period 2013-2020 compared to 1990 levels. This has been “translated” into an EU law, known as the “2020 Climate & Energy Package,” which sets binding targets and legal obligations to ensure the following is achieved by 2020: a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels; a 20 percent share of primary energy generated by renewables and; a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency (i.e. level of energy saving, expressed as proportion of the projected use of energy in 2020).

Although forestry sector targets are not included in the 2020 Climate & Energy Package, the sector is included in EU targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The role of the forestry sector in European climate policy is framed by Decision 529/2013/EU, which applies Kyoto Protocol accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). It also establishes additional information requirements concerning actions related to those activities.

The “second pillar” of the Common Agricultural Policy is the EU’s Rural Development Policy and it represents the main legal instrument for the implementation of policies in the agricultural and forestry sector in the European Union. In particular, the EU’s Rural Development Policy for the period 2014-2020 has the following objectives: fostering agricultural competitiveness; ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action; and achieving balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities, including jobs creation and maintenance. Rural Development Programmes should contain measures on several topics, including: promotion of forest development and improvement of the viability of forests; promotion of afforestation; establishment of agroforestry systems; prevention and restoration of damage caused by forest fires, pests and diseases; improved forest resilience and environmental value; and forest conservation and promotion of the environmental and climate services they provide. Each Member State then develops its own Rural Development Programme according to its national/regional priorities, but in so doing is required to address the priorities and actions outlined above.

Other EU funds may also support action relevant to forests and climate change. The LIFE programme, for example, supports projects demonstrating climate action (mitigation and adaptation) and integrated projects linking climate action to other environmental issues (e.g. pollution, soils, biodiversity). The Horizon 2020 programme prioritizes climate change mitigation and adaptation research, while its structural funds may provide indirect support to the forest sector through, for example, investments in civil protection and fire fighting.

Under the Paris Agreement, the EU has committed to reducing emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. Discussions on a “2030 Climate & Energy Package” legal framework that would comply with these 2030 commitments are ongoing. It has, however, been decided that forests and land-use will be included in fulfilment of the 2030 target (unlike the 2020 target), even if the details remain unresolved. A regulation on this topic was adopted in May 2018 (Regulation EU 2018/841). A modified version of the Kyoto Protocol rules was adopted to account for emissions and removals from LULUCF in the EU.

Forests in the climate policies of Mediterranean countries: Non-EU countries. Non-EU Mediterranean countries are not subject to emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.[1] They are, however, encouraged to participate in the clean development mechanism (CDM), which allows emission reduction projects to gain credits for use by the Parties included in Annex I (Figure 3.12) to comply with their targets.

While CDM can occur in all sectors, CDM projects are limited to afforestation activities in the land-use sector. Albania is the only Mediterranean country that has an approved CDM in the forestry sector, with the implementation of a reforestation project promoting natural regeneration of degraded lands through grazing management and supplementary planting. Thus far, the project has absorbed 22 964 tCO_2 eq. from the atmosphere. Now that the Paris Agreement has entered into force, however, these kinds of projects are in stand-by mode, awaiting the conclusion of current discussions on the possible architecture of future market mechanisms.

The primary mitigation contributions from these countries – and their forests – will therefore come from other instruments, such as the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA), REDD+ and, more recently, the Paris Agreement Contributions.

The UN-REDD Programme supports nationally-led REDD+ processes and promotes stakeholder involvement in national and international REDD+ implementation. Through the stepwise architecture, REDD+ can assist countries in the readiness phase (i.e. support for development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures and capacity-building), the pilot phase (implementation of national policies and measures and national strategies or action plans) and the results-based actions that should be fully measured, reported and verified. A country’s starting phase will depend on its specific national circumstances, capacities and capabilities and the level of support received.

Participation in REDD+ by countries in the Mediterranean region remains very limited; only Morocco and Tunisia are enrolled in the UN-REDD Programme, and both are still at very early stages of engagement.[2]

Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement brought together 197 countries to agree on new global goals to avoid dangerous climate change: to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2◦C, to reach global peaking of GHG emissions as soon as possible, and to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removal from the atmosphere in the second half of this century. Achieving these goals will require a significant contribution from forests (Grassi et al., 2017; Houghton et al., 2015; IPCC, 2014c), not only through reduced deforestation, but also by maintaining and increasing the global sink capacity of forests through increased forest area, improved forest management, restoration of degraded forest lands and by better use of forest resources in energy production and bio-based products (construction materials, textiles, chemicals and plastics) capable of replacing fossil-based products.

The Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submitted by parties under the Paris Agreement represents the country’s commitments towards the Agreement’s objectives. All Mediterranean countries, with the exception of the Syrian Arab Republic, are signatories to the Paris Agreement. Among the NDCs submitted, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have emphasized the important role of the forestry sector in meeting their targets, and have identified specific mitigation activities in the forestry sector such as reforestation, sustainable management of forest resources and fire control. Albania has not included the sector in its target, although it aims to do so at the next opportunity.

Adaptation

Rapid and intense changes in climate are expected to have significant impacts on Mediterranean forests. Rising temperatures and the projected decrease in rainfall will magnify drought risk. Even in drought-adapted ecosystems, drought is likely to lead to reduced plant growth and primary productivity and altered plant recruitment.

Under conditions of water stress, many Mediterranean broadleaved and coniferous trees are becoming increasingly vulnerable to fungal pathogens (e.g. Phytophthora), insect defoliators (Lymantria, Processionaria) and wildfires. Because the long lifespan of trees does not permit autonomous adaptation to a fast-changing climate, the implementation of adaptation measures at a management level is crucial to reducing the adverse effects of climate change-related stress and disturbances on Mediterranean forests.

The following sections provide an overview of adaptation options, based on stand level silvicultural measures and wildfire prevention strategies.

Fostering adaptability by silviculture

Because predictions about forest development under climate change are inherently uncertain, robust forest management strategies focused on adaptability are crucial. Accordingly, the focus on adaptive management should turn to the question of how to help current Mediterranean forests to develop and adapt, thereby sustaining the long-term provision of ecosystem services (see Chapter 6). A review of adaptive forest management in the Mediterranean (Vilà-Cabrera et al., 2018) demonstrates that available empirical studies and experiments are biased towards short-term resilience (e.g. reducing vulnerability to drought and fire risk) rather than long-term adaptation.

One possible approach to fostering adaptability of managed forests in the long-term is to maintain and/or increase the complexity that already exists (Nocentini and Coll, 2013; Nocentini et al., 2017). This does not mean uniformly maximizing forest carbon storage, which could induce larger risks (fuel accumulation, susceptibility to drought) and could preclude benefiting from the substitution effects (less fossil carbon released in the atmosphere). On the other hand, promoting forest diversification (including changes in forest composition towards drought and fire-tolerant species), while reducing short-term competition for resources between trees under drought conditions, is a complementary strategy to decrease vulnerability and increase resilience to climate change.

Management of stand density to reduce water use. Reduction of stand density through thinning operations has been shown to significantly reduce the impact of extreme drought on many forest ecosystems, including Mediterranean forests (Sohn et al., 2016b). A lower stand density reduces water use at stand level, thereby decreasing competition between trees for above and below-ground resources, improving water availability and vigour of remaining trees. This improves the capacity of trees to resist and recover from extreme droughts and other biotic or abiotic hazards.

The thinning effect on growth response to drought has often been evaluated in terms of tree resistance and recovery to extreme drought events, which can also be expressed in terms of tree resilience. It is important to highlight that thinning generally increases both resistance and recovery in broadleaved species. For coniferous species, the most significant positive effect is on tree growth recovery after the event (Sohn et al., 2016b). Nevertheless, tree growth under water stress can be affected by other factors such as differences in the growing season (e.g. evergreen broadleaves use water earlier, during spring, but also withstand periods of water shortage during summer), water-use efficiency (Brendel and Cochard, 2011), site, age and thinning regime (D’Amato et al., 2013; Sohn et al., 2016a). The higher resilience in thinned stands was explained in most studies by an increase in water available to trees, whereas the positive effect of thinning on intrinsic water use efficiency should be better elucidated (Martín-Benito et al., 2010; Fernández-de-Uña et al., 2016; Sohn et al., 2016b; Di Matteo et al., 2010, 2017).

Thinning studies on Mediterranean forests support these general trends (e.g. Martín-Benito et al., 2010; Guillemot et al., 2015; Fernandes et al., 2016b), indicating that the regulation of stand density is one of the most important management options to mitigate the impact of extreme drought and high temperatures. Thinning is therefore crucial to adapt Mediterranean forests to climate change, particularly in very dense, high forest stands, such as some pine reforestations or post-fire regenerated Aleppo pine stands, where thinning is also essential to reducing fire risk and has other benefits such as promoting early cone production (Verkaik and Espelta, 2006; Ruano et al., 2013).

Interactions between species mixing and thinning on growth. Promoting mixed-species stands is another management strategy to adapt forests to climate change (Figure 3.13). Besides the higher productivity and portfolio of ecosystem services found by increasing tree species diversity (e.g. Pretzsch et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2016; van der Plas et al., 2016), more diverse forest stands frequently demonstrate greater stability. Mixing species can increase resistance and resilience to extreme droughts (Pretzsch et al., 2013), temporal stability (Jucker et al., 2014; del Río et al., 2017), and reduce the risk of biotic and abiotic disturbances (Jactel and Brockerhoff, 2007; Castagneyrol et al., 2014; Guyot et al., 2016).

Studies focusing on the mixing effect on tree growth resilience to drought showed contradictory effects (Pretzsch et al., 2013; Grossiord et al., 2014; Merlin et al., 2015), suggesting the lack of a general pattern but a dependence on species composition and site conditions (Forrester et al., 2016), also for Mediterranean mixed forest stands (Grossiord et al., 2014; de Dios-García et al., 2015; Forrester et al., 2016). There is considerable evidence that tree species interactions in terms of growth and productivity depend, among other factors, on stand density (Condés et al., 2013; Forrester, 2014). However, how stand density and tree competition status influence the resilience of mixed-species stands to drought is poorly understood. There are a few studies focusing on growth response to drought in thinned and unthinned mixed-species stands in the Mediterranean region (Linares et al., 2011; Aldea et al., 2017), but unfortunately, they do not disentangle the role of species mixing on resilience to drought. Similarly, further study on the impact of species diversity on resilience to multiple stressors (e.g. drought and biotic disturbance interactions) in the Mediterranean is necessary.

Silvicultural actions to enhance regeneration. Forests are particularly vulnerable to climate change during the natural regeneration phase. Further attention in forest management to increasing adaptive capacity is therefore required. Moreover, natural regeneration treatments play a key role in promoting mixed species stands (Prévosto et al., 2011), which could contribute to improving future forest resilience.

Most of the processes involved in natural regeneration are highly sensitive to climate, so a good knowledge of all climatic-driven mechanisms is the basis for adapting natural regeneration treatments in Mediterranean forests. By regulating light availability to forest floor, harvest intensity indirectly affects climatic conditions crucial for seed germination and survival of seedlings (temperature, humidity and radiation regimes). Under different harvesting intensities (e.g. between 25 and 100 percent of the basal area removed) and summer precipitation regimes, for example, Pinus pinaster germination and survival rates appeared to benefit more from the lowest harvest levels than from water availability (Ruano et al., 2009).

Higher frequency of extreme droughts has also been found to reduce seed production and seedling survival (Mutke et al., 2005; Gómez-Aparicio et al., 2004; Calama et al., 2016, e.g.), as well as seedling diversity (Lloret et al., 2004). A recent review based on five Mediterranean pine species highlights the need to apply more gradual regeneration cuttings (shelterwood systems) and, as a general rule, to extend regeneration periods to meet the challenges posed by climate change (Calama et al., 2017). Accordingly, shrubs can facilitate the initial establishment of some species in Mediterranean environments (Gómez-Aparicio et al., 2004; Rodríguez-García et al., 2011).

Silvicultural options to promote growth and resilience in coppice forests. The projected increase in drought risk is expected to magnify the already limited conditions for tree growth common to Mediterranean coppice forests (e.g. thin and eroded soils, poor soil carbon content). This widespread management system is characterized by densely-populated trees of small diameter. Tree species composition has long been simplified by coppicing, causing species with low stump sprouting ability to disappear from coppice forests (Fabbio, 2016). The structure of Mediterranean coppices explains their low growth rates under water-limited conditions, due to the lack of water availability and to higher respiration rates per unit of biomass, as compared to those of more mature forests (Gracia et al., 2011) (Figure 3.14). In these conditions, reduced Leaf Area Index by means of thinning does not reduce the amount of water transpired, since the remaining trees use most of the water not used by harvested trees. This can result in less water stress and forest dieback during extreme drought, even by drought-tolerant species such as Holm oak (Gracia et al., 2011).

Selective thinning is a useful technique to partially mitigate the negative effect of drought on the growth of deciduous oak coppices, although traditional thinning, characterized by low intensity and frequency, produces only transient results and needs to be modified to effectively mitigate the impact of increasing drought on Mediterranean oak coppices (Cotillas et al., 2009).

Tree-oriented silviculture is a long-term management option to promote more complex and heterogeneous structure in Mediterranean coppices. Silvicultural treatments are directed towards early selection of target crop tree species, generally of sporadic occurrence in oak or chestnut-dominated coppice stands, whose crown growth is favoured by applying frequent thinning during the full rotation period (Manetti et al., 2016).

Tree-oriented silviculture facilitates the diversification of timber assortments, e.g. producing valuable timber from sporadic trees (Giuliarelli et al., 2016).

Advances in managing forest genetic resources

The Mediterranean region hosts a huge range of specific and genetic diversity. Its latitudinal position and geographic structure explains why important genetic hotspots (Myers, 1988, 1990; Myers et al., 2000; Reid, 1998; Balletto et al., 2010) are located in the Near East, North Africa and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas of southeast Europe. These biodiversity and genetic hotspots derive from refugia formed during past glacial waves that served as re-colonization gene sources during interglacial migrations. This is confirmed by the presence of considerable endemism of glacial or northern origin and of isolated populations of northern species belonging to mild and cooler regions. Most central European or northern and mesophilic species of colder, temperate regions find their rear margins here, mainly on mountain ranges at altitudes where suitable conditions can be found (e.g. Fagus sylvatica, Abies alba, Pinus mugo, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris, Quercus petraea, Quercus robur). These so-called marginal/peripheral forest populations contain original genetic diversity (Hampe and Petit, 2005; Fady et al., 2016).

The complex modern phenomenon of so-called “global change” tends to increase population fragmentation (Brook et al., 2008). Climatic changes seem to be so rapid that tree populations are affected by severe and repeated stress periods, which are increasing in their intensity, frequency and duration. Populations growing at the rear edges will likely face genetic erosion or, in extreme conditions, extirpation risks (Aitken et al., 2008; Aitken and Bemmels, 2016). On the other hand, more widespread species with larger populations are likely to persist and adapt, but will likely suffer adaptation lag for a few generations. Species with small populations and fragmented ranges will suffer decline and reduced fitness. In fragmented habitats, suitable sites are in fact separated by barriers that slow or completely disrupt gene flow. In these cases, inbreeding increases consistent with homozygosis levels, and the fitness of the population is globally reduced, instead favouring inbreeding depression (Hampe and Petit, 2005; Fady et al., 2016).

Indeed, in a region like the Mediterranean it is unlikely that the migration of plant species and forest types will be fully capable of reducing the impacts of climate change on forests. Even where migration is possible, societies may be unwilling to accept massive forest dieback in some areas - and subsequent natural selection of more suitable genotypes - and may demand intervention. Initiatives which save time and resources should therefore be prioritized. An initial and useful approach to prioritization might be based on a list of tree species presently considered seriously endangered.

Màtyàs (2007) reported on a valuable comparison carried out among forest tree populations according to their main characteristics and population structure, and corresponding urgency for action. Initially, Mediterranean pines, evergreen oaks and other tree species may be less endangered than species in central-northern temperate habitats, as they are generally better adapted to drought. As the climate progressively dries, however, increased weather extremes and related events, such as forest fires and shifts in rural activities, will place increasing pressure on other habitats in this area.

In situ conservation. Factors such as gene flow, genetic drift, selection, recombination and the reproductive system will determine a population’s genetic structure, but the value of a stand’s genetic resources is also strictly determined by the way they are managed. Therefore, conserving and managing the genetic variability of forest trees in situ is the basis for developing adaptive management strategies able to perpetuate ecosystem functions and services, as well as improving ecosystem resilience. In situ conservationists and reformers can work together to select adaptable basic materials within marginal populations, facilitating the production of adapted offspring. Indeed, the reaction of basic materials can be tested in situ, by exposing them to the temporal and spatial variation of micro-environmental conditions. It is evident that in situ selection should generally be carried out on highly heritable adaptive traits; predominantly eco-physiological (drought and frost resistance/tolerance) and phenological traits.

Knowledge of the spatial genetic structure of forests should be a common and shared approach to in situ silviculture and forest management of valuable populations. A first simple model of a stand structure is the subdivision of a population into sub-populations or demes. According to this model, the exchange of genes in a population is slower between groups of more distant trees and quicker and easier within them, regardless of the type of dispersal (Wakeley, 2000; Sagnard et al., 2011). The entire population can also be accounted for by a number of demes. If demes structure remains stable for several generations, a certain degree of consanguinity between neighbouring trees within demes may occur. It is time to begin studies on the role of in situ conservation, including analyses on silviculture and tending effects on genetic structure. Konnert and Hosius (2010) and Ducci (2015) demonstrated the importance of genetics in developing a sustainable forest practice, either for silviculture implementing natural or artificial regeneration.

Special attention should be given to the silvicultural approaches, outlined in Section “Fostering adaptability by silviculture,” aiming to increase species mixtures and control microclimates through canopy cover and crown density regulation to reduce drought susceptibility. Changes in tree density will also affect genetic diversity within species (Sagnard et al., 2011). Applying silviculture principles to small management areas will produce patchy alternatives where natural selection can occur. It will, however, be crucial to monitor the impact of forest management on genetic diversity by using genetic and demographic indicators.

Ex situ conservation. Integration with common garden networks is crucial to understanding and improving information on marginal populations and may be relevant to conservation and management in practice (Màtyàs, 2007). Without scientific experimental information on adaptive indicators, it is difficult to manage genetic resources and establish strategies for their conservation. For this purpose, it is important to make full use of several existing ex situ experimental networks and collections established in the Mediterranean.

In the past, IUFRO, FAO Silva Mediterranea and other important international networks established broad, international, multi-site tests, largely focused on conifers (four genera and some 20 species) and Quercus suber. This genetic stock, inventoried in the context of Silva Mediterranea (Pichot, 2011) and European projects such as TreeBreedex and Trees4Future, are a sound base upon which to develop future actions. Present trends in forest and tree-breeding research will influence the traits under consideration by future activities, as this approach to research has proved efficient (formerly Silva Mediterranea itself, IUFRO, EUFORGEN networks, EU TreeBreedex, Tree4Future etc.).

Studies should investigate adaptive characteristics and phenotypic plasticity and develop genomics as a basis for breeding, improvement and conservation (i.e. QTLs, QTNs, SNPs association techniques etc.). One must be aware, however, that identifying genes responsible for variation remains a slow and time-consuming process, especially in long-lived organisms such as forest trees (Vendramin and Morgante, 2006).

Reproductive materials. Ex situ conservation can be carried out at the national level and networked at the international level. Seriously endangered and valuable forest tree populations or species in the Mediterranean Region should be identified and conserved with the support of the international community. To this end, laws and regulations on management in situ, nursery systems and trade in forest reproductive materials should be modified. Namely, a revision of current concepts of seed zones and provenance region delineation should be considered. Almost universally, forest reproductive materials are used in forest plantation projects according to guidelines written under the assumption that local soil and climatic conditions will remain stable. According to most climate models, climatic conditions in the region will not remain stable over coming decades. There is, therefore, a need to revise rules regarding species provenance and the transfer of seeds and other reproductive materials (Konnert et al., 2015).

The recent State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources (FAO, 2014), with a contribution from FAO Silva Mediterranea for Forest Genetic Resources in the Mediterranean region, should be considered under this framework. In the 1990s, Topak (FAO, 1997) inventoried forest reproductive materials used for reforestation in 17 Silva Mediterranea countries. Moreover, the FAO Silva Mediterranea database lists national and international forest tree common gardens[3] in the Mediterranean region. Such basic information is essential for rethinking seed zone delineation and provenance selection in the face of climate change. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Sharing of Benefits should also be taken into consideration within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Assisted migration. Where no other alternatives are available, assisted migration may help to formulate actions geared towards conserving endangered genetic resources. The main purpose of assisted migration is to conserve the genetic information contained in the original gene pool and revive evolutionary dynamics, as well as recreating an ex situ secondary ecosystem.

This concept necessitates some human interventions to assist forest populations to migrate. Seddon (2010) introduced the concept of migration of groups of species, defined as community construction. The current approach to assisted migration favours the use of a prudential “mimic.” The relocation of the species within their existing range is also common.

There is, however, a need to develop informed policies on assisted migration, based on prioritizing species or other taxa for consideration as candidates for relocation/translocation, as well as on managing natural populations to minimize adverse ecological effects.

The present rules concerning forest reproductive materials do not include procedures related to future climate conditions and associated risks (Williams and Dumroese, 2013). Several techniques, such as Assisted Gene Flow between populations and assisted migration can help to mitigate maladaptation as a result of climate change (Aitken and Whitlock, 2013).

The primary challenge is the acceleration of climate change, which makes it difficult to prepare adaptation strategies. Current concept tools (including modelling, silviculture, nursery legislation and policies, etc.) and research networks are still based on a static or long-term environmental vision, even as major and rapid dynamism is currently underway (Kerr and Dobrowski, 2013). The low level and generally diffuse silvicultural management of our forests constitutes a real danger for the maintenance of these specific populations, which must be carefully managed in situ using suitable and well-focused adaptive cultivation techniques aimed at conserving their diversity and demographic structure.

Progress in wildfire management

Long-term forest fire data is available in most European Mediterranean countries. In addition, data from North African countries has also been included in the European Forest Fire Information System for the purpose of mapping burnt areas and assessing fire danger. Based on this data, it is possible to estimate that more than 400 000 ha of forest is still burned each year in the Mediterranean. Despite investments in fire prevention and fire-fighting, the occurrence, recurrence and magnitude of wildfires remains one of the largest environmental threats in the region (e.g. by causing significant emissions of greenhouse gases as a result of biomass burning) (Chiriacò et ai., 2013).

In the past, most wildfire protection programmes focused on fire suppression and related infrastructure, providing limited support for prevention and overlooking land management (Moreira et ai., 2011; Fernandes et ai., 2013). This policy has led to present-day wildfire problems: fire-fighting services, increased during periods of maximum fire frequency, are often not integrated with silvicultural and other management techniques.

Fire suppression policies should be integrated into a “360° view” fire management approach. An integrated fire management model combining science and fire management with socioeconomic needs at multiple organizational levels and not limited to fire suppression and provision of equipment, would be a more effective and proactive model of wildfire control (Corona etal., 2015). The integrated approach includes activities such as prevention, awareness raising, preparedness and restoration. The actions required for fire-risk reduction are seen as a cyclic chain in which all actions are closely interlinked (Figure 3.15).

Adaptation of wildfire management to a changing climate. Increasing temperatures will lead to an increasing number of wildfires in the absence of improved fire management (Turco et al., 2014). In particular, recent increases in the incidence of large and severe wildfires in parts of the Mediterranean region have been directly linked to a warming climate (Fernandes et al., 2013; Prichard et al., 2017) (see Chapter 5). These sort of fires have often overwhelmed the suppression capacity of any single nation in the last decade. In Mediterranean Europe, for instance, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, which provides a coordinated response to extreme fire events, has been activated at least 69 times since 2007. There is also evidence that a shift to large, very extreme fires is contributing to the homogenization of post-fire landscapes; shrublands and open and dry vegetation types are increasingly prevalent in these landscapes, which may perpetuate the cycle of large fires (Moreira et al., 2011; Fernandes et al., 2016a). Decreases in biomass production as a result of climate changes may limit fire incidence over parts of the Mediterranean in the future but, on the other hand, new zones with high crown biomass accumulated in non-common drought areas will burn during severe wildfires (Lecina-Diaz et al., 2014).

The adaptation of wildfire management to a changing climate requires integrated fire and forest management planning, including preventative silviculture and vegetation management techniques, as well as correct land use planning (Fernandes et al., 2013). Distinct adaptation measures include: (i) modification of forest structure (e.g. tree spacing and density, regulation of age class structure); (ii) fuel management; (iii) creation of a landscape mosaic of forest types; (iv) infrastructure planning for direct fire attack with regard to the specific behaviour of each fuel model; and (v) implementation of policies to limit abandonment of burned areas and actions to prevent the spread of invasive species therein. Issues (ii) and (iii) are developed below, due to their particularities and relevance to an adaptation and mitigation framework.

Preventive silviculture and vegetation management techniques. Fuel management involves modifications to the three layers of live and dead fuels (surface fuels, ladder fuels and crown fuels) in the structure of a stand, namely: (i) removing or modifying surface dead fuels to reduce their flammability; (ii) selectively removing or modifying live/dead and ladder fuels to reduce their vertical arrangement and horizontal continuity, resulting in reduced crown fire probability (i.e. the passage of fire from neighbouring trees). The rationale behind fuel management is that three factors – weather, fuels (vegetal combustible materials of various size and type) and terrain (slope, exposure) – work in concert to give fires certain characteristics under the influence of a given casual factor. Of these factors, only fuel abundance can be directly influenced through treatments aimed at decreasing the amount of fuel in all three layers (Moreira et al., 2011). To this end, even understanding the spatial distribution of vegetation dynamics based on the timing of fuel availability (an issue often undervalued by wildfire science), may be key to planning effective firefighting and prevention, since similar fuel management strategies should be applied to regions with similar fuel phenology patterns, and hence similar fire incidence (Fares et al., 2017).

The load and arrangement of both live and dead fuels (i.e. reducing tree density and canopy cover, decreasing basal area, increasing the canopy base height) can be modified through: (i) horizontal, linear isolation of fuel (through firebreaks, fuel breaks and greenbelts); (ii) fuel reduction through physical removal, prescribed burning and intensive utilization; (iii) surface fuel reduction by prescribed grazing; (iv) changes to fuel bed density by lopping and scattering (manually or by tractor crushing) and chipping; (v) breaking vertical continuity through pruning; and (vi) changes to fuel moisture content through dead fuel removal and “introduction” of live understorey vegetation (Table 3.7).

The prescribed burning technique is popular in some countries primarily because it can attain multiple land management goals at the same time, including ecosystem restoration, increased livestock production and fire-fighter training, and can help to solve social conflicts related to traditional fire uses. Last, but not least, the financial costs of prescribed burning can be competitive compared to other fuel management techniques, although this will depend on the size of the area treated and on environmental (e.g. vegetation type, available weather windows) and operative (e.g. training of fire personnel) aspects (Rego et al., 2010).

Integrating public interaction and landscape planning. An active human presence in forests, along with appropriate and planned silvicultural interventions, is important in Mediterranean environments, as it is one of the main guarantees against abandonment and consequent increased risk of fire. Public information and awareness about the importance of fuel management interventions should be promoted (Raftoyannis et al., 2014), particularly with regard to social fire science, including enhanced understanding of the costs and benefits of wildland fires and organizational capacity. Research on public interactions is important to understanding socioeconomic issues such as how human attitudes, values and beliefs influence management options and how communities respond to risks in wildlands or rural or urban environments.

Forest protection measures should be integrated at the landscape level to balance forest stand level management goals and risk mitigation. From a management perspective, land cover (related to vegetation structure and fuel loads) is the only landscape variable influencing fire behaviour capable of manipulation. Wildfires start from a local epicentre (ignition point) and spread across landscapes as a function of the abundance and arrangement of areas susceptible to disturbance: thus, the spatial pattern of fire ignition and spread across landscapes is affected by the degree to which the landscape is fire prone (i.e. fire will behave differently depending on how fire prone various land cover types are) (Moreira et al., 2011; Barbati et al., 2015). On the other hand, high fire occurrence is mainly linked to the interface between wildland and agricultural areas and wildland and urban areas (Lafortezza et al., 2015; Mancini et al., 2017). Even linear infrastructure such as power lines, railroads and forestry tracks plays a major role in this regard (Rodrigues et al., 2014).

Understanding the link between landscape pattern and fire spread should influence landscape-level management rules so that Mediterranean landscapes become less fire prone. The management implications of understanding the relationship between landscape and fire are not restricted to fuel break design; they should also influence land use management rules and the design and implementation of policies leading to specific landscape goals (in terms of overall fuel patterns), ranging from forests and agricultural and rural development to urban development policies (Moreira et al., 2011). The territory-scale approach to integrated fire management is the “fire smart management of forest landscapes,” which aims to control fire through vegetation (fuel) interventions to foster more fire-resistant (less flammable) and/or fire-resilient environments. “Fire smart” landscapes necessitate area-wide fuel modification and fuel conversion, rather than fuel isolation. Under moderate to severe fire weather conditions, fuel management should be focused on increasing fire suppression options and effectiveness by limiting fire ignition and fire spread in strategic locations (Fernandes et al., 2013).

Adaptation strategies and stakeholder involvement in the Mediterranean rural landscape

In the Mediterranean area, rural landscapes are often characterized by fragile ecosystems vulnerable to climate change and at risk of environmental degradation. Sustainable management of natural resources is particularly important in rural areas in order to reduce the risk of natural catastrophes (e.g. flooding, avalanches and land-slides), deforestation and the impact of mass tourism. In these areas, the increasing pressure of climate change on natural resources endangers people’s livelihoods, increases desertification and threatens biodiversity. Communities living in rural areas are sometimes socially and politically marginalized, making them more vulnerable to natural shocks than people living in urban areas.

Over time, rural communities have developed strategies to cope with these challenges. Some have achieved high living standards thanks to the development of green economies. These involve the sustainable use of natural resources for production and protection purposes and the rise of eco-tourism as a sustainable source of employment and income. Green economies can help increase the resilience of rural landscapes to climate change by reducing the impact of natural catastrophes, but good governance is crucial to achieving these outcomes.

Territorial governance is a complex formal and informal process of interactions, both vertical (between policy levels) and horizontal (between policy sectors and between public/private operators), that are permitted and conditioned by national spatial planning systems (Janin Rivolin, 2010). In the Lisbon Treaty adopted in 2009, the European Union (EU) considered territorial cohesion a primary objective, recognizing the highly diversified territories of which the EU is comprised. One of the primary objectives of territorial cohesion, (and therefore of territorial governance), is facilitating coordination between territorial and sectorial policies in order to generate more balanced development and greater solidarity between territories. This is achieved by pursuing fluidity between different territorial levels through forms of multi-level and non-hierarchical governance.

In this context, “adaptive governance” (a recently evolving framework for analysing the social, institutional, economic and ecological aspects of multilevel governance, aimed at dealing with adaptation to climate changes) (Dietz et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2005) is key to achieving greater climate change resilience in rural areas. Based on the concept of interactions at different levels, adaptive governance promotes communication between organizational levels (Adger et al., 2011). Indeed, while mitigation to climate change is a global challenge, adaptation measures should be strictly linked to local context and needs.

Adaptation strategies are the changes that people, companies or governments make to moderate negative consequences and take advantage of the opportunities provided by climate change by adjusting natural or human systems (IPCC, 2001). Key to this concept is the notion that coping with the expected (future) effects of climate change requires a change in current individual behaviour, which should in turn be shared among the whole community.

Adaptive governance features are experimental, including: new policies for ecosystem management, new approaches to cooperation and relations between stakeholders, new ways to promote flexibility and new institutional and organizational arrangements. Governance can be defined as adaptive when it focuses on the behaviour of the individual, his/her actions and the results they are able to produce together.

Mountain regions are particularly interesting for field experiments in this area, as initiatives encouraging cooperation at a local level have already been established. Programmes targeting sustainable land management, valorization and protection of the mountain have been developed over time. These have been seen as key to enhancing the well-being of mountain communities. Internationally, the Mountain Partnership, promoted by FAO, has worked since 2002 to improve the lives of mountain people and protect mountain environments. The EU also promotes several programmes (Life+, Interreg Alpine Space Europe, European Social Fund and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) seeking to involve mountain regions in the development of innovative research or exchange good practices in the field of sustainable land management. This confirms that institutions are attuned to the issues raised by the impact of climate change on mountain regions, particularly alarming considering the depletion of social structures within mountain communities.

A field experiment into adaptive governance was attempted in 2016-2017 in four Mediterranean mountain regions through the project PALMO (Local Adaptation Plans in Mediterranean Mountain Areas), funded by the Italian National Research Council. The project studied how adaptive governance strategies could support the implementation of climate change adaptation policies. As part of the project, local communities were involved in a participative process intended to contribute to the definition of a Local Adaptation Plan. This plan is a tool that defines priorities, actions and solutions to cope with climate change challenges in a specific region. The process of defining such plans has been carried out in the four case study regions, following the guidelines provided by previous national and European experiences (Figure 3.16), and simulating adaptive governance with the involvement of local institutions. Local stakeholders have been involved in a two-step participatory process, including an online survey and a focus group session, to investigate their perception of climate change-related risks in their region, and to jointly discuss priorities and possible actions to cope with climate change challenges. Results were used to structure a tentative draft plan, based on scientific evidence of climate change observed in the area, and structured according to the risk perception and priorities of local stakeholders.

Based on the results of this experience, it seems that involving local stakeholders in the definition of adaptive strategies, despite being a great opportunity to increase the effectiveness of adaptation measures, is a hard task. When compared to other challenges affecting rural and mountain areas, such as depopulation, ageing population and poor job opportunities within the region, climate change is sometimes not perceived as a priority by local communities. However, most stakeholders agree that adaptation strategies should be shared at the community level, even though a common long-term vision of how the community should adapt to climate change impacts is still lacking.

It follows that local institutions have a key role in driving awareness of these challenges by establishing a positive policy context to support local adaptation solutions. Indeed, even local policies that are not directly related to climate change could lead to high quality adaptation responses (Allman et al., 2004; Urwin and Jordan, 2008). It should be recognized, however, that top-down policies are unlikely to be effective if not supported by a science-policy interface based on citizen participation in local government decisions. Effective adaptation policies require strategic allocation of resources that acknowledge the local context and yet such policies are likely be politically difficult to implement. In this regard, academic and professional training is crucial to help forest managers incorporate climate change considerations into their own real-world management and to acquire skills that will lead to the implementation of action plans. When successful, shared, adaptive governance is capable of enhancing overall community resilience by encouraging flexibility, diversity, inclusion and innovation (Resilience Alliance, 2010) and placing socio-ecological systems at the centre of political decisions in marginal areas.

9 Biodiversity conservation and protected areas in the Mediterranean region

Catherine Numa, IUCN-Med
Marcos Valderrábano, IUCN-Med
Elisa Alcázar, international consultant
Violeta Barrios, IUCN-Med
Sophie Bourlon, Luberon Natural Regional Park
Miguel Bugalho, University of Lisbon and WWF-Portugal
Jörn Buse, Black Forest National Park
Ilaria Dalla Vecchia, FSC Italia
Éric Garnier, Luberon Natural Regional Park
Ilham Kabouya-Loucif, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Algeria
Marine Lovero, AIFM
George Mitri, University of Balamand
Ignacio Manuel Pérez Ramos, IRNAS
Pedro Regato, international consultant
Giuseppe Venturella, University of Palermo
Sian Waters, Durham University and BMCRif

Mediterranean forest biodiversity

Introduction

Mediterranean forests shelter high plant and animal biological diversity, exemplified by the large number of tree species present compared with Nordic forests. Evergreen oaks, coniferous and deciduous forests form the natural apex of large areas of the Mediterranean Basin Hotspot (MBH). However, much of this forest has disappeared or been altered as a result of thousands of years of human settlement and habitat modification (Tucker and Evans, 1997). Only 5 percent of natural vegetation in the MBH remains, the lowest of any hotspot (Sloan et al., 2014). While human pressures have altered Mediterranean ecosystems throughout history, this long-lasting “co-evolution” between ecosystems and land-use practices across the hotspot has helped shape many semi-transformed habitats. Today these contain many rare and threatened taxa (Blondel et al., 2010). This chapter provides an overview of current biodiversity knowledge in Mediterranean forest ecosystems across all levels (genetic diversity, species diversity, landscape diversity) and endemism, ecological peculiarities that make Mediterranean forest ecosystems different. It also outlines the importance of biodiversity for functional forest ecosystems and illustrates some examples of conservation efforts in the region.

Species diversity in Mediterranean forests

Biodiversity hotspots are terrestrial regions that contain at least 1 500 vascular plant species and which have lost at least 70 percent of their original natural habitat (Mittermeier et al., 2004). The MBH is one of 36 areas in the world that meets these criteria. The MBH is the third-richest hotspot in the world in terms of plant biodiversity (Mittermeier et al., 2004) and one of the greatest sources of endemic plants on Earth (Blondel et al., 2010). At the moment, approximately 5 900 species, including all vertebrates and an important number of invertebrates and plants, have been recorded from the Mediterranean region into the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN RLTS). About 2 089 of these species are considered native and occurring in forest habitats, while 770 are endemic to the Mediterranean region.

With more than 100 species recorded in Mediterranean forests, tree taxa are an important component of Mediterranean flora (Fady-Welterlen, 2005). There is no specific information about the number of plant species present in forest habitats, but current available information indicates that 511 of 1 540 higher plants assessed for the IUCN RLTS in the Mediterranean region occur in forest habitats (IUCN, 2017). Vertebrate diversity is also high but differs among groups. The number of mammal species, especially large animals, was reduced during climatic changes of the Pleistocene era, but later increased as a result of immigration. Much extinction subsequently occurred as a result of strong human pressure during the Neolithic age. At present, 194 of 253 Mediterranean terrestrial mammal species are found in forests, approximately 11 percent of which are endemic to the region. A larger number of Mediterranean vertebrate species (786 of 1 601) live in forest habitats. Although less well-known, 792 of 1 184 terrestrial insects assessed for the IUCN RLTS are recorded as living in forests, 364 of which are endemic to the Mediterranean region.

The above is only a small sample of Mediterranean forest biodiversity. Trees and plants diversity has already been addressed in the first edition of the State of Mediterranean Forests while other components of the forest biodiversity are often overlooked. As we will see in subsequent subsections, dead, decaying wood and its associated biota are known to play an important role in diverse ecological functions and processes. From nutrient cycling and moisture retention to habitat complexity (Stevens, 1997), it is increasingly recognized as a forest resource contributing to forest biodiversity.

Fungal diversity. Fungi, one of the largest and most diverse kingdoms of eukaryotes, are important biological components of forest ecosystems. The presence of fungi differs significantly between countries. The estimated number of mushrooms in Europe is about 75 000, of which 15 000 are macrofungi (Senn-Irlet et al., 2007). Mediterranean forest ecosystems are among the richest in fungi (Angelini et al., 2016; Zervakis, 2001) and constitute a unique natural heritage in terms of biological diversity (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2000). It is estimated that about 50 percent of forest fungi are wood decaying (Senn-Irlet et al., 2007). The existence of these organisms is therefore dependent on a continuous supply of dead wood due to their close involvement in organic matter recycling. In Mediterranean forests, many fungi specialize in the colonization of plant twigs and small diameter wood pieces (Junninen et al., 2006). More than 49 species of macromycetes from 23 families are target species (i.e. key or indicator species) of Mediterranean forests and Mediterranean maquis (Polemis et al., 2013).

The main causes of progressively decreasing fungal diversity in Mediterranean forests are clear-cutting and timber harvesting, resulting in habitat shrinkage (e.g. old-growth forests) (Dahlberg et al., 2010). The main cause of a lack of coarse dead wood in forests is related to silvicultural management. The removal of considerable quantities of timber from the understorey affects fungal growth, the establishment of mycorrhizal associations with plant seedlings and the maintenance of mycorrhizal fungi associations in seasonally dry forests (Huhndorf et al., 2004). The overexploitation of edible mycorrhizal species belonging to the genera Amanita Pers., Cantharellus Adans. ex Fr., Boletus L., and Tuber ex F.H. Wigg is also an important threat in Mediterranean forests (Venturella et al., 2016). The Baltic States, Poland and former Yugoslavia, for example, exported, respectively, 3 900 tonnes of fungi in 1998; 9 200 tonnes in 1984; and 7 800 tonnes in 1995, and Turkey exported about 800 tonnes in 1990 with an estimated value of USD 14.4 million in 1993 (Brainerd and Doornbos, 2013).

Changes to rainfall characteristics, a global reduction of total annual rainfall and particular annual weather conditions stimulate the growth of rare fungi in Mediterranean forests. Climatic changes caused the recent discovery of Entoloma plebeioides (Schulzer) Noordel, Buchwaldoboletus lignicola (Kallenb.) Pilát and Capnobotrys dingleyae S. Hughes outside of their known geographic range limit (Karadelev et al., 2017; Venturella, 2017). In general, silvicultural practices should be mitigated in order to protect fungal diversity and loss of suitable habitats for threatened fungi species (Zotti et al., 2013). In particular, there is a need to regulate the edible mushroom trade; laws to prevent overexploitation should be introduced in all European countries and action plans for the conservation and management of certain species in Mediterranean forests are urgently required.

Saproxylic beetles diversity. Saproxylic beetles, a group of insect species dependent upon dead wood or wood-decaying fungi for some portion of their life cycle (Speight, 1989), play an important role in decomposition processes and are therefore significant for forest nutrient cycles (Stokland et al., 2012). Many saproxylic beetles also play a role in pollination. They contribute to insect biomass in forests available for higher trophic levels such as breeding birds. Longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) may be regarded as a representative group for saproxylic beetles due to a high species richness that correlates with most other saproxylic beetle families (Ohsawa, 2010).

The species richness of longhorn beetles is generally correlative to a temperature gradient leading to decreasing richness from southern to northern Europe (Baselga, 2008). Relatively high levels of species richness can be found in Mediterranean forests, particularly in areas that served as a refuge for both trees and associated insects during the last glacial maximum (Habel et al., 2010; Médail and Diadema, 2009; Svenning et al., 2008). Endemism centres are found in southwest and southeast Europe (Baselga, 2008), but also in Turkey (Özdikmen, 2012), the Near East (Sama et al., 2010) and in topographically well-structured areas in North Africa (e.g. Atlas Mountains). Those areas have not, however, been studied in a systematic and standardized way. The large number of previously unknown species found by hand collecting in recent years indicates that more endemic species could, with a high sample effort, be found in the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa (Sama, 2008; Sama and Rapuzzi, 2011; Platia, 2010). According to Blondel and Aronson (1999), oak-dominated forests, the most important forest type for saproxylic beetles, might have covered large parts of the Mediterranean. For example, about 40 percent of saproxylic beetles living on oak trees in Israel were unique to the Levantine region (Buse et al., 2013). On the other hand, plantations with conifers support only a limited number of saproxylic beetle species. These are usually widespread species that assemble in communities very much distinct from those found in semi-natural oak forests.

Major threats to saproxylic beetles in Mediterranean forests come from habitat loss due to tree felling, overgrazing and burning. In general, natural habitats are under significant pressure from a growing human population in the area. Dead wood enrichment is often recommended as a practical tool to support saproxylic organisms (Müller and Bütler, 2010). Guidelines developed for temperate broadleaved forests may not be applicable to Mediterranean forests for several reasons (e.g. climatic conditions, landscape and land-use history). Increasing temperature probably compensates for lower amounts of dead wood (Müller et al., 2015). An important conservation measure to conserve existing semi-natural forests is to impose strict protection measures. Many Mediterranean forests, however, have been shaped by traditional management, a practice that should continue in a sustainable way.

Conservation status of Mediterranean forest biodiversity

Threatened species

At least 339 (16 percent) of the forest species assessed in the IUCN RLTS are threatened with extinction at a global or regional level (Table 3.8). Two hundred and sixty-six of these are endemic. More than half of the threatened species listed are animals (190 species), with saproxylic beetles (63) and reptiles (35) comprising the greatest number. Plants comprise 149 of the threatened species listed, 44 percent of the total number of threatened species in Mediterranean forest habitats.

Across the region, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Morocco have, in this order, the highest number of threatened species living in their forests.

Most of the threatened forest vertebrate species (amphibians, birds and mammals) are found in Turkey, whereas a high number of threatened forest insects are found in Italy (Saproxylic beetles), Spain (dung beetles) and Turkey and Greece (butterflies). Spain has the highest number of threatened reptiles and plants (Table 3.9).

Threatened ecosystems

The newly-developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning, is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity. The Red List of Ecosystems standard facilitates a systematic assessment of all ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. The Red List of Ecosystems standard thus has two primary applications: to produce and periodically update the global-level Red List of Ecosystems and to support others to develop sub-global assessments. (Rodríguez et al., 2015).

A comprehensive regional assessment of threatened forest ecosystems occurring at the Mediterranean level, which would enable systematic analysis, does not yet exist. A growing number of national and subnational evaluations of forest ecosystems are, however, underway, including in Lebanon, Tunisia, Morocco and France (UICN France, 2014). Inspired by the methodology of the Red List of Ecosystems, the European Union (EU) conducted an evaluation of the Red List of habitats of Europe (Janssen et al., 2016).

The absence of a common forest ecosystem typology used across the Mediterranean countries poses one of the biggest challenges to analysing the results of these studies. A preliminary overview of results suggests that relict Mediterranean forest types (i.e. cedars and fir forests, Box 3.12), still present in some mountain ranges, are among the most threatened Mediterranean forest types, together with Mediterranean riparian forests. For example, the European Red List of habitats includes 11 Mediterranean forest habitats, of which only Mediterranean Cedrus forest and Mediterranean riparian forest fall into the “vulnerable” category.

So far, most analysis is based on area trends. It is anticipated, however, that as knowledge on forest ecology advances and data becomes more widely available, the evaluation of the risk of collapse based on the Red List of Ecosystems standard will incorporate functional trends more broadly.

Threats to forest biodiversity

For this section, an analysis was carried out taking into account the 339 Mediterranean forest species at risk of extinction according to the latest IUCN Red List data (IUCN, 2017). The analysis shows that the main threats to these species are: overgrazing as consequence of livestock faming; urbanization; changes in fire regimens; effects of logging and wood harvesting; agriculture intensification and ecosystem modifications as consequence of land abandonment; and hunting (Figure 3.17). Hunting (52 species) and impacts resulting from agricultural activities such as annual and perennial non-timber crops (41) and livestock farming (34) were identified as important threats to vertebrate species. Of considerable significance were the 52 of 97 threatened invertebrate species affected by logging and wood harvesting.

Overgrazing, urbanization and changes in fire regimens were the most common threats to plants at risk of extinction. Today, the most widespread vegetation type in the Mediterranean region is sclerophyllous shrublands, maintained by grazing and sporadic fires. The balance between sustainable grazing levels and fire regimens is fundamental because many of the endemic and restricted-range plants depend on anthropogenic habitats maintained by grazing (Figure 3.18). As a result, several species are threatened by land-use change and rural abandonment (Sirami et al., 2010).

Forest fires and plant diversity

While it is likely that fires contribute to structuring Mediterranean forest communities, increases in fire frequency and intensity pose various threats to many plant and animal species (Doherty et al., 2015). The response of vegetation to fire is very complex (Gitas et al., 2012) and plant vulnerability to fires can lead to permanent changes in vegetation composition (Pérez-Cabello et al., 2009).

For example, vegetation-fire models applied to future climate and socioeconomic scenarios show that interaction between fire and climate change could prevent the cold-adapted fir from regeneration and, therefore, could cause changes to tree dominance and intensify fire systems (Thonicke et al., 2014). Moreover, species with restricted distribution ranges seem to have more fire-sensitive germination than those which are widely distributed (Luna et al., 2007).

Moreover, water stress has been found to decrease final germination for some hard-seeded species, as well as reduce germination speed (Luna et al., 2014) and seed viability after germination (Chamorro et al., 2017). Drought-reduced growth and the recovery of some plant species leads to increased abundance of herbs and, therefore, increased flammability during the first years after fire (Moreno et al., 2014). Post-fire regeneration density of Pinus brutia in North Lebanon decreased by 93.8 percent five years post-fire, possibly due to the occurrence of long dry seasons (El Halabi et al., 2014).

With regard to vegetation response to changes in fire systems, it was detected that increased fire recurrence altered post-fire vegetation. Furthermore, burning vegetation with little or no fire history resulted in growth failure among some dominant tree species (Arianoutsou et al., 2014). In the case of black pine forests, the number of fires a site has experienced will have a negative effect on regeneration density, while the presence of recovering ferns seems to have a positive effect (Christopoulou et al., 2014).

The effects of wildfire on floristic diversity will differ depending on vegetation type and fire frequency. A study made in a small islet in the eastern Aegean Sea (Abraham et al., 2014) showed that woody species of all types decreased significantly in burned areas on one side of the islet, while annual grasses of Sarcopoterium spinosum phrygana and Cistus creticus decreased only in burned areas in abandoned terraces. On the other hand, annual forbs increased significantly on burned sites of Cistus creticus formations.

Attempts to diminish population declines for species in complex landscapes require an integrative approach to managing multiple threats, including fires and increased drought. Conservation plans designed to mitigate the impacts of a single threat will fail if additional threats are ignored (Bonebrake et al., 2014).

In this context, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is a global standard for assessing the risk of ecosystem collapse. It could be an effective tool to identify critical habitats in the region, especially when information about species is limited. The Red List of Ecosystems has now been tested on more than 50 ecosystems, spanning six continents and three oceans. Several sub-national, national and larger regional ecosystem assessments have been undertaken worldwide (Rodríguez et al., 2015).

Mediterranean forests coping with global change drivers

Mediterranean forests are exposed to a variety of threats that pose risks to the survival of tree populations in the medium and long-term. Among these threats, global-change components such as climate warming, drought intensification, land-use modifications and territorial movement of pests and pathogens have been broadly identified as major drivers of demographic changes in Mediterranean forests (e.g. Camarero et al., 2004; McDowell et al., 2008). The effect of these factors, either individually or in tandem, may have a significant impact on population dynamics and biodiversity by aggravating recruitment failures and/or accelerating mortality rates in adults.

One of the main groups of tree species that comprise Mediterranean forests, the Quercus species, are particularly vulnerable during their early life due to limitations imposed by several factors. First, Mediterranean tree species exhibit large variability, strongly driven by precipitation patterns, in seed production over their lifetimes (e.g. Espelta et al., 2008; Pérez-Ramos et al., 2010, 2015). Second, the seeds of most of these tree species are subject to intensive predation pressure, seed-seedling transition being considered one of the most important bottlenecks for regeneration (Pulido and Díaz, 2005; Pérez-Ramos et al., 2012). This implies that seedling recruitment is commonly restricted to the sporadic wet years of large seed crops (“masting years”), where the abundance of seeds may satiate the animals that feed on them (Kelly and Sork, 2002). Third, seedlings are particularly sensitive to severe abiotic conditions, highlighted by high mortality rates registered during the dry season (Pulido and Díaz, 2005; Pérez-Ramos and Marañón, 2012). Finally, recent studies have shown that seedlings of some tree species are also under increasing attack by exotic soil-borne pathogens, such as those belonging to Phytophthora or Phythium genera (Gómez-Aparicio et al., 2012; Ibáñez et al., 2015), which appear to be involved in the extensive decline of some of these species (Pautasso et al., 2010; Garbelotto and Pautasso, 2012).

Both the identity and the relative importance of factors affecting tree recruitment are likely to vary not only between species but also among ecosystem types. In natural forests, for instance, high numbers of seed consumers and high rates of seedling mortality during the dry season have been identified as the primary causes of recruitment limitation in Quercus species (Pulido, 2002; Pulido and Díaz, 2005; Pérez-Ramos et al., 2012). In silvopastoral systems (“dehesas”), however, regeneration failures are mainly attributed to the limited presence of effective seed dispersers (such as jays) and scarcity of safe sites for seedling establishment (such as those located under nurse shrubs) (Pulido et al., 2010).

The complex network of interactions that govern overall recruitment could be seriously altered in future by the expected decline in water availability as a result of climate change. Recent manipulative studies have suggested that ongoing, increasing aridity could exacerbate recruitment limitation in some tree species by aggravating the negative effects of water deficit on different demographic processes (Lloret et al., 2004; Matías et al., 2011; Pérez-Ramos et al., 2013, e.g.).

Moreover, a growing number of studies have reported huge, worldwide forest decline and tree mortality events as a consequence of one or more global change drivers (climate warming, changes in biogeochemical cycles, land-use modifications and shifts in pathogen distribution) (Allen et al., 2010; Carnicer et al., 2011). The interactions between these potential drivers of decline at different spatio-temporal scales, however, remain poorly understood.

The invasion of exotic, soil-borne pathogens (particularly Phythopthora cinnamomi) is the other main factor leading to massive decline and tree mortality in many tree species. The Quercus ilex and Q. suber, which inhabit forests and savanna-like ecosystems in the Mediterranean basin, are examples of this (Sánchez et al., 2006; de Sampaio e Paiva Camilo-Alves et al., 2013). Recent studies have demonstrated that drought events might increase tree susceptibility to the disease (Roubtsova and Bostock, 2009; Corcobado et al., 2014).

Finally, land-use history and management may retard tree responses to drought. The managed structure of the savanna-like Iberian dehesas (locally called “seca”), for example, seems to predispose them to further decline (Mesón and Montoya, 1993). Thus, the combination of anthropogenic and ecological disturbances (such as drought) have been associated with lower tree resistance and increased vulnerability to pests and diseases (e.g. Pinto-Correia and Mascarenhas, 1999; Moreira and Martins, 2005; Branco and Ramos, 2009).

The potential impacts – and interactions – between each of these global change drivers could in turn trigger shifts in species abundance and composition of affected communities (Barbeta et al., 2013). For instance, some observational studies have suggested a significant decrease in the relative abundance of oaks as a consequence of the expansion of other, co-occurring, shrub species better adapted to water deficit (Acácio et al., 2007; Mendoza et al., 2009; Pérez-Ramos and Marañón, 2012). By contrast, other manipulative studies suggest certain oak species (e.g. Quercus ilex) with a large ability to cope with drought will have a competitive advantage over others (Lloret et al., 2009; Matías et al., 2012). In the Iberian peninsula in particular, recent studies have envisaged a global change scenario dominated by the widespread expansion of Q. ilex and other broadleaved trees, which act as key inhibitors of pine recruitment and induce negative demographic trends in certain dominant pine species, such as P. sylvestris and P. nigra (Coll et al., 2013; Carnicer et al., 2013; Vayreda et al., 2016).

Understanding how plant communities will respond to projected environmental changes is not merely base-level knowledge for tree population recruitment and behaviour. It is also a valuable ecosystem management tool which, when applied, can increase forest resilience and plant adaptation in response to ongoing climatic changes.

Conservation actions in the Mediterranean region

A representative analysis of forests in protected areas

Protected areas are one of the most useful conservation tools (Geldmann et al., 2013). Assessing the state of Mediterranean forests and comparing their distribution to the network of protected areas raises some questions: how well protected are Mediterranean forests and Mediterranean forest systems? Is there sufficient representation of Mediterranean forests in the national protected areas network?

Designated protected areas now cover about 14 percent of the globe’s terrestrial surface and are contributing significantly to reducing habitat loss and population decline (Geldmann et al., 2013). We are witnessing an expansion in protected area networks globally, in concert with efforts to better manage protected areas.

Regional analysis of forest representation at the Mediterranean level poses some methodological challenges, most of which are derived from the use of heterogeneous national data. The fact that “forest” has been defined in many ways is a reflection of the diversity of forests and forest ecosystems in the world and of the diversity of human approaches to forests.[1] The FAO minimum threshold, namely a tree canopy cover of more than 10 percent, has been adopted for the purposes of this analysis. A regional analysis based on satellite imagery allows for comparison but it may produce a bias in cases where tree canopy dedicated to agricultural uses covers a significant portion of the territory (Figure 3.19).

An analysis of forest land (Hansen et al., 2013) and the World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2017) shows that 19 percent of the Mediterranean Basin Hotspot has a tree cover of more than 10 percent. When evaluating the network of protected areas, this figure doubles: more than 42 percent of protected area has a tree cover of more than 10 percent.

This tendency to protect forest areas more effectively than other systems is particularly marked in regions with small forest area such as North Africa, which only hosts 4 percent of the Mediterranean’s forests, but where forest represents 22 percent (or five times) of the protected surface area. Even in the northern Mediterranean basin, one third of which is forested, forests make up 44 percent of protected areas (Table 3.10). This analysis reflects the importance ascribed to forested areas when establishing protected area networks as part of national conservation priorities. The analysis, however, reflects the “intention” to conserve forests rather that the results of conservation programmes themselves. The management effectiveness of protected areas is a competently different matter requiring more detailed analysis.

The MEDFORVAL Network of High Ecologic Value Forest Sites in the Mediterranean Region. The historical semi-domestication of Mediterranean forests and related agrosilvopastoral practices have contributed to their increased biological diversity. Conserving and enhancing forest landscapes of high ecological value is the best way to build resilience and secure the viability of these ecosystems and the communities that inhabit them.

The MEDFORVAL project aims to enhance the protection, sustainable management and ecological restoration of forest sites of high ecological value throughout the Mediterranean, by promoting networking and cooperation between relevant actors (e.g. natural resources managers, land users, scientists, academia, NGO, civil servants and the private sector). Over the longer term, the project aims to create a regional forum that can add value to its member sites with enhanced knowledge management and information sharing (research, development and innovation), capacity building (particularly through learning visits and training), collaboration on joint protection, management and restoration actions, and awareness raising and advocacy.

According to the MEDFORVAL definition, forests of high ecological value exhibit three main attributes: (i) well-conserved forest structure including all age classes – natural regeneration, young, mature, old-growth and deadwood; (ii) high diversity in terms of habitat types, flora, fauna and fungus; and (iii) well-maintained natural ecological processes – including natural disturbances – in forest blocks large enough to meet habitat requirements for viable species populations. Forest sites were grouped into four clusters – a simplified version of the schematic altitudinal arrangement of species and vegetation types corresponding essentially to thermal criteria, following the works of Gaussen (1926); Quézel (1974); Ozenda (1975), among others. These are:

•Cluster 1 – High Mountain Conifer Forests;

•Cluster 2 – Mid Mountain Mixed Deciduous Forests;

•Cluster 3 – Lowland Dry Evergreen Forests; and

•Cluster 4 – Freshwater Forests.

The project defined a set of criteria for each of the three attributes in order to assess potential candidate sites for the network. In its first phase, MEDFORVAL selected an initial list of 19 forest sites (about five sites per forest cluster). So far, network members and the secretariat have successfully: created a programme for small project grants addressing urgent needs and rapidly responding to emerging opportunities; established learning visits to share best practice and exchange knowledge; created a programme to support joint project development initiatives among MEDFORVAL member sites and partners; established annual workshops to share experiences and knowledge and develop common annual work plans; and a platform for communications and information sharing, as well as awareness raising and advocacy.

Mediterranean forest conservation and threatened species

The case of the Barbary macaque in the Maghreb region. The Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) is the only primate in North Africa and the only macaque found outside Asia (Figure 3.20). It is known in the region as “ahaloum iddew,” “ivki” or “kerd” in Berber and as “chadi” in Arabic. The species is unique among macaques due to its alloparenting behaviour, in which individuals other than the parent take on an infant caretaking role. The species occupies a variety of habitats, such as cedar, fir and oak forests and rocky escarpments. Macaques play an important role in forest ecosystems as they consume invertebrate plant pests and disperse plant seeds (Mehlman, 1988). Potential natural predators include large raptors and the African wolf (Canis lupus lupaster).

Largely residing in cedar and oak forests, the species is threatened with extinction (Butynski et al., 2008) due to illegal trade, overgrazing (leading to habitat degradation), human-macaque conflict, predation by domestic dogs, logging and unmanaged primate tourism (Fa et al., 1984; Ménard et al., 2014a; Waters, 2014; Waters et al., 2017; Maréchal et al., 2016). Forest logging to produce coal and timber and land clearing for agriculture and grazing are critical threats in Algeria. Barbary macaque populations in the Middle Atlas have declined rapidly over the last 20 years to approximately 5 000 individuals in fragmented populations (Camperio Ciani et al., 2005; Ménard et al., 2014c). In the High Atlas, the population is small and fragmented (El Alami et al., 2013). However, long-term surveys have revealed the two populations in the Rif Mountains are much larger than previously supposed (Waters et al., unpublished data). Recent surveys in Algeria estimate the population at 2 500-3 500 individuals (Benrabah, upublished data).

Despite assertions that bark stripping behaviour in the Middle Atlas was the result of water scarcity (Camperio Ciani et al., 2001), a study by Ménard and Qarro (1999) in the cedar forests of Morocco and Algeria found that cedar bark formed part of the macaques’ diet only in heavily-grazed forest. In addition, energy costs for Barbary macaques were highest in Moroccan cedar-oak forest habitats degraded by overgrazing (Ménard et al., 2013). The Barbary macaques’ consumption of cedar bark may possibly be a reaction to a lack of nutrients in their diet as a result of degraded diversity in understorey plants due to overgrazing (Ménard and Qarro, 1999). In order to maintain sustainable Barbary macaque populations in the Middle Atlas Mountains, the number of sheep and goats grazing in the forest must be reduced to facilitate forest regeneration. Acorns are a crucial food resource, for both Barbary macaques and wildlife more generally, so allowing the holm oak (Quercus ilex) to develop fully without clear cutting would increase mast production (Ménard et al., 2014b).

Unmanaged primate tourism in national parks such as Ifrane and Bejaia appears to increase health problems for macaques (Maréchal et al., 2011, 2016). Habituation to people leaves some groups at risk of road traffic accidents in Ifrane National Park (Campbell et al., 2016) and theft of infants for the pet trade (Ménard et al., 2014c). Harassment and hunting of macaques by domesticated but free-ranging dogs occurs in Bouhachem forest (Waters et al., 2017). In Algeria, human-macaque interactions are exacerbated during heavy snowfall when macaques enter villages searching for food (W. Boucekkine, personal communication).

Fortunately, conservation initiatives are underway at a national level. The Algerian Department of Water and Forests is publishing a national conservation action plan for the species. In Morocco, capture of infants for the illegal trade continues to be a problem in some areas and the Moroccan Association Barbary Macaque Conservation in the Rif has successfully encouraged Moroccans to report the illegal macaque trade using social media (Waters and El-Harrad, 2013). In Morocco, Barbary macaque conservation activities consist of awareness-raising and anti-poaching initiatives in Ifrane National Park.

These awareness-raising initiatives and community conservation activities have successfully changed perceptions and behaviour towards the macaque (Waters, 2014).

Conserving Mediterranean forest biodiversity: conservation of cork oak woodlands through sustainable use. Cork oak woodlands are multiple use systems whose main product is cork (oak tree bark), a non-wood forest product used for bottle stoppers worldwide (Berrahmouni et al., 2009). Other uses of the system include livestock production, cereal crops and big and small game hunting (Bugalho et al., 2009). The conservation value of these systems is partly dependent on their multiple uses. Cork oak woodlands usually consist of an open parkland structure of trees covering a diverse shrub understorey intermixed with grasslands. This shrub-grassland matrix constitutes a heterogeneous habitat providing a range of ecological niches for different species of wildlife and plants (Moreno et al., 2016). Maintenance of such heterogeneity, however, depends on human use and adequate management.

First, traditional use typically involves shrub clearing in alternate areas every five to nine years, creating a moving mosaic of co-existing shrub and grasslands patches. These silvicultural practices were traditionally carried out manually and only around productive cork oaks. This saved money and energy and indirectly minimized damaged areas. Nowadays, due to both public subsidies and the development of motor-powered machinery, shrub clearing is producing a more homogeneous and intense perturbation in managed forests. From an ecological point of view, a manipulative study carried out in one of the largest cork oak forests in Europe (“Los Alcornocales” Natural Park, southern Spain) demonstrated that shrub clearing exerted a negative impact on herbaceous plant species diversity in the forest understorey (Pérez-Ramos et al., 2008). Thus, shrub clearing favoured the expansion of ruderal herbaceous species and decreased spatial heterogeneity in understorey herbaceous composition (Pérez-Ramos et al., 2008). The diversity of grassland species in the understorey of cork oak woodlands can reach over 135 species per 0.1 ha (Díaz-Villa et al., 2003). However, for grassland diversity to be sustained it is necessary to maintain shrub-cleared areas (for example through cutting), otherwise shrub cover will rapidly dominate and outperform the herb community (Leiva et al., 1997). In cork oak woodlands, therefore, maintenance of shrub-cleared areas interspersed with shrub-dominated areas increases habitat heterogeneity (Bugalho et al., 2011a).

Second, grassland areas are used by domesticated animals (e.g. sheep, cattle) and wildlife species (e.g. deer, rabbits) for feeding, while shrubs also form good habitat cover for wildlife. Livestock grazing, at adequate stocking rates, can increase habitat heterogeneity and consequently local plant and invertebrate diversity (Bugalho et al., 2011b; Moreno et al., 2016). High grazing pressures, however, may endanger oak regeneration and damage oak saplings (Plieninger et al., 2010). Existing cereal crops add another element of habitat heterogeneity to the system. Such habitat heterogeneity, dependent on human use and management, contributes to high species diversity, including threatened and endemic species, in cork oak woodlands (Diáz et al., 1997).

Third, in some parts of Europe cork oak woodlands have been abandoned and management has ceased. This is partly the result of socioeconomic factors including insufficient income generation or ageing local populations. Lack of management leads in turn to shrub encroachment. This establishes continuous and homogeneous cover of often highly flammable species such as Cistus spp. This accumulation of vegetation fuel can burn easily, causing severe wildfires during the dry and hot Mediterranean summers, which hamper oak regeneration and establishment. In such cases, the system may fall into a stage of arrested succession, failing to progress from the shrubland to woodland stage (Acácio et al., 2007). In other regions, however, overgrazing and frequent and extensive shrub clearing with heavy machinery, which damages oak roots and compresses the soil, may prevent oak regeneration. Such absence of vegetation cover protecting the soil against erosion will ultimately lead to the degradation of the system (Bugalho et al., 2011b).

In order to maintain habitat heterogeneity and conservation value, cork oak woodlands require responsible, sustainable management. This involves applying management practices that ensure effective oak regeneration and establishment, shrub understorey clearing in long rotational periods and preferably only around productive cork oak trees, maintenance of uneven age classes of trees to assure tree replacement when tree mortality occurs, and adequate grazing stocking rates (Bugalho et al., 2011a).

Forest certification, a voluntary mechanism under which forest owners and managers commit to socioeconomic and environmental management standards, is a sustainable forest management proxy (Auld et al., 2008). By complying with independently audited, certified management practices, forest products, including non-timber forest products (e.g. cork, rubber, forest fruits, game species), are labelled so that consumers can recognize their sustainable origins. Globally, forest certification is progressing rapidly. The two dominant certification schemes, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (see Box 3.13) and the Pan European Endorsement for Forest Certification (PEFC), cover 251 million ha (6.1 percent of the total area of productive forests) and 186 million ha (4.5 percent of the total area of productive forests), respectively.[2]

Forest certification is also expanding in cork oak woodlands. In Portugal, the country with the largest cork oak cover in the world (approximately 716 000 ha), over 100 000 ha of cork oak woodlands are now certified by the FSC scheme. FSC norms cover the management of non-timber forest products such as cork and wildlife hunting. Estates under FSC have higher oak regeneration and higher diversity of shrub understorey than other cork oak estates in Portugal (Dias et al., 2016). The ecological condition of water streamlines crossing certified cork oak woodlands is also higher than that of streamlines occurring in non-certified woodlands (Dias et al., 2015). These results suggest that certification is indeed contributing to the sustainable use and conservation of cork oak woodlands. Use and conservation of other Mediterranean Forests, and of the non-timber forest products they generate, may also benefit from forest certification.

Conserving Mediterranean forest biodiversity through tourism development: The Regional Natural Park of Luberon (France). The Regional Natural Park of Luberon implements three major activities contributing to: the conservation and enhancement of natural equilibrium, biological diversity, cultural heritage and landscapes; increasing tourist numbers and the development of sustainable tourism; and the quality of life of residents.

Event organizers are asked to fill out an application to obtain authorization with the appropriate state department. The state department seeks advice from the Luberon Park and the National Forests Office (ONF) for any portion of public forest that will be crossed. If an event takes place on or near a Natura 2000 site, and involves more than 75 pedestrians, 50 bikes, 25 horses, 100 motorized vehicles or 500 people, the Park requests an assessment of its possible impact on natural habitats and species included in the European Initiative Habitat (fauna, flora and/or birds). In this way, the Park can quickly identify possible impact on the area, propose alternative routes, establish adaptive measures and work with organizers to create a sustainable and eco-friendly event.

The network of hiking, biking and horseback riding trails, directed and managed by the departments of Vaucluse and the Alps of Haute-Provence, complete the leisure opportunities on offer in the territory. This network of marked and highlighted trails was designed to guarantee continuity between trails to serve residents, tourists and cross-country hikers, while conserving wildlife tranquillity (avifauna in particular) and fragile natural habitats (lawns, ponds, cliffs, etc.).

Specific regulations are established to prevent fires and protect visitors. These predominantly consist of access restrictions to forested areas depending on the fire risk (access is restricted if the risk is moderate to high). In addition, the Park hires, trains and manages about thirty young “Assistants in Prevention and Surveillance of Forest Fires” as part of the “Youth in Forest” initiative. They interact with visitors, explaining the rules and regulations that apply to the forest area (access restrictions, barbecues, cigarettes, garbage, etc.) and also provide information about the range of local activities and hikes.

Creating an enabling environment to scale up solutions

Mediterranean forests and trees are an important regional asset that could play an important role in the global forest agenda, but current threats, driven by climate change and increasing population, may jeopardize this natural capital if no action is taken (Part 2). The implementation of forest-based solutions can tackle these threats and promote the goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests to the benefit of populations and the environment. These include forest adaptation and climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation programmes or Forest and Landscape Restoration (Part 3). Nevertheless, implementing these solutions and scaling them up from places where they have been successful to other areas necessitates certain enabling conditions. Part 4 will deal with these enabling environments.

The distinctive feature and advantage of Mediterranean forests and trees is the valuable goods and services that they provide. Implementing forest-based solutions will require policies at the national level and dialogue at the local level. Change will be facilitated by a paradigmatic shift in the way we perceive forest goods and services in the economy. The current economy, dominated by fossil fuels, occupies a linear production-use-waste line (“take, make, waste” paradigm). It often disregards the value of environmental services provided by forests with resulting negative externalities imposed on the people who benefit from these services. Promoting the goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests requires a move towards a more circular economy based on the “make, use, return” scenario. This new vision should acknowledge that resources are limited and worth recycling and that negative externalities impacting the environment should be internalized, to achieve a low carbon, resource efficient and more socially equitable economy. Chapter 10 will show how Mediterranean forests can contribute to and benefit from this new paradigm, known as the green economy.

Whether or not Mediterranean countries have already adopted this new economic vision, existing international commitments on forests – particularly in the framework of the three Rio Conventions – demonstrate an awareness of the role that forests can play. Implementing large-scale, forest-based solutions that have a country-level impact will require action planning at a national level, coordinated actions between stakeholders and collaboration between the two. This coordination at country level means national forest policies and programmes must be carefully prepared and effective, while also ensuring cross-sectoral complementarity. Forest-based climate change action, combating desertification, achieving land degradation neutrality and conservation of biodiversity all require national policies and programmes coordinated with local efforts. Most Mediterranean countries have already developed Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans under the CBD, and National Action Programmes under the UNCCD, which are closely connected to their national forest policies and programmes. Chapter 11 will review current policy frameworks in the Mediterranean region and reveal what is still needed to facilitate the implementation of forest-based solutions.

From the local to national level, successful implementation of forest policies and programmes will require involvement by many stakeholders. Robust approaches to stakeholder participation, sound governance and community engagement will be all the more critical to the success of forest-based solutions, as these solutions are cross-sectoral, reestablishing the forest as a component of the landscape. The precise difference between forest restoration and Forest Landscape Restoration lies in this broader approach to restoration, which encompasses all stakeholders to resolve the trade-offs between different natural resources and land uses at the landscape level. Modern, sustainable forest management has also integrated the role of all stakeholders into the planning and implementation of management actions. Innovative approaches to sustainable forest management in the Mediterranean, from participatory approaches to co-management and win-win contracts, are currently underway. Chapter 12 will review participatory approaches and show they are a key condition for the successful implementation of forest-based solutions in the Mediterranean.

Successful implementation of forest-based solutions will require a fair and accurate assessment of the value of the goods and services on which these solutions are based. As already mentioned, the goods and services provided by Mediterranean forests have too often been undervalued. Alternatively, their value has simply gone unrecognized and the cost of forest degradation disregarded as a negative externality. Recognition of the fair value of the goods and services provided by forest ecosystems to implement fair, forest-based solutions, requires an economic valuation of these goods and services. Chapter 13 will review the different approaches to valuing the services provided by forest ecosystem and discuss how these valuations can be integrated into the decision-making agenda.

Finally, implementing forest-based solutions in the Mediterranean region requires appropriate financing. Large-scale impacts of forest-based projects will be only obtained if specific financing mechanisms are established to support national forest policies and programmes over the long term. Public investment through national governments and incentives may have a leveraging effect if they also target private funding. Recognition that environmental services provided by forests are valuable in the context of the new, green economy may also lead to new financing mechanisms such as Payments for Environmental Services. In the context of climate change, climate finance that includes different funding mechanisms based on forests’ mitigation and adaptation potential, such as REDD+ or NAMA, will also play an important role in supporting forest-based solutions in the region. The final Chapter of this Part will present different options to finance forest-based solutions, as a way to guide decision-makers in choosing the most relevant financing strategy.

10 Mediterranean forests in the green economy

Inazio Martínez de Arano, EFIMED
Carmen Rodriguez, EFIMED

Introduction to the green economy

Global and Mediterranean drivers towards a green economy

The magnitude of global environmental change currently underway suggests that Earth has entered the Anthropocene, an epoch in which human activity is the dominant force shaping and conditioning key planetary processes (Lewis and Maslin, 2015), and whose main feature is an enormous expansion in the use of fossil fuels, triggering demographic and economic growth. During the twentieth century, the global population grew by a factor of four and global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by a factor of 20 (Madison, 2001). Most of this expansion took place after World War II, with the commencement of ongoing great acceleration (McNeil and Engelke, 2016). Between 2000 and 2015, the global population has increased by an additional 5 percent to 7.3 billion inhabitants, while global GDP has doubled again to reach USD 75 trillion (World Bank, 2015b). An increased portion of this growth has taken place in developing countries. This extraordinary period has ushered in significant advances in human development (as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP, 2016) and reduced extreme poverty from 40 percent to 10 percent over the last 30 years (Roser and Oriz-Ospina, 2017). But it has also created deep income inequalities within and among countries (Ortiz and Cummins, 2011).

There is increasing evidence that Earth’s capacity to provide a safe operating space for humanity has been jeopardized, especially with regards to four planetary boundaries: climate change, loss of biodiversity, land-system change and altered biogeochemical cycles for phosphorus and nitrogen. In addition, the potential impacts of current pollution and waste accumulation are still not well understood (Steffen et al., 2015). It has been estimated that by 2030 the world will need to produce 50 percent more food, 50 percent more energy, and 30 percent more freshwater (UNESCO, 2012). This is due to continuing demographic growth and increased per capita consumption patterns of an expanding urban middle class (over 3 billion people) projected to reach 5 billion by 2030 (Kharas, 2017). Meeting growing demands within planetary boundaries is a great challenge. The Global Footprint Network estimates that humanity has already used the equivalent of 1.6 Earths in terms of bio-capacity, and that in two decades it will require two planets to sustain the current economic system (Global Footprint Network, 2016).

The Mediterranean region has followed this global trend (Figure 4.1). Population has nearly doubled over the last 15 years and is predicted to reach 584 million by 2025 (from 302 million in 1970). Most of this growth has taken place in southern and eastern Mediterranean countries whose total population share has increased from 36 percent in 1960 to 60 percent today (World Bank, 2015a). The region produces some 10 percent of global GDP (World Bank, 2015b). While GDP in southern and eastern Mediterranean countries has been growing at a faster rate in recent years, it has been insufficient to bridge one of the sharpest wealth divides in per capita GDP in the world. In 2014, the average GDP per capita in Mediterranean European Union (EU) countries (USD 36 200) was five times higher than countries in the Middle East and North Africa (USD 7 000) (World Bank, 2015b). Unemployment is one of the most pressing issues for Mediterranean economies. Youth unemployment (World Bank, 2015b) rates (i.e. the number of unemployed 15-24 year-olds expressed as a percentage of the youth labour force) are high in North Africa (Algeria 26 percent, Morocco 21 percent, Tunisia 36 percent) and the Middle East (Egypt 33 percent, Jordan 34 percent, Lebanon 21 percent, Syrian Arab Republic 31 percent) and can be very high even in northern Mediterranean countries, both within (e.g. Cyprus 25 percent, Greece 48 percent, Italy 38 percent, Spain 43 percent, Portugal 28 percent) and outside the EU (Albania 26 percent, Bosnia and Herzegovina 68 percent, Montenegro 38 percent). The gender gap is remarkably large; female youth unemployment is almost two times the male rate in some countries and is especially large in Egypt and Tunisia (World Bank, 2015b).

As a consequence of population growth and changes toward more resource-intensive consumption patterns, many countries in the region face scarcity of water, food and/or energy. The Global Footprint Network estimates that overall, the Mediterranean region is using approximately 2.5 times more renewable resources than its ecosystems can provide, while many countries still cannot provide satisfactory living conditions for their population (Global Footprint Network, 2015). This is partially due to the moderate-to-severe water scarcity that limits primary production. Water, food and energy supply and the management of natural resources constitute one of the most fundamental long-term challenges for the entire region (WEF, 2011). How it is able to address these challenges will have a significant impact on economic growth and well-being.

At the root of these problems lies a linear economic model of production, consumption and disposal, based on fossil fuels and non-renewable materials. This is supported by a gross misallocation of capital that has fueled the linear-fossil development path (UNEP, 2011). The dominant linear, fossil fuel-based economic paradigm is reaching its limits and must be replaced by an increasingly circular, bio-based and low carbon economy: a green economy.

A definition of green economy

The idea of reconciling economic growth with environmental protection and social equity has been on the international policy agenda since at least the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) and the first United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In the context of increasing environmental awareness and generalized economic concerns, the green economy has gained momentum as a response to increasing global economic and environmental crises, operationalizing sustainable development (Megwai et al., 2016). The concept has been developed and highlighted by the United Nations Environmental Programme, placing a strong focus on redirecting investments to sustainable activities. The definition is as follows: “an economy that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive” (UNEP, 2011).

It has been argued the green economy is no more than a buzzword, not very different in this sense from sustainable development, as both can assume different meanings at quite different levels of ambition. Bina (2013) proposes three main definitions within a continuum, i.e. green economy can be referred to as:

1.a general green stimulus within a mainstream economic model close to a business as usual paradigm;

2.a comprehensive effort to greening the economy, as proposed by UN Environment and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with a major emphasis on resource efficiency and low carbon growth, mainstreaming environmental economic approaches; or

3.an all-change approach championed by a diverse array of non-state actors that departs from the notion of planetary limits to advocate degrowth and the satisfaction of human needs as opposed to economic growth, and change in values as opposed to change in economic incentives.

Buzzwords can be useful when facing the nuances of a system as complex as the economy (Brand, 2012). In this sense, green economy can be understood as an umbrella concept encompassing different degrees of greening the current economic system, ranging from environmental improvements to business as usual up to a more radical discourse of societal change, focusing on consumption and production partners, equity and social justice to the abandonment of anthropocentrism (Bina, 2013). For the purposes of this chapter it is generally assumed that green economy refers to transforming the main economic sectors towards sustainability while securing human livelihoods. Taking UN Environment’s approach as a reference, key priority sectors for greening are:

•Natural Capital: including ecosystems, agro-ecosystems and water habitats, as well as the sectors directly dependent on them for the production of biological resources, such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Internalizing and securing the supply of all relevant ecosystem services is a critical, long term challenge, as is the necessity of departing from a current bias towards extracting provisioning services (i.e. food, feed, feedstock and materials) that frequently erode natural capital and public goods through non-sustainable practices.

•Key economic sectors with larger environmental footprints, notably: energy, manufacturing, waste, construction, transport, tourism and the way people construct and live in cities. Their relevance and primary challenges are summarized in Table 4.1.

Green economy and bioeconomy

In tandem with the concept of green economy, the bioeconomy has also been gaining visibility. Its focus is on the use of biological resources to replace non-renewable materials and energy carriers, and can be understood as the bio-based component of green economy. In a narrow sense, the bioeconomy refers to all parts of the economy related to the management and processing of biological resources from agriculture, forestry and fisheries (OECD, 2009). More ambitiously, the bioeconomy envisages a society that is less dependent on fossil fuels and more reliant on biological resources to meet its needs in terms of energy and raw materials and is a key part of the solution to global environmental and social challenges (Bugge et al., 2016). Arising from two very different arenas, these two concepts converge when considering the role played by forests and forestry in a more sustainable future. Accordingly, in the next section the role of forests in the bioeconomy is considered equivalent to their role in the green economy.

The role of forests in the green economy within the Mediterranean Region

The role of forests in the green economy has received attention at a global and regional level, with a particular focus on tropical and temperate regions with large per-capita forest resources, both in developed and developing countries (Box 4.1). The dual nature of forests is generally recognized. On the one hand, forests are one component of natural capital, as providers of public goods. On the other hand, forests are a source of raw materials at the base of more or less relevant value chains (both formal and informal), employment and livelihoods (UNEP, 2011, for example). Within this framework, the specific challenges and opportunities for Mediterranean forests have received far less attention, the work of Croitoru and Liagre (2013) being a notable exception. This section analyses the role of forests in the green economy/bioeconomy using regional green economy policy documents from Europe and Africa that include Mediterranean countries (even if not specifically targeted).

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy

Adopted in 2012, the EU Bioeconomy Strategy defines the bioeconomy as “using biological resources from the land and sea, as well as waste, as inputs to food and feed, industrial and energy production. It also covers the use of bio-based processes for sustainable industries” (European Commission, 2012). The bioeconomy can therefore be understood as the bio-based component of a green economy. It identifies forests and forestry as a key component for their contribution to its main strategic goals, namely: (1) Ensuring food security; (2) Managing natural resources sustainably; (3) Reducing dependence on non-renewable resources; (4) Mitigating and adapting to climate change; and (5) Creating jobs and maintaining European competitiveness. It also identifies three main areas for action: (a) Investment in knowledge, innovation and skills; (b) Participatory governance and informed dialogue with society; and (c) Enhancement of markets and competitiveness in the bioeconomy, communicating the benefits of bio-based products and supporting the expansion of markets through standards and standardized methodologies for sustainability assessment (European Commission, 2012).

Within sustainable and multifunctional management, the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and associated Action Plan focus on the increased production and transformation of forest biomass for multiple purposes. Several key areas of the bioeconomy are not dealt with, or it assumed they are tackled by other policies. This includes, for instance, resource competition, resource efficiency and, more generally, sustainability and social issues, beyond an emphasis on consumer engagement (Kleinschmit et al., 2017).

The Rovaniemi Action Plan

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), with the participation of regional forest stakeholders, has taken a close look at opportunities to increase the role of forests in the green economy. This resulted in a non-binding document adopted in 2013, known as the Rovaniemi Action Plan for the Forest Sector in a Green Economy (Box 4.2). Although the document formally encompasses all European countries (including Mediterranean ones), its primary focus is on temperate and boreal regions hosting large forest resources and wood-based industries. A close examination reveals a clear focus on wood, carbon and climate change mitigation, with an emphasis on the substitution effects of forest-based products. It advocates for correcting markets and prices for negative and positive externalities through valuation and Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES)-type mechanisms. It overlooks key Mediterranean challenges (e.g. water management and climate change adaptation) and opportunities (e.g. NWFPs, green tourism, forest restoration, plantations). While it provides an interesting and important framework, as a non-binding document its focus is on orientations rather than strict commitments and targets.

The role of forests in an African green economy

UN Environment and the International Institute for the Environment and Development (IIED) have analysed the role of forests in the green economy in Africa (Grieg-Gran et al., 2015). The report has a focus on resource-rich, tropical countries, but includes interesting elements on the green economy relevant to the Mediterranean region. It describes the contribution of forests to the green economy in terms of:

•Despite incomplete and largely empirical evidence of their importance to local economies, NWFPs remain under-investigated and huge data gaps exist. It is estimated that the informal sector contributes significantly more to local economies than formally traded products. Sustainable consumption, creating demand for sustainable products through organic and fair trade labelling for NWFPs is a key action area.

•Ecosystem services are recognized as extremely relevant but they are not quantified or reported in any detail in the report. Great emphasis is placed on biodiversity, water services and carbon sequestration. Green tourism and carbon payments are identified as potentially relevant ways to capture value and generate economic activity. The same situation is prevalent across the Mediterranean basin.

The contribution of forests to a green economy in North Africa and the Middle East

In 2013 the FAO Committee on Mediterranean Forestry Questions-Silva Mediterranea and the German Agency for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GIZ) published a report exploring the role of forests in the green economy in North Africa and the Middle East, in order to fill the existing gap in global forest policy discussions (Croitoru and Liagre, 2013). The key elements of the report can be summarized as follows:

1.Low forest cover and a relatively weak formal forest-based sector;

2.Urgency for climate change adaptation;

3.High relevance of ecosystem services, particularly those linked to biodiversity and the forest-water nexus;

4.High relevance of NWFPs (timber is estimated to represent only one third of the Total Economic Value of regional forest resources);

5.The relatively high importance of informal sectors in wood and NWFPs value chains.

The report focuses on maximizing existing opportunities and best practice to capture the total contribution of Mediterranean forests as a means to correct policy and market failures, improve natural capital and create jobs and livelihoods. Some notable topics include:

•Green accounting, including satellite accounts for ecosystem services, as a potential contribution to better forest policies;

•Payment for Ecosystem Services focusing on water and biodiversity, acknowledging that currently PES implementation is scarce in the Mediterranean region;

•Placing value on Protected Areas by imposing access fees, improving local benefits through concessions and developing eco-tourism and PES schemes;

•Enhancing value chains for NWFPs through comprehensive approaches covering process (increasing production efficiency), product (qualitative improvements), functional (intermediaries) and channel upgrading (product diversification), as well as addressing demand for organic and fair trade labelling (Figure 4.2);

•Carbon finance: although financing forest carbon is possible, the opportunity to finance the development of renewable energies (wind, solar, geothermal and biogas) reduces pressure on forests fuelwood, thereby having a greater potential impact and;

•Financing forest-based adaptation. Better environmental governance and cross-sectoral cooperation is required to mainstream forest-based adaptation policies and initiates.

Mediterranean forests in the national green economy and related strategies

At a regional level, the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (FAO, 2013) places strong emphasis on the contribution of forests to rural and urban populations and economies and advocates for better coordination between the forest sector and broader socioeconomic development strategies. It concludes that, in general terms, the region has strong policies and commitments in areas that are very relevant to the green economy, such as: (i) sustainable forest management and wildfire prevention; (ii) forest and landscape restoration; and (iii) biodiversity conservation, while it has incipient inclusion in forest policies relating to (iv) climate change adaptation and mitigation and a sparse development of (v) market-based instruments for ecosystem services.

This Section presents a preliminary assessment of the role attributed to forests in the green economy, bioeconomy and other relevant policy orientation papers from Mediterranean countries. It is based on a literature review in English, French and Spanish. It does not pretend to be exhaustive, but instead aims to provide a broad overview. In total, 18 documents relative to 11 countries have been reviewed (see Annex B for a detailed list). They correspond to national strategies, governmental commitments or reports produced by international organizations. Single sectorial documents related to the green economy that may be relevant and have implications for forests and forestry (e.g. strategies and action plans for renewable energy, climate change, nature conservation, green tourism, rural development or research and innovation) are not analysed.

Table 4.2 summarizes the main outcomes of this analysis, reflecting the dual role of forests within the green economy: forests as natural capital providing public goods and forests as the basis for material value chains.

Although forests do not play the most prominent role in most of these documents, Table 4.2 shows that forests are broadly considered part of the green economy/bioeconomy. Generally speaking, all countries recognize that forests provide relevant private and public goods. While primary emphasis is placed on biodiversity and carbon sequestration, other services such as soil conservation (Spain and Turkey), protective functions (Croatia and Serbia) and water management (Turkey and Portugal) are mentioned. Despite this, the forest-water nexus seems to be underestimated in relation to the relevance ascribed to carbon sequestration. It is tempting to interpret this bias towards carbon sequestration as strongly influenced by the global agenda and the lack of a more detailed Mediterranean approach. Remarkably, there is an emphasis in most of the documents on forest-related problems, not opportunities. Forest fires (Algeria, Greece, Portugal), unsustainable management (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro) and pests (Portugal), along with previous deforestation, are seen as key threats. Middle Eastern and North African countries propose restoration and afforestation actions to maintain or increase the natural capital (Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria) while European countries focus on sustainable forest management (Spain, Portugal) or multipurpose forest management (Italy), but also on increasing protected areas (Albania) and restoring degraded forests (Croatia).

There is no direct acknowledgment in the review documents of the fact that some of the main contributions by forests to the green economy are externalities not captured in markets. Returns on investments in forest protection and restoration, while estimated to be very high, occur mainly through public goods and indirect benefits, rendering them unattractive (UNEP, 2011). Green accounting is therefore required in order to better reflect the contribution by forests to national wealth, either directly or indirectly (i.e. through other sectors such as water and tourism). The importance of implementing PES is also well-recognized in regional policy documents (see Section “The EU Bioeconomy Strategy” of this Chapter) but occupies a less prominent place in national strategies and action plans. The Portuguese Green Growth Commitment (MAOTE, 2015) is one remarkable exception to this trend. It specifically proposes to “implement the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) initiative in Portugal based on mapping and evaluation of the condition of ecosystems and ecosystem services and on their economic and social value.”

With the exception of countries with very low forest cover (Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Malta), the role of forests as a source for material value chains is widely recognized. This is especially evident in the case of European bioeconomy strategies (France, Italy and Spain). Overall, emphasis is placed on wood, with a strong focus on its (increased) production (France, Italy, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain) or increased efficiency in the forestry sector (Greece). NWFPs are acknowledged to a lesser extent (Morocco, Portugal and Turkey) and in more generic terms. Rangeland grazing and agroforestry systems, extremely relevant to the Mediterranean context, receive limited attention. The role of forests and forestry in contributing to greening energy, water, construction, textile, medical and other sectors is only marginally addressed in some of the documents (e.g. the Portuguese Green Growth Commitment and French Bioeconomy Strategy). In European bioeconomy strategies, forestry and forest industries are seen as a green sector and their positive contribution to sustainability is generally assumed, even if there is increasing scientific evidence that this may not always be the case, for example when considering the role of forest-based bioenergy in carbon emissions (Berndes et al., 2016).

Improvements in biomass processing and technological developments are seen as major opportunities, while territorial approaches and social innovation receive relatively little attention. The lack of a holistic approach on how to better use and maximize social and environmental positive impacts with the rich, diverse but also limited Mediterranean forest resources is perhaps the biggest gap identified in this analysis.

Conclusions

The Mediterranean region faces extraordinary challenges, such as climate change, environmental degradation, overexploitation of bio-capacity, globalization and unemployment. Although very diverse in both their extent and socio-ecological functioning, Mediterranean forests share common characteristics including relatively limited productivity, high fire risk, urgent need to address climate change adaptation, the absence of strong formal value chains and a comparably higher relevance of NWFPs and ecosystem services. This chapter has evaluated policy orientation documents related to how to include forests and forestry in the green economy at the global, regional and national levels. Regional documents tend to ignore Mediterranean specificities, while at national levels the role of Mediterranean forests in the green economy is only partially acknowledged.

The reviewed national documents emphasize improving forest management and strengthening the forest sector itself as opposed to maximizing the contribution by forests to greening the economy at large. This more ambitious approach, implicit in the concept of the green economy, requires careful consideration in terms of resource efficiency, hierarchy of use (e.g. managing for water vs managing for timber) and resource competition (i.e. energy vs industrial wood use). Similarly, sustainability concerns are limited to securing sustainable and multifunctional forest management. The positive environmental impacts of forest-based value chains are taken for granted even if there is contradictory scientific evidence regarding, for example, the carbon neutrality of biomass.

Finally, enhancing the role of Mediterranean forests in the green economy requires more systematic action in the following areas:

1.Overcoming market and policy failures for the provision of public goods through environmental accounting and the development of PES-type mechanisms. This is necessary to solve the contradiction between the extraordinary economic value of forests and their degradation due to unsustainable use, abandonment and, in more general terms, inadequate forest management approaches, making forest resources more prone to extreme events such as catastrophic fires. In addition, value can be captured through ecotourism and other territorial approaches built on local environmental and cultural values and securing adequate benefit-sharing at local, national and international levels.

2.Strengthening forest value chains based on wood and NWFPs. Currently, emphasis is placed on sustainable forest management, reversing deforestation and forest degradation and increasing the resource base through plantations and agroforestry developments. In addition, material and economic efficiency must be addressed to maximize the social and environmental benefits derived from wood and NWFPs (Figure 4.3). Greater efficiency (i.e. improved stoves and firing technology), increased added value (i.e. material uses vs energy), improved value chains (i.e. timber construction vs auxiliary wood), increased circularity (reusing, recycling, eco-design, waste as a resource, cascade use), advanced materials (high value extracts, engineered wood products), improved market access (through eco-labelling, green public procurement) are critical. PES-type mechanisms will be required in this regard to internalize ecosystem services, paying special attention to biodiversity and water-related services.

3.The social dimension of the green economy should be addressed more systematically, building on existing best practices and including, among other things, public dialogue, participatory approaches, public-private partnerships, etc. In addition, bioeconomy strategies should place greater emphasis on social innovation and place-based development, complementing technological innovation and advanced biomass processing.

11 Policy frameworks as an enabling environment for achieving international commitments on forests

Irina Buttoud, FAO
Alessandro Schioppa, FAO
Valentina Garavaglia, FAO
Ismail Belen, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey
Leopoldo Rojo Serrano, MAPAMA

Introduction

Background

Forest sector policies are developed and implemented in the context of deep socioeconomic changes and need to address sector-specific challenges balancing economic, ecological and social issues. They must incorporate biodiversity conservation, ecological values and services alongside increasing demand for forest resources. They must also support traditional uses and local values while increasing the forestry share of total GDP, as well as contributing to national development and climate change mitigation. Despite the impressive amount of goods and services forests provide, the forestry sector is not a priority development sector for national economies in the Mediterranean region. Hence, special efforts to communicate and coordinate with other sectors are required to ensure that forestry priorities are represented in national policy planning and budgeting.

The relationship between national forest policies and laws has become more evident in recent decades. Policies define overall objectives for sectoral development, while laws serve as instruments to achieve policy priorities in a legal and coherent way. Still, efforts are required to strengthen this linkage.

Multi-sectoral challenges such as climate change, energy, sustainable development and food security will require and facilitate the development of new forms of inter-sectoral and inter-departmental coordination and coordinated policy development.

Innovative financial mechanisms and investment strategies must be defined and refined to counteract the inevitable and continuous reductions in public budgets and increasing needs for funding in response to socioeconomic challenges such as population growth, degradation of natural resources and food security. To achieve this goal, continuous involvement by various stakeholders and promotion of partnerships and coordination across sectors are key.

Approach to the analysis

Data presented in this chapter is derived from official and publicly-available national forest policies and related forest policy instruments published after 2000. Analysis focuses specifically on national policies. In order to maintain a balance between documents collected from countries in the northern, southern and eastern Mediterranean region, sub-national and regional policies have not been included. Forest policies are, in fact, typically decentralized in northern countries (Spain has 17 administrative and autonomous regions, Italy and France have 20 and 18 regions respectively), with specific forest policies derived from national directives.

Documents were analysed using a qualitative discourse analysis: keywords relevant to priority topics selected for this publication were defined and used for document analysis to examine whether the key topics were addressed by the formal policy documents. The results were grouped into the following categories: Ecosystem Services and Wood Forest Products/Non-Wood Forest Products; Forest Restoration and the contrast between forest degradation and deforestation and Sustainable Forest Management and Forest and Landscape Restoration; Biodiversity Conservation; Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation; Wildfire Prevention; and Communication, Coordination, Cooperation and Capacity Building.

Relevant documents (Annex C) were obtained from FAO’s Legal Service Database (FAOLEX), Food and Agriculture Policy Decisions Analysis (FAPDA),[1] country reports for the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015, UNCCD and CBD databases, forest policy databases, other relevant literature and web searches. Additional information was obtained from FAO’s Legal Service and regional and sub-regional FAO offices, national focal points in the Mediterranean network and co-authors of this Chapter.

Each document related to forest policy was analysed and relevant text matching the keyword search was selected and compiled into a one or two-sentence summary statement in a country-specific results table (Annex F).

Data availability and access

The qualitative analysis was based on policy documents in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, which were publicly available online. The number of documents analysed per country varied from zero to eight (see Figure 4.4 and Annex C for more details). These numbers correspond only to the documents that were easy to find and access via an internet search and do not necessarily reflect all available documents. This can, however, be an indicator of communication and transparency.

Findings

International initiatives and their impact on national forest-related policies in the Mediterranean region

Forest policy statements in the region are affected by a number of legally binding or non-legally binding international and regional agreements and conventions (see also Chapter 2). The United Nations Forest Instrument (UNFI – formerly “Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests”) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 is considered a global forest policy milestone, being the first time Member States agreed to an international instrument for sustainable forest management. The UNFI defines 25 voluntary and non-binding “national policies and measures” that countries should undertake to achieve the purpose of the instrument. The four global objectives on forests are especially relevant to the Mediterranean region as they address forest protection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation, forest degradation and forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits.

The 2015/33 resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the UN in July 2015 reaffirmed the UNFI’s global objectives on forests, extended the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF) to 2030 with five objectives, and asked the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) to develop a strategic plan for the period 2017-2030. The United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests defined voluntary Global Forest Goals. It also incorporates the UNFI global objectives on forests, which in turn support the objectives of the IAF and are built on and contribute to the SDGs, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Paris Agreement.

Legally binding conventions (such as the CBD, UNFCCC and UNCCD) do not specifically cover forests but are critical to establishing the legal and political framework in which regional and national forest policies are formed and subsequently enforced through national laws.

With the exception of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Paris Agreement has been adopted by all Mediterranean countries. Forests and forest policy will play a pivotal role in reaching the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) established under the Agreement. Article 5 of the Agreement emphasizes “policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests.”

The Twelfth UNCCD COP was held in Ankara in October 2015. There, Parties endorsed the vision of SDG Target 15.3[2] as a driver for UNCCD implementation, while also contributing to other SDGs, including those related to: climate change mitigation and adaptation; biodiversity conservation; ecosystem restoration; food and water security; and disaster risk reduction. The Global Mechanism of the UNCCD has fully endorsed the objective of Land Degradation Neutrality. On this occasion, the “Ankara Initiative” was launched by the UNCCD Secretariat and the Government of Turkey and is expected to soon become national law in Turkey.

The Thirteenth CBD COP in Cancun, December 2016, led to an endorsement by Parties of the SDGs as drivers for CBD implementation. It also strengthened implementation of the Global Soil Partnership and Global Mountain Partnership and promoted the International Arrangement on Forests and the implementation of the UNFI.

Mediterranean countries have ratified all the main international conventions and agreements (see Annex D-E and Figure 4.5).

Regional forest policy frameworks

The European Common Agricultural Policy and the European Union (EU) Forestry Strategy define the main aspects of forest policy for EU member countries in the Mediterranean region, although the Treaties of the EU make no provision for a common European forest policy.

“A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector” responds to new challenges facing forests and the forest sector. Forests are multifunctional, serving economic, social and environmental purposes. The new EU Strategy seeks to “go beyond the forest” to address aspects of the value chain related to the use of forest resources to generate goods and services. The EU Strategy emphasizes that forests provide a large range of products other than timber, including cork, resins, mushrooms, nuts, game and berries. The EU strategy highlights the impacts of other policies on forests, as well as developments taking place beyond forest boundaries that should be taken into account:

•“Member States should make use of rural development funds to improve competitiveness, promote the diversification of economic activity and quality-of-life;”

•“Assess and improve the effect of forestry measures under rural development policy;”

•“With the help of rural development funding, Member States are encouraged to support: Forest Advisory Systems for awareness-raising; training; and communication between local forest holders and authorities;”

•“The Commission and the Member States should improve their valuing of the benefits that forests give to society and, through sustainable forest management, should find the right balance between delivering the various goods and services.”

Forestry measures are an integral part of rural development programmes in EU Member states, supporting the implementation of sustainable forest management. Socioeconomic benefits derived from forests receiving EU funding contribute to improved quality of life in rural areas and encourage diversification of economic activities. This strategic approach places EU countries in a different situation to non-EU Mediterranean countries.

During the Third Mediterranean Forest Week (Algeria, March 2013), Mediterranean countries adopted the Tlemcen Declaration and the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF). The Tlemcen Declaration represents an endogenous regional policy aiming to provide a common policy direction to support integrated management of Mediterranean forest ecosystems, focusing on the need to develop goods and services, promote resilience, and strengthen both capacity and resources. It calls on regional, national and local political and administrative authorities and stakeholders in the region to develop and adapt their strategies and policies (including governance) to support the sustainable development of forests. The Declaration also encourages the voluntary adoption of the SFMF.

The SFMF is a voluntary tool that identifies priorities for the forest sector in the Mediterranean and aims to be a source of inspiration for policymakers. It is also used to monitor progress through projects, initiatives and policies in key topics related to Mediterranean forests. Between 2013 and 2015, several strategic country-level documents have implicitly or explicitly referred to the SFMF. These include Algeria’s National Programme for Rural Renewal (2014-2019), Tunisia’s Strategy for Sustainable Development of Forests and Ranges (2015-2024), Portugal’s new forest strategy, the 2015-2025 ten-year plan of the High Commission for Water, Forests and Fight Against Desertification in Morocco and France’s 2015-2025 National Forest and Wood Programme.

The Agadir Commitment (ratified during the Fifth Mediterranean Forest Week held in Agadir, Morocco, in March 2017) addresses new challenges in international environmental and development policy, namely the Paris Agreement and the SDGs, and applies them to the Mediterranean context in order to:

•strengthen exchanges and synergies between global stakeholders in the restoration of Mediterranean forests and landscapes;

•help achieve SDG 15, especially target 15.3, by supporting efforts on the restoration of degraded lands in the Mediterranean;

•facilitate the mitigation and adaptation of Mediterranean forest landscapes to climate change, as well as the achievement of non-carbon benefits in order to support the implementation of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) as part of the Paris Agreement (Article 5);

•actively promote forest restoration to reach the land degradation neutrality goals established by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and;

•contribute to Aichi target 15[3] of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by facilitating the conservation and restoration of biodiversity in Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Aichi Target 15 (to restore 15 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2020) echoes SDG Target 15.3 and has been addressed in strategic line 6 of the SFMF.

Additionally, FAO’s “Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands” have partially stemmed from Silva Mediterranea’s Working group on Desertification and Restoration of Mediterranean drylands.

National forest policies

Based on the data from the FRA 2010 (FAO, 2010), the State of Mediterranean Forests 2013 (FAO and Plan Bleu, 2013) reported that 14 countries in the region have general policy statements on forests, most of which are aligned with international commitments for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM).

The present study, based on data derived from the FAO national forest programme/forest policy database, country reports to global bodies (UNFF 8, 9 and 10), country reports to regional bodies (Forest Europe, Montreal Process), FAOLEX (forest-related legislation), project data bases of key international organizations such as World Bank, FAO and bilateral development partners and others through a simple internet search, found forest-related policy documents from 27 countries in the Mediterranean region, as well as a number of policy documents at the EU level. National forest policy/programme documents were detected in 19 countries (Figure 4.6). The National Forest Plans of Cyprus and the Syrian Arab Republic have been defined but not approved. A National Forest Policy is being formulated in Jordan (expected 2018). It is assumed that following the adoption of Agenda 2030, countries will begin revising forest policy priorities and measures to align them to the achievement of SDGs and INDCs, but official information on this is not yet available.

National forest policy programmes/statements vary, and range from extensive documents (Box 4.3) to declarative, long-term sectoral visions. Sustainable forest management, however, is consistently prioritized. Ecosystem services and wood and non-wood forest products; forest restoration; forest degradation and deforestation; biodiversity conservation; climate change mitigation and adaptation; wildfire prevention; and communication, coordination, cooperation and capacity building are not systematically present in all policy documents and the level of detail varies. Results are presented in the sub-chapters below.

Ecosystem services, wood products and non-wood forest products

Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) and ecosystem services are the main outputs of Mediterranean forests, representing 65 percent of their total economic value (Prokofieva et al., 2012). Priorities for forest products, NWFP and wood products alike, are homogenously expressed in policy documents throughout the region, while priorities for ecosystem services remain fragmented and intermittently implemented.

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are a very effective mechanism for implementing policies promoting forests’ total economic value. PES are part of the larger group of incentives for ecosystem services, which also comprise forest certification and a wide range of other measures. PES may also help to bridge the gap between conservation and development objectives in forest livelihoods. Article 5 of the Paris Agreement considers PES the main financing mechanism for sustainably-managed forests in the context of climate change.

Most Mediterranean forest policies include provisions for PES, but are implemented only sporadically. Implementation is highly problematic where land tenure and grazing permit rights are not clear or are based on informal use/tradition.

In order to facilitate PES implementation, countries throughout the region have developed cooperatives, associations, consortia and value chains comprised of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to reduce negotiation costs, enable marketing of forest products, and thus contribute to rural livelihoods. As part of its National Forest Programme objectives, for example, Morocco undertook measures to establish and support forest cooperatives as a way to promote sustainable forestry and NWFPs (Box 4.4).

Agri-Environmental Measures (AEM) under the EU Common Agricultural Policy are an example of Result-Based AEMs (RB-AEMs), the most recent innovation in AEM payments. RB-AEMs are of particular interest due to their potentially higher conditionality, linking payments to the provision of a desired environmental outcome rather than to prescribed management activities. They can also help to deliver more targeted conservation outcomes for a range of species. Twenty RB-AEMs have been launched in the EU since 2017 and, consequently, will need to be implemented by the EU countries of the Mediterranean.

Market-based instruments aim to stimulate consumer and supplier behaviour through the creation of financial motivations to properly manage forest resources and conserve the ecosystems in which forest products, especially NWFPs in the case of the Mediterranean region, are produced. Many NWFP species have a wide, genetically determined variation in product yield and quality; indeed, some industries exist only because of this variation (FAO, 2014). Marketing of NWFPs has been widely promoted as a conservation measure based on the assumption that an increase in resource value is a general incentive for local populations and forest users to manage forests and woodlands more sustainably FAO (2010).

Sustainable forest management and forest and landscape restoration

Sustainable forest management has been introduced into regional policies following the inclusion of the concept as part of the Forest Principles of Agenda 21, adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio.

The EU adopted its new Forestry Strategy in 2013, using as its guiding principle SFM and the multifunctional role of forests. France, Portugal and Bulgaria have reviewed their forest policies and promoted new laws on forests and forest management based on SFM with a view to socioeconomic development. Lebanon launched its first national forest programme in 2011 to strengthen SFM and address deforestation. Jordan is reviewing its forest policy and action plan to ensure alignment with the SDGs, INDC and national development strategies: the “Jordan Way to Sustainable Development.”

While all the analysed policy documents referred to the concept of sustainable forest management, its actual implementation is hard to assess from these documents alone.

Forest inventories are carried out throughout the region. Country Reports for FAO’s Global Forest Resource Assessment are submitted regularly, although there were some exceptions for FRA 2015 (Libya, Palestine and Syrian Arab Republic).

All Mediterranean countries have ratified the UNCCD and most have implemented the required National Action Plans. In 2013 for example, Turkey, in collaboration with FAO and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), implemented a project to strengthen national capacities in line with its National Action Plan to Combat Desertification, the UNCCD 10-Year Strategy and to comply with the UNCCD reporting and review process. A number of countries have included pledges and afforestation plans into their policy documents (Box 4.5).

Four countries in the region are part of the Great Green Wall initiative (Algeria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia). In addition, a cooperation agreement was signed in 2016 between the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey and the Pan African Agency on Great Green Wall.

Biodiversity is deeply rooted in forest policies throughout the region

Recognizing the Mediterranean basin as a biodiversity hotspot, all countries in the Mediterranean region are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The EU Forest Policy explicitly pledges to reach its Aichi Targets in the framework of the CBD.

According to Aichi Target 17, “By 2015, each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.” Fifteen countries in the region and the EU have an action plan or a strategy as required by the CBD (Article 6). Nine countries in the region have mapped national targets against the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, showing that, when present, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) cover all Aichi Targets. In paragraph five of decision X/2 (Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020), the Conference of the Parties “urges regional organizations to consider the development or updating of regional biodiversity strategies, as appropriate, including agreeing on regional targets, as a means of complementing and supporting national actions and of contributing to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.” Despite this strong emphasis and the existence of nine Regional Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Regional Biodiversity Strategy and the MERCOSUR Biodiversity Declaration, no such strategy exists in the Mediterranean region. Only France has different strategies in place at the sub-national level (six for mainland France and one for its overseas territories).

Recognition of biodiversity is deeply rooted in forest policies, demonstrated by its prevalence in forest policy documents across the region, the main focus being the biodiversity-climate change nexus. Ongoing conservation and expansion of protected areas, including explicit mention of Ramsar sites (Morocco) and EU Natura 2000 sites (the Mediterranean Region contains 2 928 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) under the Habitats Directive and a further 999 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive. There is considerable overlap between several SCIs and SPAs, meaning that figures are not cumulative. It is estimated that together they cover around 20 percent of the total land area in the region). Biodiversity conservation through rural development, fiscal measures and PES is proposed in EU, Moroccan and French forest policy. A new Italian law on the economic development of protected areas is under discussion at time of writing.

Forest policies envisage biodiversity conservation through in situ and ex situ conservation. Target 7 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 2011-2020 (CBD 2010) recommends the inclusion of 75 percent of threatened species in accessible ex situ collections by 2020. A number of forest agencies or ministries in the region have published and regularly update official guidelines and supporting instruments (Box 4.6). In Italy, for example, the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) has recently published “Procedure per il campionamento in situ e la conservazione ex situ del germoplasma” (Guidelines for in situ sampling and ex situ conservation of germplasm) for the purposes of obtaining quality reproductive material for Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) initiatives.

Policies and instruments on climate change mitigation and adaptation are in their initial phase/stage in the region

Article 5 of The Paris Agreement highlights the major role played by forests in climate change adaptation and mitigation, particularly in the context of NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions). The Paris Agreement sees PES mechanisms for carbon fixation as the main mechanism for financing this contribution.

In the region, seven countries and the EU (comprising all Member Countries, with France publishing an additional NDC for its overseas territories) had published NDCs at the time of analysis (Annex E). While all NDCs refer to forestry as a key sector, only Algeria, Jordan and Morocco link climate change policies and related commitments with quantifiable SFM or FLR measures (Table 4.3, Figure 4.7). In the case of Lebanon, the country has committed to implementing its Intended NDC through its already existing national restoration plan (i.e. the 40 Million Tree Programme).

As the average year for the publication of National Forest Programmes in the Mediterranean region was 2009, NDCs and the Paris Agreement are not mentioned in most forest policies. Since the average validity of NFPs is 20-25 years, revisions of forest policy are expected to take place in order to foster the role of forests in NDCs.

The primary focus of forest policy in the Mediterranean region is on researching the ecophysiological response of forests to climate change. Policies are therefore oriented towards an adaptive approach to climate change.

Policies on biofuels from forest resources exist throughout the region. The scope of these policies varies greatly, from regulation and monitoring of firewood consumption in rural areas to the use of wood products as an alternative for coal and other non-sustainable energy resources.

Green procurement of timber for construction is considered by a number of countries, often combined with policies regarding forest certification. In France, a Governmental Action Plan (MEFI, 2006) on public procurement and sustainable development (April 2004) included a project to prepare a Prime Minister’s advice note (“circulaire”) for public buyers (Premier Ministre, 2005). It established a target of ensuring 50 percent of timber and wood products bought by public buyers were sourced from legal and sustainably managed forests by 2007 and 100 percent by 2010.

Wildfire prevention is among major declared policy priorities

As stated at the outset of the Agadir Declaration, forest wildfires are a specific regional threat to Mediterranean forest ecosystems, requiring specific regional responses, such as common monitoring initiatives supported by statements of regional cooperation in forest policy. The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) network comprises EU Member States and other Mediterranean countries such as Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey and could benefit from new partnerships in the region (Box 4.7). The Regional Southeast European/Caucasus Wildland Fire Network (covering Turkey, the Balkans, the southern Caucasus countries and adjoining Romania and Ukraine) is an active regional network acting as a forum for mutual consultation and a basis for cross-boundary cooperation and training in fire management.

At least six countries in the Mediterranean region (Lebanon, Morocco, Portugal, Spain,[4] Tunisia and Turkey[5]) have specific strategies relating to forest fires. In Turkey, forest fire control is included in its Constitution (Box 4.8). Portugal created a special Permanent Forest Fund by earmarking part of its petrol tax after the country experienced severe wildfires in 2003. Andalusia (Spain) has a specific financial mechanism to support grazing practices as part of fire prevention (Box 4.9). In the majority of cases, policies and instruments in the region persistently lack integration between SFM practices, biodiversity conservation, climate change and wildfire prevention.

In policy documents, forest wildfires are often treated as an emergency rather than part of a continuous interaction between society and the environment in the context of climate change. In addition, at the national level, extinction generally receives much greater attention (and funding) than prevention, which can lead to over-expenditure (as more investment in prevention would reduce overall expenditure). Prevention and awareness-raising are key factors in the Mediterranean region, as more than 90 percent of fires are human-induced.

Research, communication, coordination, cooperation and capacity building

Advancing scientific knowledge and fostering innovation is essential for sustainable forest management and to guide policymakers in the Mediterranean region. Countries of the Mediterranean basin, as well as other regions with a Mediterranean climate (e.g. the California chaparral and woodlands eco-region of California and Baja California, southern and southwestern Australia, the Cape province of South Africa and the Matorral eco-region of central Chile), face similar challenges regarding forest ecosystems and the provision of crucial goods and services in the context of climate change. It is critically important to reinforce scientific cooperation on Mediterranean forests and international cooperation between other regions with Mediterranean climates, in order to reduce fragmentation and maximize the impact of research, education and capacity building activities at all levels.

The overall Mediterranean region research budget totals EUR 295.5 million per year. A survey (Nardi et al., 2016) conducted in 13 Mediterranean countries between 2010 and 2011 shows that France (EUR 87.4 million), Spain (EUR 54.1 million) and Italy (EUR 50.8 million), alone account for 80 percent of the total budget allocated for forest research. These countries also make the greatest contribution to Mediterranean forest research. Basic research on Mediterranean forest ecosystems is primarily conducted on ecophysiology, while applied research mainly relates to land-use and degradation, biodiversity and conservation and forest fire research topics. Research cooperation could mitigate the polarization of resources and broaden the topics covered.

Eighty-eight countries published at least one document related to Mediterranean forest research between 1980 and 2014 (Nardi et al., 2016). Spain published 44 percent of total publications, followed by Italy and France. Other Mediterranean countries, such as Portugal, Greece, Israel and Turkey were among the top 20 publishers.

Key to fulfilling the objective of the SDGs in a fragmented region such as the Mediterranean is improving engagement between researchers, public and private stakeholders, communities and decision-makers through cross-sectorial communication and cooperation, ultimately making research more relevant to the policy-making process. The sector could regularly review its standing, including its institutional design, in order to achieve the critical mass needed to influence and impact policy and society more broadly. This could be achieved through long-term research partnerships to align cooperation mechanisms and networks in the region.

Next steps and future challenges and opportunities in Mediterranean forest policies

Current forest-related policy documents in the Mediterranean region require improvement. These include:

Improved access to and availability of formal policy documents. Making policy documents available to the general public in at least two languages (a national and international language) is an integral and cost effective way to establish an open and collaborative environment with public and private stakeholders and enhance communication and transparency of decisions at the national and international levels.

Legally-binding conventions can mandate public availability of policy documents, decisions and data on the environment in different Mediterranean countries, i.e. the Aarhus Convention, which requires Parties (EU Member Countries and other signatory countries) to make policy decisions and data easily available to the general public in the framework of a continuous participative interaction.

FAO provides a number of relevant databases to facilitate this process, namely the forest policy database under the FAPDA[6] and legal forestry documents under the FAOLEX. While different in scope, the overall objective of these databases is to correct informational asymmetries between law and policy in order to facilitate international and regional cooperation. Through its Agriculture Information Management Systems (AIMS) platform, FAO has also recognized the importance of open data and information as part of the capacity building process. These tools could serve as a platform to share information on policies relevant to forests and legal documents for policymakers in Mediterranean countries.

Concrete measures to achieve obligations under international agreements must be included in forest programmes and action plans. Practically all of the analysed countries have ratified basic international conventions and agreements (see Annex D). In general, countries continue to amend their long-term policies and laws to be more consistent with the concept of sustainable forest management. Yet while many countries (mainly outside the EU) have established sustainable forest management as an overall goal, they have yet to define specific objectives, measures and financial mechanisms.

National forest policies must be reviewed to respond to new global priorities (SDGs, Agenda 2030) and supported by implementation mechanisms. The analysis of available policy documents and relevant policy instruments showed that although some forest-related national policies in the Mediterranean region date from 1993 (Slovenian Forest Act), the majority of documents were adopted after the year 2000. It is still desirable to review these polities to align them with the Global Forest Goals, SFM elements and corresponding criteria and indicators. This will also facilitate the measurement of achievements and international reporting.

Countries continue to develop longer-term policies to be more consistent with the concept of sustainable forest management, aiming to balance economic, social and environmental factors.

Many countries promote rural community development through policy measures enabling them to use and sustain forest goods such as non-wood forest products and ecosystem services.

Local stakeholder involvement and coordination with the policies of other sectors should be an integral part of all policy development or review processes.

Concrete strategies and action plans supporting the implementation of policy objectives will give a more concrete character to the SFM in policy documents. The forest-water nexus is not often addressed in forest policies in the region (with the exception of Spain and Turkey), despite the classification of the southeast Mediterranean as physically water scarce. In Turkey, for example, management of forest watersheds, the fight against drought and desertification and the implementation of relevant policies fall within the authority of the Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs, where a Department of Soil Conservation and watershed rehabilitation under the General Directorate of Forestry is entitled to soil conservation and watershed rehabilitation to “obtain high quality and maximum amount of water in water basins.”[7]

Only Morocco has a specific policy for peri-urban and urban forests, which is deeply connected to efforts to combine the combat of desertification with the provision of ecosystem services.

A clear policy framework is needed to promote ecosystem services and Non-Wood Forest Products. In order to be implemented successfully, PES schemes require a clear and stable land tenure framework. Forest management plans should be designed or updated to include all factors relative to the promotion of non-wood forest products and ecosystem services, possible impacts of climate change and adaptation measures. A system of extension, capacity development and education of young specialists, from technicians to forestry engineers, must also be designed and supported.

Broad and flexible institutional research is needed, since PES schemes established by State Agencies generally involve a contract with the individual provider of ecosystem services based on ecological conditions. All other measures (eg. AEM/RB-AEM) should be considered and applied if possible.

Concrete strategies and measures are required for effective wildfire prevention. Establishing conditional grants and incentives to encourage wildfire-resistant species selection for reforestation and restoration could be considered by extension services and has already been included in forest policy documents in one country in the region (“Monitoring application of subsidies for Reforestation of Agricultural Land, in order to carry out the appropriate preventive silviculture tasks, as well as to consider fire hazard in the choice of species,” MMA, 1999).

Bottom up and community approaches to wildfire prevention, as well as communication and campaigns aimed at the general public, are encouraged in policies throughout the region, even though no regional study on the implementation of these approaches has been made.

Since challenges posed by climate change, energy and biodiversity issues are exceptionally complex and occur over the long-term, overcoming them necessitates profound change, benefiting some actors and harming others. Mobilizing enough wood for energy to establish the right balance between carbon sequestration and substitution and conserve biodiversity without sacrificing wood supply, demands highly sophisticated policy-making, sharply-focused policy instruments and strong political will. The policy environment will be increasingly difficult, as government budgets are cut and international commitments and negotiations increasingly influence domestic policies.

Will today’s policies and institutions rise to the challenge? Doing so will require improved monitoring systems, the ability to reach consensus on complex issues (inside and outside the sector), as well as creating and implementing highly-targeted policy instruments to make the best possible use of limited government funds. High level political will is also necessary, to ensure that forest management is not only sustainable, but makes the best possible contribution to the sustainable development of society as a whole UNECE and FAO (2011b).

The results of the analysis undertaken here indicate that:

•The European Common Agricultural Policy and the EU Forestry Strategy, as well as regional initiatives and declarations, form a solid framework to guide national forest policy development;

•Countries continue to develop longer-term policies and laws to be more consistent with the concept of SFM, but further revision is required to align policy priorities with the objectives of Agenda 2030;

•The role of Forests for SDGs and national development of forest policy and measures must be better articulated;

•Reflection, precision and evidence-based data, augmenting the role of forests in NDCs in the framework of the Paris Agreement, should be enhanced and broadly used at national and regional levels;

•PES schemes require additional assistance and, possibly, regional solutions;

•Communication, Coordination, Cooperation and Capacity Building in Mediterranean forest policy requires further support and facilitation; and

•Harmonization between Mediterranean forest policies, concrete regional initiatives and policy frameworks must be enhanced.

12 Participation: a pillar of sustainable forest management in the Mediterranean

Magali Maire, FAO
Mohamed Qarro, ENFI
Miguel Segur, CESEFOR
Nicolas Robert, JRC
Fabrice Gouriveau, INRA
Marcos Estévez Malvar, FSC España
Silvia Martínez Martínez, FSC España
Patricia R. Sfeir, SEEDS-Int

What are participatory approaches and the conditions for their implementation?

What are participatory approaches?

Overall concept. Participation is one of the founding principles of good governance and democracy (UN-ESCAP, 2009). It raises local community awareness and empowers its members by sustaining rights and responsibilities. This improves the quality, acceptance, stability and sustainability of management decisions, resulting in the more efficient use of available public resources (FAO et al., 2000; Stringer et al., 2006; Kuper et al., 2009). Participatory approaches strive to embrace the diversity and complementarity of stakeholder views, balancing their multiple and sometimes conflicting interests and establishing coherent and accountable rights and obligations to manage forests according to a shared vision and shared objectives, for the common good (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1997a,b).

Participation can be promoted at all levels and stages of the forest planning, management and decision-making process. It can work towards various goals, from defining and prioritizing forest management objectives, implementing, monitoring and evaluating local forest management activities, to the design of national, regional and international forest strategies and policies (see Chapter 11).

Participation by stakeholders (public/private, including local populations) in the sustainable management of natural resources in general, and in the management of forests in particular, is at the heart of many issues such as food security, poverty alleviation, rural development and environmental protection.

Participatory management can be defined as joint actions by local people and management staff with the objective of formulating management objectives and selecting the best available alternatives for their implementation. It relies on practices, discussion spaces and institutions that allow local actors/stakeholders, including those outside the formal politico-administrative circle (citizens, communities, associations, administrations, businesses, etc.), to take a more active role in local affairs. This includes influencing decisions affecting their territory and participating in formal and informal meetings, consultations and exchanges (FAO, 2005).

Participation begins from the observation that projects which are conceived and implemented without participation by the social groups for which they are intended, generally yield poor or unintended results. Moreover, controversies surrounding sustainable development are gradually changing the way development is conceived. Indeed, the existence of a formal, local organization supporting participation by rural communities has almost become a prerequisite for donor assistance. Participation aims to solve serious problems by redefining access to resources and reorganizing relationships between local communities and the state. Flexible, dynamic, proactive, long-term decision-making processes are therefore required to overcome factors such as: uncertainty; large and diverse spatial and temporal scales; complex intersections between multiple levels; and the ambiguous nature of responsibilities and impacts. These factors require an approach that facilitates management of conflicts sometimes anchored in an irreducible plurality of values and facilitating the progressive integration of qualitatively different information.

Participation has been increasingly promoted over recent decades in the Mediterranean region. This has already had significant impacts on the design and implementation of projects targeting vulnerable populations more likely to be involved in biodiversity conservation and development activities. With the advent of climate change, participation occupies an even more prominent place in current debate and action.

Concertation: a preliminary step. According to Beuret (2006), “concertation is based on a horizontal dialogue between the participants, whose objective is the collective construction of visions, objectives and joint projects, in order to act or decide together. Sharing the decision-making power between the participants is not a requirement and the decision is not the primary objective of the consultation, the interest of which lies above all in building common objects together.”

For a project to be sustainable, actors must have ownership of it, and actors must therefore be consulted during its design and implementation. Concerted environmental management, which also refers to notions of understanding and collective action that go beyond consultation, would be a subset of participation, which is a broader and inclusive concept. Indeed, for Beuret, participation means to “take part in something,” whereas “concertation” implies that parties project something in common.

Concerted management is a process in which actors collaborate to manage one or more shared/common good, space or territory or influence actions and decisions that determine the future of these common assets. Concerted management could include simple information-sharing and dialogue with participants, consultation with certain social groups, negotiation, etc.

Concertation is a preliminary step prior to the negotiation process and involves looking for compromises and consensus on the sustainable and participatory management of natural resources. Negotiation outcomes should result in stakeholder engagement and the conclusion of win-win contracts.

Rural grassroots communities: a focal point of participatory development policies. Natural resources – land, water, forest, pastures – often form the foundation of rural economies and are located in territories in which community members have individual, familial or collective rights inherited over a long period. A community’s territory forms not only the physical foundation of its economy but also the basis for its members’ cultural and social identification and the geographically-defined support of the local political system.

The rhetoric of sustainable development thus places an emphasis on the participation of rural populations and communities. Local or traditional knowledge is increasingly valued within the framework of grassroots participatory approaches, which should allow local actors to take responsibility for their own development (self-reliance). Emphasis is placed on the need to empower and strengthen communities’ capacity to self-govern. As social bodies, they must therefore attain legal status and competence to authorize the conclusion of contracts and budgets, in recognition of their ownership (either individually or collectively) over the natural resources falling within their territory (Lazarev, 1993). Although theoretically straightforward, this framework is not widely developed or uncontested.

From the “participation injunction” to the negotiated management of natural resources. Despite the repeated “injunctions” to participation, it is now recognized that the approaches adopted by many development projects do not consider the complex changes affecting societies and the need to genuinely negotiate the terms and conditions for the implementation of other forms of multi-actor governance. Participatory approaches have been widely used in the field of natural resource management, in which they are presented as a solution to environmental problems analysed through the lens of “the tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). Several authors argue that participation encourages consideration of stakeholder interests, promotes transparency in decision-making and hold public services accountable, even making it possible to avert the above-mentioned tragedy (e.g. Ostrom et al., 1999). By applying participatory programming techniques, the management of natural resources can play an educational role by changing the communication style of bureaucrats and populations. In short, it would be a school of local democracy. This implies reaching explicit and negotiated compromises between multiple actors involved in structures that become the locus of power and decision-making.

Levels and forms of participation

Participation at different levels. Participation follows and iterative process, taking place at different levels/stages of forest management and including different goals (Figure 4.8), including:

•Design of national/regional forest strategy and policy within the international context and in concert with different sectors;

•Diagnosis of a territory’s assets, strengths/weaknesses and opportunities;

•Definition and prioritization of the objectives of local forest management within a national/international policy framework; and

•Implementation, monitoring and evaluation of forest management activities.

Different stakeholders generally participate at different stages in a given project and process, with various degrees of decision-making power.

Participatory approaches can take different forms depending on the people/institutions implementing them, their objectives, available means and local contexts. They can include stakeholder information and consultation, shared management, co-management, collaborative management or joint management, co-innovation, etc. (Figure 4.11).

The roles of institutional and other actors will differ according to the type of land involved and its legal status. Some legal texts governing rangelands and forests have been ratified independently, without any reference to or links between the uses of the elements supporting the rural population’s primary economic activity (e.g. livestock husbandry).

The implementation of so-called participatory projects aimed at sustainably managing natural resources and improving the living conditions of rural populations have often failed due to a lack of coordination between the numerous stakeholders.

The complexity of participatory resource management lies mainly at two levels:

•numerous stakeholders interact with rural areas: several departments/authorities have responsibility for managing specific areas but their actions are not coordinated on the ground. Stakeholders include institutions, organized groups or individuals who interact with and benefit from the management of a rural area. Moreover, they are located both inside and outside the managed area, so identifying (and justifying) boundary judgments (de Loë and Patterson, 2018) is key;

•stakeholder roles, objectives and strategies: each department/authority adopts strategies relating to the domain or sector it manages without any common strategic vision. Stakeholders have various expectations and their compatibility or contradictions are not necessarily known.

Therefore, it is critically important to:

•encourage mutual understanding and consensus between stakeholders on the objectives and management of natural resources;

•identify external or broad linkages between interests, such as power and political relationships, and monitor them over long periods as societal expectations evolve.

The diversity of participatory approaches in the Mediterranean region. Mediterranean forests have been shaped over centuries by human activities and biotic and abiotic factors, giving rise to very diverse and often resilient ecosystems. Today, however, anthropogenic activities, coupled with global warming, are exerting significant pressure on forests. These are contributing to forest decline and reduced resilience, and to the degradation of their capacity to provide the goods and services that are at the foundation of Mediterranean societies’ socioeconomic development and well-being (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2016). Participation by local stakeholders (especially forest users) in the decisions and activities affecting forest development is thus critical to reconcile socioeconomic activities and resource conservation.

The implementation of participatory forest management is relatively recent and not yet widespread in Mediterranean countries, although the concept itself is not new. Participatory initiatives are, however, spreading and increasingly recognized at the institutional level. Most of these initiatives, which consist of establishing participation processes and implementing concerted actions in given territories (whether protected or otherwise), do not have dedicated names. Nevertheless, among other well-known and institutionalized participatory approaches are the Model Forests (e.g. Provence in France, Ifrane in Morocco and Yalova in Turkey) (Box 4.10), the Forest Territory Charters (FTC) (e.g. Albères and Aspres Cork Oak Forest in France; Bouhachem Regional Nature Park in Morocco) (Box 4.11), Mountain Forest Planning Plan (MFPP), Mountain Forest Strategic Plan (e.g. in the Alps); Concerted Operations for the Planning and Management of the Rural Space (OCAGER; Languedoc-Roussillon), Réserves de Biosphère (e.g. Jabal Moussa in Lebanon) and Participatory Management Plans in Tunisia (Box 4.12).

The mechanisms established for participation and collaboration will depend on the relationships between various actors, particularly those encouraged by the instigators of these mechanisms. The effectiveness and success of such mechanisms will often depend on the quality of human relationships established locally at the first instance (Box 4.13).

Planning and designing a participatory project. Planning stakeholder engagement throughout the project cycle and beyond is crucial (Figure 4.12).

A common general approach is presented by the logical framework. Proposed by USAID in the 1960s, the logical framework is the basis of most methodological tools. This technique allows stakeholders to identify and analyse problems, define their objectives and the activities they wish to undertake (Figure 4.13).

What are the enabling conditions for participatory approaches?

As mentioned above, the rationale behind applying a participatory approach lies in the distinct expectations of forest managers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services. Because of diverse socioeconomic factors, including historical and cultural heritage, there are no strict rules for effective implementation of participatory approaches. However, experience shows that successful management requires the establishment of appropriate governance conditions. These concern both administrative settings (including political commitments and supporting regulations) and societal preparedness (relevant to the degree of knowledge and empowerment of the various stakeholders). Some essential considerations are worth emphasizing:

•Without a certain degree of ex ante political will, participation will not produce results or impact.

•A certain equivalence of cognition and power must exist between actors. If this is not present, external support must be provided to under-represented actor/s.

•It is futile to propose a participation exercise among actors that are not mutually dependent to some degree. To the extent possible, these inter-dependencies should be identified, analysed and acknowledged.

•Whether at the starting point or as a result of the process, a common vision should guide participation.

Policy support towards increased stakeholder participation: What international and national strategies say. As highlighted in many international processes, participation by local communities in decision-making is a promising way to improve global well-being. As a general rule, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015) see stakeholder participation as a major step towards peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development (SDG 16). The forestry sector recognizes that increased stakeholder involvement – particularly by local communities – is a requirement for sustainable forest management. The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment provides an overview of countries that have established a national platform to promote stakeholder participation in forest policy development, as well as countries in which stakeholders are consulted or contribute to the management of public forests. These two elements show a willingness to implement participatory approaches at the highest level. Although it is not a prerequisite, this commitment can facilitate the establishment of appropriate administrative and regulatory conditions to develop local initiatives.

All countries in the Mediterranean basin are involved in at least one international sustainable forest management process. Northern Mediterranean countries from Portugal to Turkey are part of Forest Europe (Oslo, 1993), while countries from the southern and eastern rims (including Cyprus, Malta and Turkey) are involved in the Near East process (Cairo 1996, extended to North Africa). In both processes, the participation of stakeholders is one indicator and is therefore encouraged.

Consistent with international processes, certification schemes such as the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) acknowledge the importance of considering local communities when defining a management plan. The production of certified wood products is still limited in the Mediterranean. However, increased demand for labelled products will favour improved integration of social needs in forest management.

What the law says. Acknowledging historical practices, most national forest laws provide local communities with the right to collect dead wood, hunt or graze cattle in public forests. On the one hand, forest degradation occurs when these rights are misused. For example, overgrazing reduces a forest’s regeneration capacity. Some countries have added temporary protection regimes to their legislation in order to reduce these risks of forest degradation (e.g. deferred grazing in Morocco and Tunisia). However, these measures are not always well understood and respected by local beneficiaries. On the other hand, forest degradation is also more likely to occur when these rights are not used at all. The absence of grazing and deadwood removal leads to an increase of the biomass that, in the Mediterranean, can increase the risk of forest fires. In order to participate more effectively in management of forest ecosystems, local communities should seek to better understand the impact of their behaviour. This need for awareness-raising is now reflected in forest policies.

Participatory approaches in the Mediterranean context. In the context of global change, the Mediterranean’s highly diverse forest ecosystems face numerous environmental and socioeconomic threats. Increases in temperature, reduction in precipitation, higher frequency of extreme events and fires are a challenge for the maintenance of the ecosystems and the services they provide. A large portion of Mediterranean forests, particularly those in the south, are public and managed by administrators. Forest management by a public administration responds to political, economic and environmental objectives that are not necessarily shared by local communities.

At the same time, population increases lead to higher pressure on lands and natural resources, as well as higher demand for forest ecosystem services such as erosion control and water regulation. Moreover, rapid urbanization has changed and redistributed stakeholder needs. In the northern Mediterranean, the demand for ecosystem services in cities, such as recreation and water filtration, has increased, while demand for firewood and grazing by local populations has decreased. A similar change can be observed in the southern rim. However, the pressure from local populations remains high and desertification has become a serious threat. Changes to demand for ecosystem services and the geographic distribution of stakeholders has increased the complexity of forest management. This calls for an inclusive and adaptive form of planning and management, which can be facilitated by a participatory approach.

Stakeholders are not necessarily aware of their impacts on forests and the all the benefits they derive from forest ecosystems. In particular, people living in cities enjoy recreational opportunities, but also climate regulation, erosion control protecting infrastructure, water purification, etc. Most of them do not understand the impact of high frequentation, intensive mushroom picking or seed collection. Rural populations also lack information on the sustainable use of forests. The participatory approach facilitates awareness-raising and mutual learning between stakeholders.

The structures of southern Mediterranean communities have changed over recent decades. The hierarchical management of the community, in which the head makes decisions for all, has been replaced by higher individualism in many places. If each individual competes for access to public resources, the resultant pressure on that resource increases beyond what the ecosystem can withstand. This is an illustration of the tragedy of the commons. Stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process can provide the basis for an alternative way to regulate harvesting of wood and non-timber forest products. Forest managers may encounter difficulties in establishing restriction measures (e.g. a ban on grazing or on nut harvesting) and controlling their application. The participatory approach helps define measures that beneficiaries can accept and even control themselves, increasing their chances of success, while also being more cost-efficient.

The need for coordination comes from: (a) the pursuit of greater efficiency and reduced transaction costs and (b) the need, exceptionally acute in forest management, to work in stable, adequate temporal-spatial scales for the activity. These two main factors demonstrate need to recognize and utilize interdependencies (Jessop, 1998). On the other hand, competition (e.g. in markets) can make these interdependencies challenging. The shadow of the state (Héritier and Lehmkuhl, 2008), remarkably big in Mediterranean forest environments, can be an additional obstacle (Figure 4.14). The provision of sufficient and fair information, knowledge and skills (including financial) (Table 4.4), recommended by expert reviews (Sayer et al., 2008; CBD SBSTTA, 2011), is also frequently lacking.

How can these approaches be put in place for effective and efficient participatory management?

Initial conditions

Prior to the establishment of a participatory management process, the situation must be diagnosed and the territory in question must be established. This includes the land, its resources, its owners (public, private or collective), its managers and the various stakeholders living on or deriving benefits from it. Second, the relationship between stakeholders, the objectives of management and possible conflicts must be identified. If the diagnosis confirms interest in a participatory approach, regulatory, administrative and social contacts must be analysed.

Stakeholders must be empowered to put forward and discuss proposals. In other words, participating bodies should understand their role in the process and know which decisions and responsibilities are theirs. In most cases, participating stakeholders represent larger groups such as residents or shepherds. These representatives should be trained to prepare for the meetings and commit at the appropriate level.

Stakeholders should trust the institutions responsible for running the participatory process and implementing the resultant plan. In particular, when public forests are at stake, local or national authorities must be committed to ensuring an equitable relationship between actors. In places where the state is weak, some stakeholders may refuse to participate because they feel powerless or are apprehensive about potential manipulation by other stakeholders. The process is facilitated when official documents such as forest laws, strategies or policies clarify the relationship between actors, including their respective responsibilities and duties. The authorities should also be prepared to devolve power to local actors. The project facilitator is key to the successful preparation and conduct of the process. The organization responsible for the facilitator must have sufficient funding capacity to allocate resources and time to the process. Generally, for limited territories, at least one full time equivalent is needed.

Making participation happen: steps, methodologies and tools

A participatory approach is:

•a pluralistic approach to the management of natural resources involving diverse partners assuming a variety of roles and generally aiming towards environmental protection, sustainable exploitation of natural resources and equitable sharing of benefits and responsibilities;

•a political and cultural process par excellence: the search for a form of “democracy” and social justice in the management of natural resources;

•a process that must be built upon certain basic conditions (full access to information about relevant issues and solutions, freedom and ability to get organized, etc.).

The main steps to follow when implementing the participatory process are summarized below:

1.Choice of territory and shared diagnosis.

The territory or natural resource (forest, grazing track, etc.) must be characterized by traditional users (users, right holders, etc.) identifying themselves according to this territory or resource. This involves working to merge these traditional uses by ethnic groups with the corresponding space. The territory or natural resource should not involve two different ethnic groups; doing so would give rise to potential conflict regarding traditional usage.

A shared diagnosis of the territory must be carried out with the population to analyse and quantify its environmental and socioeconomic resources, identify actors (stakeholder mapping), understand their visions and expectations, build on existing local dynamics and jointly design a desirable future (prospective analysis).

2.Governance structure and mechanisms of the participatory approach.

Participatory approaches may rely on different structures at various administrative/territorial levels, which could include:

•Lead Entity (“coordinator,” e.g. a nature park, an association, etc.). The lead entity mobilizes stakeholders, drives the work forward, carries out the monitoring and evaluation and ensures the cohesion and efficiency of the different structures and processes;

•Steering/management committee (elected officials, representatives of government services and stakeholders). It manages the process, drives the project forward, helps reach a consensus and has the greatest decision-making power (e.g. Provincial Coordinating Committee (Wilaya in Morocco) whose role is to oversee the participatory process and help remove constraints);

•Stakeholder committee (stakeholder representatives). This influences decisions and agrees on the activities of the working groups;

•Working group or implementation committee (anyone interested in working on the project at the local level). This works on the technical aspects of sector-specific or cross-sectoral themes;

•Consultative technical and/or scientific committee (renowned experts and scientist from the academic and research/innovation sector). This provides an opinion on management, decisions and activities.

3.General mapping and objectives/interests and relationships between actors.

Two modes of representation can facilitate a formulation of the actors identified a priori, including their potential role in the participatory process:

•actors with a direct interest in the natural resources of the area concerned, i.e. directly extracting ecosystem goods and services;

•actors with indirect interests, i.e. indirectly extracting ecosystem goods and services;

•surface or groundwater users, i.e. exploiting ecosystem-related water resources;

•actors with professional interests, i.e. having professional duties and interests in the sustainable management of natural resources in the area.

4.Implementation of the communication, collaboration and negotiation process with stakeholders.

Main tools of the participatory approach. The concepts and approaches contributing towards understanding and practicing the participatory approach are:

1.Adaptive management is a management approach that recognizes, on the one hand, the lack of definitive knowledge about the behaviour of ecosystems and, on the other hand, the uncertainty that governs our interaction with them.

The main stages of adaptive management throughout the participatory process are:

•Assessment of the situation and problems of Natural Resources Management (NRM) (usually in workshops, with several stakeholders);

•Identification of NRM activities (usually in workshops) on the basis of a comparison between several possible options;

•Implementation of NRM activities in accordance with the chosen plan (which may include land zoning and experimenting with different activities in different areas – referred to as “active management”);

•Monitoring the results obtained on the basis of indicators chosen to reflect expected changes;

•Evaluation of results to test the effectiveness of the actions undertaken;

•Adjustment of activities based on lessons learned (this may include problem re-wording, NRM objectives, activities, indicators, etc.).

2.Plurality.

Participation by several categories of social actors (e.g. governmental and non-governmental bodies, groups and individuals, local and external communities with rights to local resources), is key to successful natural resource management. Communities are, per se, actors and constitute the most natural and convincing unity of identity, integration and defence for many disadvantaged groups and individuals. Communities are not homogeneous entities and their internal differences must be taken into account. Allowing space for this multiplicity of views and voices is a fundamental condition of fairness and justice during the negotiation process, including negotiations towards participatory management plans and agreements.

3.Governance.

The effective exercise of authority depends on the legitimacy of a political system and the population’s respect for its institutions. It also depends on its capacity to respond to problems and reach a social consensus through agreements and compromise. Governance is neither a system of rules nor an activity but a process. It is based not on domination but compromise and involves both private and public actors. Governance is not necessarily formalized and is usually reliant on ongoing interaction.

4.Heritage.

Heritage refers to the set of material and immaterial elements contributing to the identity and autonomy of an owner by adapting to a changing environment. The patrimonial representation of a territory, a zone or a set of resources allows for:

•linkages between past, present and future generations of land managers;

•greater emphasis on owners’ obligations than their rights;

•a common vision of sustainability bringing together the needs and opinions of various actors.

5.Social communication seeks to establish an identity of views within a community. It involves exchanging messages (communication) to give meaning to actions and enrich common knowledge, often as a way of coping with change. Effective communication generally has remarkable individual effects such as improved well-being, strengthened sense of personal worth, dignity and self-esteem, and strengthened social solidarity and cooperation. Communication can be personal (face-to-face), interpersonal (between a few individuals) and social (when it involves social groups like a local community) (Table 4.5). In the context of participatory approaches, communication aims to provide favourable conditions for conscious decision-making in society, encouraging information exchanges and discussions about problems, opportunities and action. It is generally a complex phenomenon, encompassing a variety of situations, one-on-one dialogue and group meetings (aspects of personal and interpersonal communication) for use in media such as radio, television or online.

6.Conflict management/resolution.

Conflict management is a process of dialogue and negotiation with constructive rather than destructive results. It consists of:

•resolving disagreements before they escalate;

•helping stakeholders to consider various options for agreement before choosing one that is acceptable to all;

•identifying and eradicating the root causes of conflicts to avoid their recurrence.

7.The three main phases of the participatory management process (Figure 4.15) are:

(a)partnership preparation and stakeholder involvement/participation;

(b)negotiating participatory management plans and agreements;

(c)implementing and revising the plans and agreements (learning by doing).

How can these approaches last over time? What affects their sustainability?

What matters for the sustainability of these approaches?

To ensure an enduring process, trust between stakeholders should be developed and maintained. The moderator has a key role. She must ensure that all stakeholders have an interest in participating, anticipate conflicts and prevent non-collaborative behaviour. Meetings must be organized regularly to maintain connections and facilitate exchanges.

Stakeholders must stay motivated. At the outset, they often hope to derive some benefit from the process. Connecting stakeholders with different perspectives will stimulate creativity. The meeting should lead to decisions and effective implementation. Repetitive discussion should be avoided to prevent stakeholders from becoming bored. The outcomes of participatory management should be monitored and presented to stakeholders to facilitate continuous improvement. The decision-making process, use of resources and outcomes should be transparent at all stages to maintain trust in the process. Finally, as in any project, sufficient allocation of human and financial resources is important.

Over a ten-year period (2006-2015), the Mediterranean Model Forest Network tracked a total of 30 Model Forest initiatives (attempts to develop a Model Forest) in the Mediterranean region (Table 4.6). Of these, 33 percent were still active after four years and 29 percent had reached full Model Forest status by the end of the study period. The question of permanence is not, therefore, an inconsequential one for participatory approaches in Mediterranean forests.

Some elements of the above-mentioned best practice stand out when dealing with permanence over time: Sayer et al. (2013)’s Principles 1, 8 and 10 and Lally Principles (Sayer et al., 2008) 2, 3, 6, 8, 16 and 19. The first case focuses on how a participatory process should incorporate mechanisms for (a) monitoring (i.e. devolving meaningful data to participants on the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of activities), (b) adapting (changing course when the situation changes) and (c) learning at all levels (to enhance participants’ capacities over time) to maximize longevity. The Lally Principles assert the need for (d) (lasting) skilled facilitation, (e) shared ownership and (f) careful expectation management.

Beyond these structural and process features, it has been observed during real processes occurring in the Mediterranean that participatory processes tend to persist by carrying out (g) step-by-step, innovation-driven, small activities with a bold problem focus, only to (h) expand when sufficient trust has been established. This iterative practice has the important consequence of providing opportunities for enhanced cooperation in matters of interest to specific stakeholders (while at the same time not seeking their participation in activities that do not fit their skills).

Monitoring and evaluation

A good framework regarding what to monitor is provided by CBD SBSTTA (2011). Only implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring and project monitoring, however, are of special relevance for participatory processes in the Mediterranean.

As mentioned above, effective and creative monitoring is key to the sustainability of participatory processes, since it provides actors with motivational information that keeps them engaged. This happens even when monitoring results show no major progress.

Evaluation is made on dissimilar criteria and on diverse temporal-spatial scales by different actors, and can easily be based on incorrect assumptions. For example, one participant in the Urbión Model Forest (Segur et al., 2014) established a seven-year timeframe for evaluating participation in the local Model Forest process. By the time that evaluation became due, the Model Forest had already failed.

If participatory processes are evaluated based on whether they have solved the problem they were established to address (impact evaluation), they will most probably be deemed a failure unless: an apolitical temporal scale is used, or the whole context (and not just the participatory process itself), is evaluated. On the other hand, process evaluation should focus on “continued commitment to dialogue… locking… partners into a range of interdependent decisions… and encouraging solidarity among those involved” (Jessop, 1998).

In 2012, FSC Spain began a participatory process to review and transfer Spain’s FSC forest management standards to Version 5 of FSC’s international Principles and Criteria. The process, which was due to be finalized in December 2017, has led to continuous monitoring and evaluation, resulting in substantial improvements in the future field application of the new FSC forest management standard for Spain, largely due to active stakeholder participation (Martínez Martínez et al., 2017) (Box 4.14).

Case study: Win-win contracts for oak forest management in Morocco – The Maâmora Forest

In the Maâmora forest, the objectives of the participatory approach were:

1.To build an appropriate and effective participatory approach to contribute to the development and successful implementation of the revised Maâmora Forest Management Plan.

2.To ensure collaboration/negotiation with relevant stakeholders, including the local population, to promote their involvement in the rational management of natural resources (monitoring, conservation and valorization) and the conservation of sensitive sites.

3.To design and promote participatory eco-socioeconomic models (for the organization of value chains and valorization of non-wood forest products).

Seven types of eco-socioeconomic development models were proposed using the strategic axes and variables identified by stakeholders based on the “integrated and concerted development of the territories.” The primary goal was to establish effective conditions for the success of the technical actions identified in the Maâmora management plan. The “Agroforestry management of trees and stands of cork oak” Model case study below is a good example of a win-win contract relating to the collection of acorns.

Since state-imposed sanctions proved ineffective in combating wood, foliage and acorn collection, a new negotiation and partnership approach was proposed to reconcile the interests of the two stakeholders, i.e. the land manager and user. It aims to ensure the rational management of cork oak stands while allowing users to take advantage of resources, namely acorns and foliage, without damaging the trees. This approach is based on three essential actions:

1.organization of users by territory (socio-territorial unit): existing silvopastoral associations can be empowered and made responsible for the oak stands (acorns and foliage). If needed, specific silvopastoral associations can be established;

2.establishment of partnership contracts establishing rights and duties for the rational exploitation of cork oak stands, while providing specific training and permanent supervision of users;

3.support for the autonomy of local organizations through their involvement in forestry activities.

Expected results / outcomes. Harvesting of acorns by users organized in associations or cooperatives has several advantages, mainly:

•creating an atmosphere of collaboration and partnership between users and forest authorities based on a common interest in forest resource conservation: the imposition of fines has not represented a threat for users, who consider fruits and local products a gift from God and the environment;

•enhancing user participation and empowerment: bringing users together and providing support and the conviction that their well-being will be improved, will greatly facilitate involvement by local populations in the conservation and management of forest resources;

•improved user revenues by increasing both the value-added component of the product and interest in organizing the value chain/sector: organizing this sector will provide significant added value to users, increasing their feelings of responsibility for the conservation of oak trees as fruit trees;

•improved traceability and availability of forest tree seeds, some of which will be destined for forest regeneration and development under the terms of the contract. The reserved product is thus characterized by its exact origin (organization, plots, zone, etc.), thus maintaining the performance and origins of the oak stands;

•changing social consensus on forest harvesting: organizing users to participate in fruit harvesting and marketing facilitates the transition from an uncontrolled and competitive harvest to a respectful (mature) harvest using techniques that are not detrimental to trees. The community will change its perception of the oak tree from a purely forest tree to a multi-purpose tree (fruits and others).

The win-win contract for the harvest of acorns encourages:

1.Engagement by local organizations. They undertake to:

•Ensure the successful execution of commitments under contract (e.g. respecting the acorn harvest commencement date and techniques (ground pick-up, tree climbing, other techniques, etc.) and reserving a portion of the overall harvest (negotiated and adapted to agreements and territories; e.g. 20 percent for the supply of nurseries and 20 percent for the supply of forest seedlings);

•Ensure compliance with the measures taken, technical supervision and population awareness;

•Manage conflicts and disputes that may arise between managers and users.

2.Commitment of the Water and Forest Administration. It undertakes to:

•Provide technical guidance and training on harvest techniques to local organizations;

•Organize awareness-raising and information workshops for users to encourage them to join the process of participatory, sustainable natural resource management;

•Study and promote the valorization and marketing of the acorn sector. Comparison between the current situation and expected results following implementation of the proposed measures/activities (Table 4.7).

13 Valuing ecosystem services as part of the decision-making agenda

Nelly Bourlion, Plan Bleu
Hamed Daly Hassen, ONAGRI
Paola Gatto, University of Padova
Elena Górriz Mifsud, EFIMED
Mauro Masiero, University of Padova
Davide Pettenella, University of Padova
Nicolas Robert, JRC
Laura Secco, University of Padova

The importance of forest ecosystems to human well-being cannot be overstated. But forest management strategies do not necessarily seek to enhance the value of all forest goods and services, whether locally, nationally or internationally. In most cases, management considers a limited portfolio of ecosystem services, mainly limited to those goods and services that are marketable. This is because there is not a market for some goods and services and our knowledge about how changes in ecosystems affect the level of services the system provides is often incomplete. This chapter presents a methodology to estimate the economic value of forest goods and services (Box 4.15) applied to the Mediterranean region and shows how economic value can be used as a concrete tool in the decision-making process.

Forest ecosystem services in space and time

Ecosystem services are often underestimated

Only a few of the many benefits that Mediterranean forests provide enter formal markets, usually wood products and some non-wood forest products (NWFPs) (Daly-Hassen et al., 2010). When goods and services are traded in formal markets, their prices usually provide an estimate of their financial value and scarcity. When benefits are traded only in informal markets (e.g. firewood for self-consumption), an estimate of their financial value can be obtained through the price of substitute products.

Other goods and services do not enter any markets (Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). Despite providing benefits to societies or forest owners, they do not have a price that would serve as an indicator of their scarcity or predict their demand (Sills and Abt, 2003). Managers predominantly consider marketed goods and services, omitting consideration of non-marketed components. Management decisions impacting those goods and services tend to be suboptimal, as their focus is on the production of commodities eventually subject to environmental or social constraints (Holmes, 2003).

While the concept of economic value is based on peoples’ preferences, economists often estimate value in monetary terms even for non-marketed ecosystem goods and services, since money is an exchange value that reveals preferences on a comparable scale.

The value of ecosystem services depends on location and beneficiaries

The value of an ecosystem service depends on supply capacity (associated with the forest type and environmental conditions), and on demand for that service. Forests in the mountainous regions of Italy, Greece and North Africa, for example, offer higher protection against erosion than inland open forests in the plains, which are subject to higher erosion risks.

Demand varies considerably in space, influencing the value of ecosystem services provided by a forest. The provision of carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change, for example, is provided locally but with global benefits. The regulation of water flows benefits people using water in the watershed. Benefits are local, even though they are not obtained in the forest itself. Recreation is a service provided to people visiting the forest. Both supply and use of this service occurs in the same place.

Some regional differences in the valuation of certain ecosystem services can be explained by heterogeneous social needs. For example, in the southern Mediterranean, fodder plays an important role in the well-being of local populations who, among other activities, graze cattle. The value of forest fodder in this region ranges from EUR 31 to 85/ha. In most northern Mediterranean countries, however, grazing is now a limited practice and its value ranges from EUR 5 to 20/ha, except in Portugal (EUR 37/ha) and Greece (EUR 38/ha) where traditional agroforestry practices persist (2005 prices from Croitoru, 2007). In the eastern Mediterranean, fodder value per hectare is relatively low (EUR 8 to 24/ha). This is the result of reduced fodder productivity rather than absence of demand.

Finally, the economic value of non-marketed services, particularly social services, is estimated according to the population’s willingness to pay. It is therefore highly variable. The economic value of non-marketed services will depend on beneficiaries’ priorities, revenues and the cost of alternative goods and services (which vary around the Mediterranean). Thus, it is not surprising to find, for example, lower recreation values in the MENA countries than in southern Europe. Care should be taken when comparing the monetary value of ecosystem services in different countries, since a comparable monetary amount does not provide the same well-being in all countries.

Changes to environmental and socioeconomic conditions alter the value of ecosystem services. In a more urban, economically developed society, dependence on forest resources decreases, while demand for recreation increases. In northern Mediterranean countries, forest fires are larger today than half a century ago due to land abandonment while, in southern countries and despite a decrease in local population, considerable degradation exists due to intensive fuelwood extraction and grazing.

Social perceptions regarding forests have also changed. In addition to former local users, new stakeholders are concerned with forest regulation and cultural services. Potential conflicts and/or cooperation between these stakeholders (rural vs. urban, public vs. private, individual vs. community), facilitates the development of different economic and policy instruments. Rural households are more interested in forest uses while urban inhabitants are more concerned by regulation and social services, such as recreation, water quality, etc. (Daly-Hassen et al., 2017). Similarly, individual households/private forest owners undertake different activities to increase their incomes (overgrazing, illegal logging, deforestation), leading to the reduction of social and regulation services that benefit local inhabitants, society and the global community (Daly-Hassen et al., 2010).

According to the INFORMED project that commenced in 2015 and remains ongoing, both the frequency and intensity of disturbances are expected to increase and modify the value of forest ecosystem services. This research project encompasses different Mediterranean countries, developing knowledge on the topic.[1]

The value of Mediterranean forest ecosystem services

Concept and methods of economic valuation

Economists developed a set of methods to estimate the economic value of goods and services, including those that are not marketed. There are two main methodological groups: revealed preference methods and stated preference methods (Riera and Signorello, 2012). The revealed preference methods express the value of the direct or indirect use or consumption of a good, while the stated preference methods can also account for non-use values, mostly using surveys based on hypothetical markets. The aggregation of use and non-use values (Figure 4.16) is often referred to as “total economic value” (TEV).[2]

The choice of method depends on the objectives of the study and the researcher’s familiarity with the different methods. Final selection will depend on: (i) the type and number of services to be valued; (ii) relevant population (e.g. users or non-users, geographical scope); (iii) data availability; (iv) availability of time and financial resources; and (v) team capacities.

When high levels of uncertainty and sensitivity surround the final result (not uncommon in the TEV technique), alternative methods to evaluate specific components of the TEV are recommended.

Some values of forest goods and services

The first attempt at valuing forest goods and services in 18 Mediterranean countries can be traced back to 2005 (Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). This was followed by a study financed by the French Global Environment Facility (FFEM) in selected sites in Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, and Turkey, focused on selected goods and services (Plan Bleu, 2015) (Box 4.16). A third and more recent study (Masiero et al., 2016), focused on the economic valuation of a selected set of services at a national level. Other national studies were also run in several countries to update the results of the first economic valuation and/or to investigate the impact of natural hazards and major changes such as climate change.

In southern and eastern Mediterranean countries, the main results of Merlo and Croitoru’s 2005 study shows that the estimated value of grazing and NWFP is higher than that of wood products. Watershed protection has the second highest value after grazing. The value of carbon sequestration is small due to low wood increment (Table 4.8). In certain cases, economic values are negative. This means that estimated social costs of poor forest management are higher than estimated forest benefits (e.g. forest fires) (Campos et al., 2007). Masiero et al. (2016) show similar results for NWFP and carbon, but place a much higher value on wood, especially in eastern Mediterranean countries. This higher value occurred because the study considered average export and import wood prices rather than local market prices.

Wood has the highest value in most northern Mediterranean countries, with some exceptions: Portugal (cork), southeast France (recreational uses) and Greece and Albania (fodder) (Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). Here, animal production is much less dependent on forest areas than in southern Mediterranean countries. As a result, less importance is attached to forage production (Daly-Hassen et al., 2010). The value of watershed protection and carbon sequestration were incomplete and probably underestimated in the Daly-Hassen et al. (2010) study. The Masiero et al. (2016) study, which considered the market price of four goods and services (timber, firewood, NWFP and carbon sequestration), found that timber and firewood prevailed over other services with 64 and 24 percent of estimated total value respectively (while NWFP attained 9 percent and carbon sequestration only 2 percent of total value). Care should be taken when considering this data, however, as NWFP data is often insufficient and assumptions about its value must be made. Figures related to NWFP could therefore be underestimated.

The second study on southern and eastern Mediterranean countries (Daly-Hassen, 2016) shows that the value of ecosystem services will vary as a function of the forest type, location and local demand (Table 4.9). This study also demonstrates that the development of recreational activities and production of NWFP improves the contribution of forest ecosystems to the well-being of local and national populations. This justifies investments to improve the status of forest ecosystems in order to maintain their capacity to supply goods and services.

A choice experiment[3] was performed in both Spain and Tunisia in 2007-2008 (Daly-Hassen et al., 2017; Mavsar and Riera, 2007). The Spanish and Tunisian studies use almost identical attributes (with the exception of biodiversity) to express attribute units and annual payment formats, making them suitable for comparison. The estimated values of all services are higher in Spain, which may reflect different environmental priorities, as well as socioeconomic differences between the two populations (Table 4.10). Estimates regarding erosion, forest fires and recreation are similar, but values attached to access for forest uses differ more significantly. Nevertheless, they reflect different types of uses: in Tunisia, neighbouring communities are predominantly interested in grazing, while mushroom picking is an important recreational use in Spain. The largest difference is in the value of sequestering CO_2, which differs in one order of magnitude.

The number of studies into ecosystem service values and their vulnerability to global changes in the Mediterranean basin is growing. This is enhancing awareness and interest by decision-makers in economic valuation as a tool to justify and guide forest investments and ecosystems development. These assessments can inform the decision-making process, enabling policy-makers to better understand the impacts of their policies and to adjust them if necessary. These mechanisms can highlight the distributive effects of different policy options for different stakeholders.

Negative impacts on human well-being: disservices

The concept of ecosystem services as the benefits provided by ecosystems to human well-being is well studied. But ecosystems may also produce negative effects. Vaz et al. (2017) presents a typology of ecosystem disservices, defined as negative impacts affecting: human health (allergic reactions or intoxications, transmission of zoonotic diseases), infrastructure (damaged by roots), security and safety (fire-prone vegetation due to dense biomass stands), culture (unpopular species) and recreation (presence of weeds, pests or mosquitoes).

There are few studies about these potential negative impacts in Mediterranean forests (von Döhren and Haase, 2015). A study was conducted in Tunisia in 2012 on damage caused by wild boars on agricultural land adjoining forests. The cost of damage was estimated using the costs of protection (fencing) at EUR 178 200/year in 2012.

Lack of management can cause loss and degradation of ecosystem services, and/or induce a disservice. In the case of Mediterranean forests, Merlo and Croitoru (2005) assessed costs of forest degradation due to lack of management in different Mediterranean countries. These costs were estimated at 15 percent of TEV in Morocco, 7 percent in Algeria, 17 percent in the Syrian Arab Republic, 13 percent in Turkey, 51 percent in Greece and 20 percent in Italy. The costs of degradation were estimated to reach EUR 17 million in Tunisia in 2012, representing about 13 percent of the TEV of forest services (Daly-Hassen et al., 2012).

Limitations of economic valuation

The valuation of ecosystem services should support decision-making, particularly when decisions involve trade-offs between different services and service beneficiaries.

Methods used to value intangible services necessitate numerous assumptions and stakeholder participation. Because each study has a different context and stakeholder sample, results contrast significantly. It is therefore essential that studies clearly state and justify their hypotheses and involve as many stakeholder groups as possible to describe the variety of values associated with a specific forest ecosystem. Moreover, contrasting results against other studies and providing the rationale for their differences is important to facilitate effective use of the results. If differences are barely acknowledged or understood, stakeholders may use the results in a way that supports their point of view, leading to misunderstandings rather than facilitating dialogue.

Socioeconomic valuation techniques are flexible enough to respond to specific contexts. However, stakeholders should not seek to misuse this flexibility to support their opinion/position or to affect value. For example, the travel cost method – commonly used to estimate recreation values – can take into account the opportunity cost of time in contexts where individuals could instead have engaged in a remunerated activity. However, people rarely make a choice between leisure and paid work and the value may therefore be overestimated. Inappropriate use of this method creates confusion and leads to mistrust in the results.

Clear communication about results, including their explanation, meaning and possible use, is required.

Economic valuation to change forest management scenarios

Despite its methodological limitations, economic valuation can support the decision-making process, the design of management techniques and provide information.

Evaluation of management scenarios: cost-benefit and multi-criteria analyses

This use of cost-benefit analysis is a common decision-making technique used to evaluate diverse forest management options. This technique was used in two watersheds in Tunisia to analyse technical management treatments affecting forest cover. Watershed forests are expected to reduce water erosion through run-off, increase water availability and carbon sequestration. The costs and benefits of improved management were estimated both ecologically and monetarily, using market prices and economic valuation for non-market assets. The traditional financial cost-benefit analysis of management improvements in the BouHertma watershed provided a positive Net Present Value[4] (NPV) and a 13 percent internal rate of return.[5] The Marguellil watershed management improvements, however, presented a negative NPV and a lower IRR (9 percent). When including non-market effects such as erosion prevention, water availability and flooding occurrence, the indicators in the cost-benefit analysis changed substantially: NPV for Marguelil interventions became positive and its IRR increased to 18 percent, while in BouHertma the IRR reached 23 percent. In conclusion, accounting for off-site, non-market and social costs and benefits highlighted the additional welfare gain of the watershed projects, demonstrating high overall profitability (Cesaro et al., 1998).

When beneficiaries will not consider an exchange value for some ecosystem services (i.e. will not accept any decrease in the supply of one ecosystem service, even in exchange for compensation), the ecosystem service value may not be well reflected in typical valuation exercises. The multi-criteria analysis solves this limitation by evaluating preferences between different characteristics and outcomes of alternative forest management scenarios without requiring the use of monetary units. A study in the Valencia region (Spain) was conducted on several ecosystem services in preparation for a regional action plan on forests (Maroto Álvarez et al., 2013). Stakeholders attached greatest weight (an average of 40 percent) to environmental criteria (hydrological regulation and erosion, climate change mitigation and biodiversity). Social criteria (employment, recreational activities and landscape) were weighted at 38 percent and economic criteria (wood, hunting and fishing, livestock, renewable energies, rural tourism and mining) at 22 percent. A comparison of stakeholder preferences against the public budget revealed that while most public funds were assigned to fire prevention and extinction (with an emphasis on extinction), stakeholders attached less weight to these criteria. The budget ratio directed towards forest infrastructure also exceeded stakeholder preferences. Conversely, investment in forest research remained under-resourced.

Mapping the value of ecosystem services

Mapping the value of ecosystem services using spatially explicit models, in conjunction with valuation methods and considering climate change impacts, helps decision-makers to identify management options that optimize the overall value of forest goods and services (Bateman et al., 2013). In Europe, mapping ecosystem services remains peripheral, generally used to obtain better land allocation and justify the protection of specific ecosystems. Many countries contributed to the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services atlas (Maes et al., 2011). Italy, Greece and Cyprus prepared biophysical maps showing erosion risk, landscapes with recreational potential, etc. Spain conducted a national evaluation and France, in the process of completing its evaluation, will include a component on forest ecosystems. However, as far as most regulation and social services are concerned, economic valuation is still in its infancy (Forest Europe, 2014).

Economic valuation for setting up economic instruments

Ecosystem service preferences are generally studied individually using surveys. Alternative approaches, which include greater participation by civil society, have attracted attention in recent years. The FFEM project tested different participatory governance techniques, leading to shared diagnoses and prioritized forest ecosystem services (Gouriveau, 2016).

Both individual and participatory valuation methodologies equip decision-makers with sound information on social demand for intangible goods and on the complex biophysical consequences of diverse forest management options. These results can be used as a technical tool to design (or justify existing) economic instruments to guide decisions by forest managers and users.

Possible options for enhancing the value of forest goods and services

Even if they are not marketed, ecosystem services have economic value. This value can be used to communicate and increase public awareness about the importance of ecosystem services for human life. These services can also be marketed, thus providing an opportunity to motivate potential suppliers and increase consumer awareness about the value of the ecosystem services. To realize this option in practice, the economic value of an individual ecosystem service and value chain must be calculated or estimated. At the same time, value chains must also be activated (see Section “The value of Mediterranean forest ecosystem services” and Chapter 6).

An overview of instruments used to capture forest benefits, including examples from the Mediterranean region, are available in Croitoru and Liagre (2013). This section focuses on value chains and their potential to enhance the value of forest ecosystem services within the Mediterranean basin.

Value chains in the forestry sector

Value chains link ecosystem services suppliers and users in a specific market, often involving different actors (aggregators, processors, traders, etc.) along the commercialization process (Boxes 4.17 and 4.18). In the forestry sector, products such as industrial timber and woody biomass[6] have structured and (quite) well-understood value chains (Shabani et al., 2013). This is also the case for certain domesticated, non-timber forest products based on agroforestry (e.g. cork; de Fátima Ferreiro and Sousa, 2005). The value-chains of wild forest products (e.g. truffles, mushrooms, berries, nuts, medicinal plants) are often less structured and poorly understood, with limited official information available about their size, added value, stakeholders and inter-linkages (Vidale et al., 2015). Non-material ecosystem services – such as water protection, biodiversity, recreation and cultural services – will be more or less advanced depending on the maturity and structure of the market and the degree to which quality information is available (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002). This is also the case for carbon sequestration and cultural services.

Options for value chain development in Mediterranean countries

Wood products. In Mediterranean countries, wood value chains have been analysed with a special focus on value chains for pulp and paper (eucalyptus and pine plantations) and, more recently, biomass for energy (Ketikidis et al., 2016; Shabani et al., 2013; Scarlat et al., 2015).

There are several reasons for promoting shorter value chains in Mediterranean countries: reconnecting domestic production with local consumption would reactivate management of abandoned forests, reducing fire risks; provide employment opportunities in rural areas; and help to maintain hydro-geological stability and landscapes, etc. The development of a short, local supply chain would also be consistent with EU policies calling for the promotion of wood mobilization, i.e. increased forest removals and the adoption of a cascade use of wood. The latter involves “prioritizing the forest outputs that have higher added-value, create more jobs and contribute to a better carbon balance” (European Commission, 2013). According to this approach, wood should be utilized to the highest level technically possible based on an order of priorities, from wood-based products with a long service life (building material, furniture, etc.) to bioenergy. After primary use is established, the cascade approach should be followed according to an order of priorities. For example, wood-based products with long service life should be reused or recycled (e.g. to produce panels) before being burnt for bio-energy and, if needed, disposed.[7]

Short value chains can be activated by introducing tools such as: long-term management agreements and contracts with service providers and consultants (e.g. Italy’s “network contracts;” Abatangelo et al., 2016); biomass concentration and trade centres that facilitate the selection and grading of wood assortments produced within a certain area and the provision of additional services (de-barking, chipping, drying, sale management, etc.); and land banking, as occurs in the farming sector, to reduce fragmentation of private ownership, land abandonment and the tragedy of the anti-commons (Heller, 1998).

Non-wood forest products (NWFP). In Mediterranean countries, NWFPs include a large variety of products: those intended for mass markets (cork, chestnut); specialties (truffles) and various niche markets (P. pinea seeds, argan nuts); new, emerging products (resin, “tree water,” products for foraging); and old, sometimes declining products (spontaneous medicinal plants). Short value chains for many of these products may increase income generation in rural areas by linking local producers to local and external buyers. These can be promoted as emblematic products (“genius loci”) in territorial marketing initiatives that brand a geographic area and facilitate stakeholder networking (the “blueberry valley,” the “chestnut trial,” the “Boletus roads”). These types of value chains have been successfully developed in Mediterranean countries, including through new channels such as e-marketing using social media and online sales. Some critical issues must, however, be carefully considered. First, failing to reach minimum and stable product volumes is a potential problem (wild production volumes are influenced by climate variability and seasonality). Private pickers frequently collect and sell wild products in informal markets. They may have limited capacity and/or willingness to collaborate in consortia, cooperatives or similar associations. Sometimes, their property rights are not compatible with or easily promoted via commercial value chains (e.g. in Greece all NWFPs are owned by the State; mushrooms can be collected for free in most forest areas in Spain). The possibility of developing value chains for food and medicinal and aromatic plants is affected by legislation relating to origin and tracking (i.e. rules linked with transparency, an issue associated with clear definitions and implementation of property rights and fiscal regulations).[8] In Moroccan cork oak forests, acorns are collected for animal and human consumption. Over the last few years, an informal market has developed. Although forbidden by law, acorn value is such that illegal trade continues to occur. While these informal markets provide a revenue source for local populations, the intense collection of acorns endangers the ecosystems and, consequently, other ecosystem services. This situation requires a more integrated valuation model that takes into account both rural community interests and the importance of preventing illegal and unsustainable harvesting. When NWFP markets develop, measures may need to be taken to ensure sustainable harvesting through community-based management or regulation and enforcement. Monitoring is often one of the first steps to be implemented, eventually with community and science combining information.

Services. In Mediterranean countries, recreation, landscape and water protection are all key ecosystem services, but many others may be relevant to local contexts (e.g. biodiversity, carbon sequestration, soil erosion control, etc.; Blondel, 2006). Payments for Environmental Services (PES) mechanisms (Wunder, 2007) are tested or implemented as instruments for assigning a financial value and commercializing ecosystem services (Engel et al., 2008). They are particularly successful if applied locally (Gatto et al., 2014). What matters is that the basis of any PES should include a possible value chain. A well-defined ecosystem service is delivered by at least one supplier to at least one buyer on the basis of a (voluntary) contractual agreement and a commercial transaction between the two parties. The mechanism requires that the provider secure ecosystem service provision (Wunder, 2005) and often includes intervention by an intermediary.[9] While PES appears easy in theory, its practical implementation is often very complex. To design and implement value chains is a challenging task for both policy makers and innovative entrepreneurs or NGOs. Initial issues often relate to property rights to the ecosystem services (Mauerhofer et al., 2013). The owner of the land is not necessarily the owner of the ecosystem services, for example in the case of carbon credits (Hepburn, 2009). A second issue relates to the technical difficulties in finding evidence of a causal relationship between management practices and changes to the ecosystem services (Pettenella et al., 2012). This creates problems in identifying added value and its correct distribution amongst suppliers (if there are many), thus raising problems of equity. New contractual agreements and legal frameworks must be formulated and updated to replace existing models that are too complex, rigid and obsolete (Pettenella et al., 2012).

Bottlenecks and future directions for developing value chains

Value chains can usefully enhance the value of goods and services derived from Mediterranean forests. Value chains should be legally feasible, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally friendly. Depending on the specific product or service, establishing a value chain can be complex, requiring multifaceted case-by-case solutions. However, a couple of general remarks are worth mentioning here.

New and innovative agreements and policy reforms should be designed to regulate property rights, relationships between suppliers (typically landowners and forest managers), buyers and end users of a product or service. Institutional and organizational innovations are needed here (Weiss et al., 2001). These are particularly important in the case of ecosystem service value chains in which forest owners must learn how to interact and make contractual commitments with new, non-forest stakeholders (e.g. tourism and travel agencies, water sector companies, health care services), build novel (and thus far unknown) inter-sectoral networks and speak “new languages” (see Chapter 12). To a large extent, the development of these value chains depends on the promotion of public-private partnerships, especially in state forests. A relationship of shared benefits will guarantee sustainable management, resource conservation and improved well-being for forest users.

Main conclusions and recommendations

Economic valuation is a useful tool to educate decision-makers and society about the value of ecosystem services. In the Mediterranean, valuing products and services is highly relevant because a large portion of the benefits derived from forests are not marketed. In this context, economic valuation becomes a tool to support decision-making directed towards forest ecosystem conservation and development. Various studies show that developing recreational activities and producing NWFP can increase contributions by forest ecosystems to the well-being of local and national populations and reduce damage to ecosystems, if this development is accompanied by sustainability measures. This increased well-being justifies investments to conserve, develop and exploit forest ecosystems sustainably. It is also a tool to support the design and implementation of incentives, compensation and PES mechanisms.

Assessments of goods and services also serve as a basis for negotiating and reaching compromises between stakeholders. The link between an economic valuation of goods and services and participatory governance initiatives emerges through the identification of win-win situations (see Chapter 12) that compromise to resolve conflicts and even co-manage agreements.

Weaknesses are largely related to the methods used and the availability of data, the absence of which is a major weakness making it difficult to accurately assess the value of goods and services.

Three overall recommendations are:

•Improve knowledge and build capacity. There is a need to teach economic valuation tools and to train forest administrations and forest managers (capacity building). Local communities and stakeholders should be educated about the value of different ecosystem services from which they benefit. They should be invited to participate in the valuation process in order to witness its practical implementation, provide information and understand the results.

•Integrate economic valuation as a tool to support forest management decisions. Cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria analysis are used to compare different management options (as opposed to business as usual) and to identify the most advantageous option for the owner or society. This assessment helps target those operations with the greatest social impact and determine the economic consequences (i.e. gains and losses) for all stakeholders.

•Develop economic instruments to encourage multipurpose forest management/reduce degradation.

This involves identifying and developing economic instruments and funding mechanisms to attain a compromise between the forest owner/forest manager, local users and off-site beneficiaries of ecosystem services. The switch to a more sustainable management type may require an initial investment. In such situations, the instruments should provide for compensation over a limited period to those stakeholders who suffer initial losses. Traditional incentive systems and market-based economic tools (such as compensation mechanisms and Payments for Environmental Services) should be considered. Contractual measures (contracts, co-management agreements, collective management) between the manager and users and/or beneficiaries of the service should also be explored to ensure the sustainability of the service.

14 Financial incentives and tools for Mediterranean forests

Elena Górriz-Mifsud, EFIMED
Miguel Bugalho, University of Lisbon
Giulia Corradini, University of Padova
Pilar Valbuena, UVa

Public sector expenditure in the forest sector: state of the art

Forestry interventions generally constitute medium to long-term investments. Anticipated cash returns and associated risks along with consequent externalities, often justify the requirements for public funding to cover some costs. These revenues are assigned from the general Treasury, often complemented by earmarked taxes, concessions or public service fees or private or international funds (discussed further in subsequent sections). Budget distribution will depend on forest ownership, taking the form of allotments for the Forest Service and related agencies (including public forest enterprises), or subsidies to municipalities and private forest managers.

From a fundraising stability perspective, budgetary allotments largely depend on fluctuations in economic policy. Public fees charge for a service offered by the Forest Service, such as tree marking. Concession fees reflect the costs that concession-holders incur in exchange for obtaining exclusive management rights over a piece of public forest during a prescribed period (e.g. eco-tourism in Tunisia). Earmarked taxes penalize selected activities and their derived funds are consigned to certain actions, leaving a low margin for political fluctuations. A few municipalities in Catalonia (Spain), for example, have introduced a tax on homes situated at the wildland-urban interface to cover the costs of installing fire prevention strips (e.g. Matarò, Vallirana, Argentona). Yet the volatility of tax-derived budget depends on the demand elasticity of the taxed asset.

From a budget allocation perspective, subsidies and grants reflect policy preferences. Non-state beneficiaries (e.g. municipalities, industrial or private landowners) receive incentives to (or not to) implement or address selected forestry measures or apply certain requirements. Subsidies often target the provision of forest externalities (e.g. biodiversity, fire prevention). The European Union Common Agricultural Policy constitutes the largest subsidy scheme for forest management in Mediterranean Europe (Box 4.19). The Policy’s Rural Development Programme is funded through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and Members co-finance its measures with additional national public funds. Non-EU Mediterranean forests are mainly owned by the state. Therefore, instead of addressing private managers, subsidy schemes are directed to local communities of forest users (see Box 4.20).

Public expenditure is the backbone of forest management finance. Table 4.11 reflects public expenditure per hectare. The wide variations are partly explained by the different items under consideration: forest management and surveillance, administration staff, forest-related research and education, wildfire suppression corps, or protected areas.

Since 2007,[1] the Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) programme, under the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), has supported projects between EU Members and partner (e.g. MENA) countries. It includes a component on the Mediterranean Sea Basin (ENI-CBC-MED),[2] whose priority lines include climate change action (e.g. water-efficient forestry), boosting small businesses (e.g. NWFP value-chain networks, innovative eco-tourism) and civil-society engagement (e.g. social innovation projects in rural areas). These projects last between 24 and 36 months and are 90 percent funded. At least half of their allocated budget should be spent in non-EU countries. The first call for projects was launched in November 2017.

In addition to the EAFRD, EU Members can benefit from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund. The ERDF co-finances projects potentially related to forests within a territorial development measure, e.g. by supporting small and medium enterprises. The ERDF also co-finances transnational and interregional cooperation programmes (INTERREG), which can support forestry projects with activities such as monitoring systems, networks linked to forest fires, information sharing on climate change adaptation, sustainable use of bio-energy, etc.

Natura 2000 is the largest coordinated global network of protected areas, covering a substantial forest surface area. Forests falling within Natura 2000 areas count as part of the EU LIFE Instrument, which specifically dedicates about 50 percent of its budget to nature and biodiversity. LIFE has financed a vast range of projects for the management of forests in Natura 2000 areas. This tool is especially relevant in Mediterranean countries, which host comparably larger portions of land under Natura 2000 (ranging from 17 percent in France to 39 percent in Slovenia). Funds from LIFE instruments are applied through measures such as the fight against invasive alien species, implementation of sustainable management plans, habitat restoration and forest monitoring. Moreover, they contribute to Prioritized Action Frameworks supporting the management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites across a broad geographical area, such as a region or country (European Union, 2015). Financial efforts in the Mediterranean region are largely devoted to reducing the main pressures and threats to forest habitats and species: fire, unsustainable grazing, invasive alien species, pests and diseases, deforestation for land use change and natural system modifications (European Union, 2015).

Other possibilities exist under the Horizon 2020 programme, which supports activities related to research and innovation, including the public-private partnership on bio-based industries.

Diversity of financing approaches and mechanisms: current practices and perspectives

Forest management expenditure can be derived from other funding sources in both the public and private sector. Subsection “National Forest Funds” deals with Forest/Green Funds, which have precedence in some countries. Subsequent subsections deal mainly with innovative financial mechanisms applied in different settings across the Mediterranean.

National Forest Funds

The forest-related activities of some Mediterranean governments are delivered (at least in part) through institutional mechanisms known as “National Forest Funds” or “National Green Funds” (Figure 4.18). Some countries complement their general budget with specific funds derived from earmarked taxes or fees. The Croatian Green Fund, for example, directs 0.0265 percent of professional turnover for use in forestry treatments carried out by public enterprises, such as wildfire prevention, forest research, or the delivery of forest management plans in private forests (Krajter Ostoic´ et al., 2015). This fund was established in 1980 to support the management of forests in karst areas (which have high ecosystem services value, but a low wood value), but has been implemented continuously since 1990 through an initial 0.07 percent tax (equivalent to 0.12-0.13 percent of the Croatian GDP) (Coello, 2011).

The Portuguese Permanent Forest Fund[3] is fed by an eco-tax on oil products (0.05 EUR/litre for gasoline and 0.25 EUR/litre for diesel in 2003). The consolidated funds are predominantly used for wildfire prevention, with additional support from EAFRD funds (i.e. cost-sharing grants). The fund aims to tackle three challenges simultaneously: wildfires, land fragmentation and abandonment of forestry practices. It therefore incentivizes joint forest management focused on Forest Intervention Zones (ZIF). The ZIF is a group of private forest owners (at least 50) whose land covers more than 750 ha and has a minimum of 100 individual land parcels (Valente et al., 2013). In addition, a conglomerate of forest owners totaling 5 percent of a continuous area is sufficient to constitute a ZIF. Usually driven by an intermediary association, ZIF provides opportunities to broaden forestry planning and facilitate landscape-level strategies for wildfire prevention and wood mobilization. Each year, the Permanent Forest Fund finances projects to develop a five-year forest management plan and a 25-year fire prevention strategy. From 2005 to 2012, 162 ZIF were endorsed, representing more than 845 000 ha of land and corresponding to 24 percent of the national forest area (Valente et al., 2013).

The Greek Green Fund is funded by fines imposed for breaching building regulations and environmental legislation, as well as entry fees (chiefly the Samaria Gorge National Park). Its income was intended to fund environmental protection, improvement and restoration programmes, including forest and national parks management. However, Greek commitments shifted following its economic crisis, and 97.5 percent of the Green Fund is now allocated for general state expenses, the remaining 2.5 percent directed towards environmental projects (Murray, 2015).

In the southern rim, the Moroccan National Forest Fund budget is derived from forest harvesting fees paid by forestry firms. It is used for promoting afforestation and reforestation, forest research and to indemnify local users for the loss of forest usage rights (Box 4.20).

The Slovenian National Farm Land and Forest Fund,[4] established by the Forest Act (2010), is fed by state forest concession fees. The Fund manages state forests and acts as state landowner representative. The Forest Act provides that all forest owners contribute a part of their cadastral income from forests (fee) to the maintenance of forest roads, while the state contributes 35 percent of total funds. Fees from forest owners are collected in a single account and later divided between municipalities. Municipalities, in the cooperation with the Slovenia Forest Institute, provide for the implementation of forest road maintenance works.

Since 2009, the region of Lombardy (Italy) has had a Green Fund to compensate for impacts caused by development projects (Bennett et al., 2017a) by charging a levy of between 1.5-5 percent against development projects. The department of Finance of Lombardy Region manages this fund, which is used to make permanent environmental improvements within the affected municipality. It assigns funds to municipalities to carry out eligible projects in accordance with priority areas or ecosystem aspects outlined in i.a. the Italian Forest Plan and regional Ecological Network Plans. In 2017, about 18 percent of the total funds collected since 2009 (nearly EUR 1 million) were used for 63 projects covering 16 ha of forest, 5 ha of hedgerows and 38 ha of silvicultural improvements.

In contrast with the above, the annual budget of some funds is politically determined, drawn from the central budget. The Spanish Natural Patrimony and Biodiversity Fund, for example, is not operational, but does have the potential to channel aid to municipal and private landowners. Moreover, the government-dependant Foundation (Fundación Biodiversidad) channels subsidies and grants towards improving natural areas, often serving a co-financing instrument for EU LIFE projects.

The Lebanese “Reforestation Fund” (so-called Sandouk al Tahrij) was established under its 1949 Forest Law, but is not operational. In theory, it should receive funding for public afforestation activities derived from forestry infraction fines (Ministry of Environment et al., 2015). Rosenbaum and Lindsay (2001) report on other funds in Mediterranean countries. The Albanian earmarked income from state forests (Law 8302, 1998) receives 70 percent of funds generated by grazing fees, wood sales or hunting permits and is used to tend forests, support forest nurseries and afforestation, fauna protection, forest road maintenance and fire prevention, among other activities. The Tunisian silvopastoral development fund incentivizes participation in wood and forage production to improve the socioeconomic conditions of forest populations.

Payments for ecosystem services

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) consist of transactions in which ecosystem services beneficiaries reward ecosystem services providers for either executing an action that boosts the quality or quantity of an ecosystem service beyond the status quo, or for giving up a planned action that would result in ecosystem services depletion. Forest ecosystem services providers voluntarily engage in PES and public or private actors can manage PES systems. Several local-scale PES initiatives affect Mediterranean forests.

Watershed investments. Forest management activities are among the most important actions undertaken in the context of watershed investments that are transactions for activities related to the maintenance and enhancement of watershed services (Bennett and Ruef, 2016). In Italy, several water boards or regional parks make agreements with landowners for management activities to improve flood controls. In a mountain basin in Tuscany, for example, the “Land Stewards” project makes payments to farmers and forest owners for their contribution to flood control and involvement in forest hydrology operations (Bennett et al., 2017a). In Romagna, a public water company directs a part of its revenue towards payments for forest management to improve water quality (Box 4.21). Similarly, a water supplier in the Gulf of Saint-Tropez (southern France) pays a consortium to manage upstream forests to avoid sedimentation in La Verne reservoir (Box 4.21). In France, several private and public contractual agreements between stakeholders involved in water management support the general delivery of water quality (e.g. the company Danone was able to improve the management of 7 300 ha of land for bottled water purposes) (Bennett et al., 2017b). In Catalonia (Spain), the water bottling company Aguas Font Vella y Lanjarón S.A. provides payments to landowners for reducing the environmental impact of their activities on the land (Russi, 2010).

Habitat banking. Offset mechanisms compensate for inevitable impacts by improving environmental assets either in the location where the loss is incurred or elsewhere. Habitat reduction is often the result of infrastructure and urban development, affecting a number of plants and animals. In order to uphold the “zero-biodiversity loss” principle (adopted in the EU through the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy), habitat banks provide a brokerage service through flora and fauna indicators (i.e. credits) in the execution of forest improvement actions elsewhere. In the EU, three regulatory frameworks include these compensatory mitigation elements: the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Environmental Liability Directive and Environmental Impact Assessment frameworks. Each one is transposed into national law by EU Members. In addition, some countries have their own national or subnational policies. A French regulation, for example, obliges development companies to offset their biodiversity impacts. To facilitate such compensation the Caisse des Dépôts Bank created the CDC Biodiversité (Biodiversity Offset Supply), which provides offset credits for habitat, species and ecosystem functions. In Lombardy (Italy), the “Green Fund” mentioned above collects the financial compensation provided to all municipalities for the loss of agricultural land as a result of development projects. These funds are then used for environmental improvements (management of wildlife corridors, urban forests, hedgerows) within these areas (Bennett et al., 2017a).

Forest access fees. The increasing use of forests for recreational purposes can conflict with other forest functions, but also provides opportunities to finance recreational infrastructure or forest management. A range of usage fees are charged, such as:

•fee for road use: e.g. car access to Malniu lake, Spain;

•parking fee: e.g. Parrissal de Beceite or Montrebei gorge, Spain;

•hiking Fee: e.g. Al-Shaouf Cedar reserve, Lebanon; Cinque Terre or Gorropu Canyon, Italy; Samaria Gorge, Greece; all protected areas in Israel and Jordan;

•camping fee: e.g. use of the municipal forest of Pinar Grande in Soria, Spain, for summer camps;

•fee for other outdoor activities, such as cycling or horse riding (e.g. Puig de Massanella, Spain), or adventure parks and geocaching (e.g. Casaboli Ecocampus, Italy).

Fees generally range between EUR 2-10 per person. The amount is based on visitors’ willingness to pay rather than the actual costs of ecosystem services provision. As a result of the expansion of orienteering and trail running competitions in recent years, some institutions have rewarded owners who grant access to their land for such activities. By using new technologies, the Landscare[5] initiative (Spain) provides an online platform for eco-tourists to “e-meet” landowners whose forest they are visiting and gives them an opportunity to make a donation.

Harvest fees for non-wood forest products. Some landowners (municipalities, private owners or their associations) have sought a fee for mushroom or truffle picking on their property (Italy, France, Spain). The amounts vary depending on the origin and objective of those seeking to pick this produce: commercial pickers often pay larger fees than recreational pickers and there is generally positive discrimination towards local inhabitants (Prokofieva et al. (2017)). If permit revenues are invested into ecosystem restoration and enhancement (especially those activities aimed at ensuring the provision of non-wood forest products, e.g. mycosilviculture), the result is a PES-type mechanism.

Biodiversity payments. The global Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)[6] provides finance to NGOs and private sector organizations for executing projects focused on biodiversity hotspots in developing and transitional countries. CEPF donors are: the French Development Agency, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. Examples of Mediterranean projects under the CEPF are: the integrated management of Drini River basin (Albania) through reforestation, bioengineering and improvement of pasturelands; and the community management of medicinal plants in Morocco’s Atlas Mountains.

Other initiatives channel private funds in European countries. In 2011, WWF catalysed financial support from Coca-Cola Portugal for sustainable forest management practices in private cork woodlands (Box 4.22). In Spain, the Selvans Initiative channels private and public donations to purchase 25-year harvesting rights to old-growth forests for the purposes of biodiversity conservation (2008-present). Average compensation depends on the timber market value of the species and ranges between EUR 500-900/ha, provided as a one-time payment (Górriz Mifsud, 2013). An underused option for EU Mediterranean countries is the Natural Capital Financing Facility,[7] part of the European Investment Bank and LIFE programme. This financial tool finances projects between EUR 1-3 million in Natura 2000 zones. These include PES-type mechanisms, biodiversity offsets and green infrastructure. Both public and private entities are eligible for funding.

Climate finance

Several international mechanisms focus their funding on carbon sequestration with a view to tackling climate change. These provide opportunities for Mediterranean countries, mainly in the south and east.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+). This is a multilateral fund established by the Durban climate negotiations at the Seventeenth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. REDD+ compensates sustainable land management that reduces CO_2 emissions by avoiding deforestation and degradation. Conceived as an improvement on the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, REDD+ involves funding commitments from 2013-2020 by the most polluting countries. Its conceptualization is equivalent to a carbon PES. Yet the official REDD+ design is yet to be finalized. In the meantime, several international initiatives are financing its preparatory phases, including emissions reductions (UN-REDD, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), EU-REDD). Due to ecological constraints for CO_2 sequestration in MENA countries compared to tropical wood growth rates, REDD+ strategies have not prioritized the Mediterranean basin. The effort countries employ in the verification of CO_2 sequestration may not always exceed the foreseen revenues. Some forestation projects could, however, be of local significance. Morocco and Tunisia are UN-REDD member countries and Tunisia has received preparatory support from FCPF. As part of the AFD/FFEM project,[8] Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey have developed the Cost-Benefit Analysis component on REDD+ readiness.[9]

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA). NAMA facilitates carbon emissions reductions by developing countries with developed country support. The main difference with REDD+ is that NAMA addresses all sectors, not only forestry. Of the MENA countries, only Lebanon has joined NAMA thus far through its Afforestation and Reforestation Programme to plant 40 million trees in 70 000 ha. This programme is expected to sequester nearly 933 000 tonnes of CO_2, in addition to co-benefits (Ministry of Environment et al., 2015).

The Green Climate Fund. This fund was established by the UNFCCC in 2010 and began mobilizing resources in 2014. Its aims to help developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. Investments can be in the form of grants, loans, equity or guarantees. In the MENA region, only Morocco has participated so far, through its project to develop Argan orchards in degraded environments.[10]

The Global Climate Change Alliance, Germany’s International Climate Initiative, Climate Investment Funds and Adaptation Fund provide further options for climate financing for Mediterranean countries.

Private investments in value chains (with direct financial returns)

Finance strategies usually include one or more of the following: equity financing (shares), debt financing (loans, bonds), venture capital (risk shares), or public capital market (stock trade). Venture capital and capital markets are compatible with enterprises relating to marketed forest products such as timber, bioenergy and cork.

Impact investments. More adapted than REDD+ to the Mediterranean context, the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Fund is a public-private fund managed by a private company (Mirova) and initiated by UNCCD to accompany the LDN target by 2030. Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Syrian Arab Republic, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Croatia and Italy are some of the participating countries. The LDN Fund intends to make land degradation neutrality profitable by supporting rehabilitation projects suggested by land managers and generating revenue streams from sustainable production in upgraded lands. LDN financing therefore expects both social and biodiversity impacts, but also financial returns for fund shareholders.

The Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) mechanism is part of the multi-donor Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund established by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), in which the World Bank serves as the trustee. ABS, which became operational in 2011, aims to fund activities under the Nagoya Protocol. It supports projects that encourage engagement with the private sector to explore the economic potential of genetic resources and facilitate the transfer of appropriate technologies. Through these projects, countries should generate additional information to increase understanding about their ABS capacities and needs, with a focus on existing policies, laws and regulations affecting genetic resources (GIZ, 2012). Proposals should be endorsed by the national GEF Focal Point and submitted to the GEF Secretariat through one of its eighteen GEF agencies. The bilateral “Adaptation to climate change – Implementing the Nagoya Protocol” project, as implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, is a Mediterranean example.[11] That project involved the development of a legal and institutional framework as well as ABS compliant value chains in two pilot regions, Souss Massa Drâa and Tadla-Azilal (Morocco).

Private financial instruments. Examples of equity financing (i.e. by shareholders) are found in Spain’s Bosques Naturales and Maderas Nobles del Segura. Unfortunately, both initiatives went bankrupt due to improper management and inaccurate financial analyses. For example, their studies anticipated overly optimistic growth rates and low biotic and abiotic risk assessment. Moreover, market prices may adjust differently over the long-term in ways that are not foreseen. Lessons can be learned from these examples for future equity financing initiatives. In Portugal, Floresta Atlântica S.A. is a recent public-private shareholding. The State participates via the Institute of Financing for Agriculture and Fishing and holds 40.5 percent of the share capital. The private investors are five Portuguese banks that each own a 11.9 percent share. The investment strategy includes the acquisition of rustic and/or mixed agricultural land holdings to develop forestry and nature tourism projects. Wood production occurs mainly through replanting and managing existing stands, especially Pinus pinaster. For wood production, the fund emphasizes risk reduction through a specific strategy for wildfire prevention. They also re-parcel land in order to achieve economically sustainable productive units from highly fragmented properties. Non-wood forest products are also being promoted (e.g. hunting, fungi and external rental for compatible activities).

Within debt finance, entrepreneurs engage in credit liabilities through commercial bank loans. In order to implement the Green Plan of Morocco, a financial alternative was established for those farmers who were excluded from traditional bank financing due to insufficient collateral. In 2007, Crédit Agricole du Maroc, in partnership with the state, created the finance company Tamwil El Fellah[12] to reach these farmers. This firm includes a guarantee fund that partly covers its risk. Tamwil El Fellah provides financing to small-scale forestry cooperatives producing NWFP (FAO and CTFC, 2016). These ethical banks are gaining traction, as they offer bank loans with lower interest rates than traditional counterparts. For example, Triodos bank has financed the activities of the Ambientea Co-op forest place nursery in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain).

Lastly, new and decentralized online private investment opportunities include crowd funding and venture philanthropies. Commercial (and especially ethical) banks and social stock markets/brokers are increasingly considering venture philanthropies among their business portfolios. While little has been done in this field so far, these channels will likely open doors for future financial developments. Moreover, different training and sponsorship opportunities for new nature-based entrepreneurs are available (e.g. ECOSTAR for global entrepreneurs, SwitchMed for Mediterranean-based ventures).

A recent study emphasizes the success of crowd funding in financing small-scale charity projects. About 70 percent of environmental, social and development projects proposed on crowd funding platforms reach the required funding target. This is a great opportunity for Mediterranean forest and landscape restoration initiatives. Examples of crowd funding for landscape restoration (with varied success) include Mirlo Positive Nature (Spain),[13] Adopt a Cedar Tree in the Shouf Biosphere Reserve and Zoomaal (both in Lebanon). Crowd funding was one of the funding options considered for the 40 Million Trees Initiative launched by the Ministry of Agriculture of Lebanon. The main challenge is the creation of a critical mass to fund the proposed initiative.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Firms are moving towards including environmental aspects in their business models beyond legal requirements as part of so-called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations. These companies allocate a budget that can fluctuate according to certain turnover variables. Budgets linked to production variables (e.g. emitted pollution) will be more stable. Legally, these transfers to forestry projects are donations or sponsorships, which some countries incentivize through tax levies. Moreover, these contributions help build a green image of the donating companies.

The variety of environmental CSR initiatives available often motivates companies to fund beneficiaries for green marketing purposes; in these cases CSR takes the form of regular, targeted payments. Examples of this include donations for the establishment of a new protected area along the Brenta River Forest (Veneto, Italy) and the Laisas Foundation’s donations to WWF Greece to strengthen local forest fire volunteer groups after the catastrophic wildfires of 2009. Through the Moroccan Crédit Agricole “green card,” companies can donate a percentage of their finances to forest management through the “Partnership for Moroccan Forests” programme. Similarly, a “green card” is issued by the Tunisian UBCI bank, contributing to forest management and the living conditions of related communities through the “Pact for a Green Tunisia” programme. While the above-mentioned European examples involve transactions between private agents, the Moroccan and Tunisian cases are examples of public-private partnerships based on coalitions with the public administration.

Some companies and individuals also invest in offsetting their carbon footprint through voluntary forestry projects within their countries or elsewhere. The Carbon Monitoring Group has been collecting data on voluntary forest carbon market initiatives in Italy since 2009 (such as LifeGate, AzzeroCO2,[14] Carbon Sink). So far, it has reported on more than 70 forest carbon projects, located both in Italy and abroad, for a transacted value of approximately EUR 5 million (Hamrick and Brotto, 2017). The LIFE-project CarboMark also attempted to create a structured institutional market in northern Italy. In Spain, HuellaCero[15] (CESEFOR-AGRESTA) offers other silvicultural works that increase Carbon sinks in Spanish forests. Moreover, Spain has established a national registry of voluntary emissions compensations, which acts as broker between polluting companies and a pool of carbon sink projects[16] in the form of afforestation of post-fire reforestations. An attempt for a structured market started in northern Italy through the LIFE-project CarboMark.[17]

From rural development donors to impact investors in ecosystem services

The previous sections demonstrate an increasing trend towards financing that goes beyond traditional wood production linked to measurable environmental and social impacts. Financing is progressively shifting from philanthropic donations towards risky investments in improving ecosystem services and assisting their dependant populations.

Most Mediterranean countries are considered emerging or frontier markets. Emerging countries can more easily attract financing from traditional investors (e.g. commercial banks), who seek high, medium-term return rates. By contrast, frontier market investors search for diversification and high returns that are often delivered over the long-term. Returns on forest-related investments will only be delivered over the long-term. Projects should therefore target forest investors who are not speculators with short-term liquidity needs. Instead, they should assess risk capacity in terms of time (“patience investments”). Ethical factors and social and environmental impacts will also reduce the risk aversion of investors in this field.

Business models will vary according to the type of initiative. Because public initiatives are funded by the taxpayer, governments can pursue relatively large, long-term projects. When the general budget is not sufficient for this purpose, governments can use specific tools, such as an earmarked fee (which is sometimes channelled through a specific fund). If the earmarked fee cannot be raised (as a result of the citizenry’s reduced purchasing power or the government’s inability to enforce it) external funding may be required. States may search for those large donors or investors who base their investment decisions on indicators such as project quality, country reputation and potential impact.

On the other hand, small initiatives, be they private (e.g. local companies, NGOs) or public (e.g. municipality-led) require more modest financing. These modest initiatives are common in northern Mediterranean countries. Investments in the provision of timber, bioenergy or NWFP (e.g. cork, resin) can rely on traditional financing mechanisms (shareholders, bank loans). New finance possibilities for biodiversity projects include PES schemes (which can be local), recreational projects funded by forest access fees, climate projects using carbon payments, or water projects funded by bottler companies or water suppliers. Other finance options include crowd funding and impact investments. Local governments that own forestland can also impose concession fees for harvest (wood, NWFP), or recreational infrastructure. They can also opt to apply a local tax, for example, to implement wildfire prevention plans in the wildland-urban interface.

Conclusions and prospects for Mediterranean forest financing

Financial instruments in the forestry sector are those tools required to fund the costs of forestry projects. A variety of financing options are available to Mediterranean countries (as highlighted in Table 4.12). Forestry financing stems primarily from taxpayers, but private instruments are an increasingly widespread option. In Mediterranean countries, public administrations have primary responsibility for forest-related decision-making and, as a result, its financing. As a subset of public financing, new principles of “polluter-pays” or “user-pays” have led to new and complementary funding streams in this sector. This is not only related to the Mediterranean’s current land ownership structure, but also its tradition of civic and business engagement. There is evidence of emerging PES-like systems in the northern Mediterranean, while the growing mobilization of civil society organizations in MENA countries means these systems are likely to be found there in time. Alliances between companies and forest administrations are likely to increase in Mediterranean countries, to take advantage of the opportunities offered by public-private partnerships.

Ultimately, private forest owners are entrepreneurs who must cope with market and environmental risks. Private financing instruments have a number of benefits: they offer advantages to forest managers (by diversifying their income portfolio, decreasing their dependency on bank loans and on political volatilities); introduce societal preferences into management decisions (by incentivizing multifunctional forestry alternatives and/or poverty reduction); and strengthen links between forest managers and users/beneficiaries (through earmarked fees or direct payments).

Tools to redistribute EU public funds are largely applicable to northern Mediterranean countries, as southern and eastern countries are more likely to seek international funding. However, they often lag behind tropical countries, as carbon sequestration efficiency criteria are prioritized above desertification risk. A tool is needed to target the specific aridity and degradation challenges these countries face. The LDN fund can play a relevant role in this regard in coming years.

Conclusions

The importance of forest ecosystems to the Mediterranean region is intrinsically linked to the impressive amount of goods and services they provide to a population expected to reach over 670 million by 2050. Since the region was colonized by the first Mediterranean civilizations, its forest landscapes have actively contributed to poverty alleviation and food security. Current changes and challenges, including climate change, natural resource degradation, demographic development and migration and energy transition are undermining this role, threatening the future of Mediterranean forests and their natural capital.

The impacts of climate change, exacerbated by anthropogenic pressures, are already evident in the region. These effects will only increase unless action is taken to prevent the degradation of natural resources that jeopardizes the goods and services Mediterranean forests provide.

Further action at local, national, regional and international levels is needed to recognize the role Mediterranean forest ecosystems can play in addressing the challenges the region is currently facing. An active role includes recognizing Mediterranean forests are renewable resources conditional on ongoing, sustainable management. The forest sector can provide jobs in rural areas in a green or circular economy and contribute to renewable energies and ecosystem services. Forest-based solutions can tackle threats driven by climate change and human intervention. Forest adaptation and climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation programmes and forest and landscape restoration are among the actions that can be promoted. Implementing such forest-based solutions requires an adequate economic valuation of Mediterranean goods and services, fundamental to building dialogue and promoting forest policies and programmes. An enabling environment also requires recognition and integration of all stakeholders in the planning and implementation stages of management actions.

Finally, appropriate financing – and choosing the most relevant financing strategy – is the engine behind the design, implementation, management and policies that integrate these goods and services in a multi-functional way towards a new, green economy. Forests must have an active role in this new economy. Mediterranean forests and trees will only be able to play a role in tacking global threats if they are viewed from a cross-sectoral perspective that connects the forest sector with others. The landscape approach is particularly relevant to practical implementation of forest-based solutions in the field. The management of Mediterranean forests is no longer the sole preserve of forest managers, but also involves users benefiting from the ecosystem services forests provide, populations who derive their livelihoods from forests and young entrepreneurs developing businesses based on forests in the green economy.

Given that Mediterranean forests are an important regional asset, demonstrated by several regional initiatives (e.g. the Tlemcen declaration, the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests, the Barcelona Declaration and the Agadir Commitment for the restoration of 8 million ha of Mediterranean forests by 2030), their role in the global agenda should be further enhanced. Through the three Rio Conventions – on biodiversity, climate change and desertification – countries committed to combating forest ecosystem degradation. The forest sector is part of their Nationally Determined Contributions to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the UNFCCC, their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans under the CBD and their National Action Programmes under the UNCCD. Mediterranean forests contribute to several Sustainable Development Goals, also playing a role in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Ensuring an active role for Mediterranean forests requires the integration of goods and services in a multifunctional way. This can be achieved using management and policy tools that solve the paradox of Mediterranean forests – valuable green infrastructure whose value is unrecognized by society – and by establishing enabling conditions to meet future threats and uncertainties.

Promoting integrated and sustainable management of Mediterranean forests, and their strategic role from local to global levels, requires strong and active regional cooperation. Current international commitments and the global agenda call for a coordinated regional strategy. This should promote active involvement by Mediterranean countries toward enhanced regional actions based on recognition of forests’ environmental, social and economic value. Mediterranean countries are already responding to this call with revitalized engagement in regional and international activities. But further cooperation and harmonization is required to establish a collective effort toward an enhanced regional agenda.

Annexes

A Contribution of forests in NDCs, NBSAPs and NAPs

Contribution of forests in the NDCs (or INDCs when the Paris Agreement has not yet been ratified), in national targets as defined in the NBSAPs, and in the NAPs of the Mediterranean countries.

B List of documents related to the green economy and forestry

C Documents available and analysed per country

D Mediterranean countries and international agreements

E Status of the main instruments in Mediterranean countries

F Country specific results: Albania

Similar tables exist for all analysed countries.

References

Abatangelo, C., Secco, L. & Pisani, E. 2016. Il contratto di rete: uno strumento per quale impresa? Un’indagine nel settore primario. Teoría e Storia del Diritto Privato, 9(2): 1–15.

Abraham, E., Kyriazopoulos, A., Korakis, G., Parissi, Z. & Chouvardas, D. 2014. Wild fire effects on floristic diversity in three thermo-Mediterranean vegetation types in a small islet of eastern Aegean sea. In EGU general assembly conference 2014, held 27 April-2 May, 2014 in Vienna, Austria, p. 5741. Geophysical Research Abstracts No. 16. Munich, Germany, European Geosciences Union.

Acácio, V., Dias, F.S., Catry, F.X., Rocha, M. & Moreira, F. 2016. Landscape dynamics in Mediterranean oak forests under global change: understanding the role of anthropogenic and environmental drivers across forest types. Global change biology, 23(3): 1199–1217.

Acácio, V., Holmgren, M., Jansen, P.A. & Schrotter, O. 2007. Multiple recruitment limitation causes arrested succession in Mediterranean cork oak systems. Ecosystems, 10(7): 1220–1230.

Adams, H.D., Luce, C.H., Breshears, D.D., Allen, C.D., Weiler, M., Hale, V.C., Smith, A. & Huxman, T.E. 2012. Ecohydrological consequences of drought-and infestation-triggered tree die-off: insights and hypotheses. Ecohydrology, 5(2): 145–159.

Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Nelson, D.R., Berkes, F., Eakin, H., Folke, C., Galvin, K. et al. 2011. Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(5): 757–766.

AEE. 2015. L’environnement en Europe : état et perspectives 2015 – Synthèse. Copenhague, Agence européenne pour l’environnement. 201 pp.

Agenzia per la Coesione Territoriale. 2016. Bioeconomy in Italy. Rome, Ministro per la Coesione Territoriale e Mezzogiorno. 60 pp.

AGM. 2007. Afforestation and erosion control mobilization action plan 2008-2012. Ankara, Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control (Ağaçlandırma ve Erozyon Kontrolü Genel Müdürlüğü – AGM). 46 pp.

Agnoletti, M., ed. 2013. Italian historical rural landscapes. Cultural values for the environment and rural development. Environmental History No. 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer. 550 pp.

Aitken, S.N. & Bemmels, J.B. 2016. Time to get moving: assisted gene flow of forest trees. Evolutionary Applications, 9(1): 271–290.

Aitken, S.N. & Whitlock, M.C. 2013. Assisted gene flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 44: 367–388.

Aitken, S.N., Yeaman, S., Holliday, J.A., Wang, T. & Curtis-McLane, S. 2008. Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary Applications, 1(1): 95–111.

Ajbilou, R., Marañón, T. & Arroyo, J. 2006. Ecological and biogeographical analyses of Mediterranean forests of northern Morocco. Acta Oecologica, 29(1): 104–113.

Alberdi, I., Cañellas, I. & Condes, S. 2014. A long-scale biodiversity monitoring methodology for Spanish national forest inventory. Application to Álava region. Forest Systems, 23(1): 93–110.

Alberdi, I., Cañellas, I., Hernández, L. & Condés, S. 2013. A new method for the identification of old-growth trees in National Forest Inventories: application to Pinus halepensis Mill. stands in Spain. Annals of Forest Science, 70(3): 277–285.

Aldea, J., Bravo, F., Bravo-Oviedo, A., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Rodríguez, F. & Río, M.D. 2017. Thinning enhances the species-specific radial increment response to drought in Mediterranean pine-oak stands. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 237-238: 371–383.

Algeria. 2015. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. INDC Algeria. Algiers, The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. 10 pp.

Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K., Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., McDowell, N., Vennetier, M., Kitzberger, T. et al. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4): 660–684.

Allman, L., Fleming, P. & Wallace, A. 2004. The progress of English and Welsh local authorities in addressing climate change. Local Environment, 9(3): 271–283.

Aloui, A. & Tounsi, K. 2015a. Caractérisation des agents et causes de la déforestation et de la dégradation forestière dans le bassin versant de Siliana en Tunisie. Technical report of the project “Maximize the production of goods and services of mediterranean forest ecosystems in the context of global changes”, Rome, FAO. 76 pp.

Aloui, A. & Tounsi, K. 2015b. Caractérisation des agents et causes de la déforestation et de la dégradation forestière dans le site pilote de Barbara en Tunisie. Technical report of the project “Maximize the production of goods and services of mediterranean forest ecosystems in the context of global changes”, Rome, FAO. 56 pp.

Andersen, J. & Schmidt, K. 2002. Summary of the international expert meeting on forest landscape restoration, 27-28 February 2002. Sustainable Developments, 71(1): 1–8.

Angelini, P., Compagno, R., Arcangeli, A., Bistocchi, G., Gargano, M.L., Venanzoni, R. & Venturella, G. 2016. Macrofungal diversity and ecology in two Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Plant Biosystems, 150(3): 540–549.

Antrop, M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67(1): 9–26.

Aouni, K. 2012. Compensation des mises en défens pour la reconstitution des écosystèmes forestiers au Maroc. In Capacity-building workshop for North Africa and the Middle East on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB), 21-23 February 2012, Beirut, Lebanon. UNEP/CBD/WS-CB-TEEB-MENA/1/2. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Arianoutsou, M., Perez, B., Quesada, J., Christopoulou, A., Torres, I., Kazanis, D., Viedma, O., Andriopoulos, P., Céspedes, B. & Moreno, J.M. 2014. Vegetation response to changes in fire regime. In J.M. Moreno, M. Arianoutsou, A. González-Cabán, F. Mouillot, W.C. Oechel, D. Spano, K. Thonicke, V.R. Vallejo & R. Vélez, eds. Forest fires under climate, social and economic changes in Europe, the Mediterranean and other fire-affected areas of the world – FUME: lessons learned and outlook, pp. 40–41. Toledo, Spain, FUME Project.

Arino, O., Ramos Perez, J.J., Kalogirou, V., Bontemps, S., Defourny, P. & Van Bogaert, E. 2012. Global land cover map for 2009 (GlobCover 2009). In: Pangea [online]. European Space Agency and Université Catholique de Louvain. [Cited November 2017]. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.787668.

Aronson, J., Milton, S.J. & Blignaut, J.N. 2012. Definitions and rationale. In J. Aronson, S.J. Milton & J.N. Blignaut, eds. Restoring natural capital: science, business, and practice, pp. 3–8. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Aronson, J., Blignaut, J.N. & Aronson, T.B. 2017. Conceptual frameworks and references for landscape-scale restoration: Reflecting back and looking forward. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 102(2): 188–200.

Atmiş, E. 2016. Development of urban forest governance in Turkey. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 19: 158–166.

Attorre, F., Alfò, M., De Sanctis, M., Francesconi, F., Valenti, R., Vitale, M. & Bruno, F. 2011. Evaluating the effects of climate change on tree species abundance and distribution in the Italian peninsula. Applied Vegetation Science, 14(2): 242–255.

Auclair, L., Gubry, P., Picouët, M. & Sandron, F., eds. 2001. Régulations démographiques et environnement: actes des 6èmes journées démographiques de l’ORSTOM. Les Études du CEPED No. 18. Paris, IRD, CEPED & LPE. 290 pp.

Auld, G., Bernstein, S. & Cashore, B. 2008. The new corporate social responsibility. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33: 413–435. 269

Baffetta, F., Corona, P. & Fattorini, L. 2011. Assessing the attributes of scattered trees outside the forest by a multi-phase sampling strategy. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 84(3): 315–325.

Balkız, Ö. 2016. Assessment of the socio-economic values of goods and services provided by Mediterranean forest ecosystems – Düzlerçami forest, Turkey. Rome, FAO, and Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 43 pp.

Balletto, E., Bonell, S., Borghesio, L., Casale, A., Brandmayr, P. & Vigna Taglianti, A. 2010. Hotspots of biodiversity and conservation priorities: A methodological approach. Italian Journal of Zoology, 77(1): 2–13.

Bann, C. & Clemens, M. 2001. Turkey forest sector review, global environmental overlays program final report. Ankara, Iksir Tanıtım Ltd. Sti. In Turkish (Türkiye Ormancılık Sektör Incelemesi, Küresel Örtüs¸ me Programı Final Raporu).

Barbati, A., Corona, P., D’Amato, E. & Cartisano, R. 2015. Is landscape a driver of short-term wildfire recurrence? Landscape Research, 40(1): 99–108.

Barbati, A., Ferrari, B., Alivernini, A., Qatrini, A., Merlini, P., Puletti, N. & Corona, P. 2014. Sistemi forestali e sequestro del carbonio in Italia. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 69(4): 205–212.

Barbera, G. & Cullotta, S. 2016. The traditional Mediterranean polycultural landscape as cultural heritage: its origin and historical importance, its agro-silvo-pastoral complexity and the necessity for its identification and inventory. In M. Agnoletti & F. Emanueli, eds. Biocultural diversity in Europe, pp. 21–48. Environmental History No. 5. Cham, Switzerland, Springer.

Barbeta, A., Ogaya, R. & Peñuelas, J. 2013. Dampening effects of long-term experimental drought on growth and mortality rates of a Holm oak forest. Global Change Biology, 19(10): 3133–3144.

Barcelona City Council. 2013. Barcelona green infrastructure and biodiversity plan 2020. Barcelona, Spain, Ajuntament de Barcelona. 113 pp.

Baselga, A. 2008. Determinants of species richness, endemism and turnover in European longhorn beetles. Ecography, 31(2): 263–271.

Basnou, C., Vicente, P., Espelta, J.M. & Pino, J. 2016. Of niche differentiation, dispersal ability and historical legacies: what drives woody community assembly in recent Mediterranean forests? Oikos, 125(1): 107–116.

Bastin, J.F., Berrahmouni, N., Grainger, A., Maniatis, D., Mollicone, D., Moore, R., Patriarca, C. et al. 2017. The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science, 356(6338): 635–638.

Bateman, I.J. & Turner, R.K. 1993. Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method. In R.K. Turner, ed. Sustainable environmental economics and management: Principles and practice, pp. 120–191. London, Belhaven Press.

Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B., Binner, A. et al. 2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science, 341(6141): 45–50.

Battisti, A. 2005. Overview of entomological research concerning the forest ecosystems of the northern rim of the Mediterranean Sea. In F. Lieuter & D. Ghaioule, eds. Entomological research in Mediterranean forest ecosystems, pp. 15–20. Versailles, France, INRA Editions.

Battisti, A., Avcı, M., Avtzis, D.N., Ben Jamaa, M.L., Berardi, L., Berretima, W., Branco, M. et al. 2015. Natural history of the processionary moths (Thaumetopoea spp.): new insights in relation to climate change. In A. Roques, ed. Processionary moths and climate change: An update, pp. 15–79. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer, and Versailles, France, Éditions Quæ.

Bedia, J., Herrera, S., Camia, A., Moreno, J.M. & Gutiérrez, J.M. 2014. Forest fire danger projections in the Mediterranean using ENSEMBLES regional climate change scenarios. Climatic Change, 122(1-2): 185–199.

Bellefontaine, R., Petit, S., Pain Orcet, M., Deleporte, P. & Bertault, J.G. 2002. Trees outside forests: towards better awareness. FAO Conservation Guide No. 35. Rome, FAO. 216 pp.

Ben Salem, B. 1991. Combattre et prévenir l’érosion éolienne dans les régions arides. Unasylva, 42(164): 33–39.

Benito Garzón, M., Sánchez de Dios, R. & Sainz Ollero, H. 2008. Effects of climate change on the distribution of Iberian tree species. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(2): 169–178.

Bennett, G., Chavarria, A., Ruef, F. & Leonardi, A. 2017a. State of European markets 2017. Biodiversity offsets and compensation. Washington, DC, Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace and ECOSTAR. 36 pp.

Bennett, G., Leonardi, A. & Ruef, F. 2017b. State of European markets 2017. Watershed investments. Washington, DC, Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace and ECOSTAR. 31 pp.

Bennett, G. & Ruef, F. 2016. Alliances for green infrastructure. State of watershed investment 2016. Washington, DC, Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. 62 pp.

Bergot, M., Cloppet, E., Pérarnaud, V., Déqué, M., Marçais, B. & Desprez-Loustau, M.L. 2004. Simulation of potential range expansion of oak disease caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi under climate change. Global Change Biology, 10(9): 1539–1552.

Berkeley Earth. 2017. Berkeley Earth open database. In: Berkeley Earth [online]. Berkeley, USA. [Cited October 2017]. http://berkeleyearth.org/data/.

Berndes, G., Abt, B., Asikainen, A., Cowie, A., Dale, V., Egnell, G., Lindner, M. et al. 2016. Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. From Science to Policy No. 3. Joensuu, Finland, European Forestry Institute. 27 pp.

Berrahmouni, N., Regato, P., Ellatifi, M., Daly-Hassen, H., Bugalho, M., Bensaid, S., Díaz, M. & Aronson, J. 2009. Ecoregional planning for biodiversity conservation. In J. Aronson, J.S. Pereira & J.G. Pausas, eds. Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration, pp. 203–216. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Besacier, C., Ducci, F., Malagnoux, M. & Souvannavong, O., eds. 2011. Status of the experimental network of Mediterranean forest genetic resources. Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Arezzo, Italy and FAO, Rome. 208 pp.

Beuret, J.E. 2006. La conduite de la concertation pour la gestion de l’environnement et le partage des ressources. Paris, L’Harmattan. 342 pp.

Bey, A., Sánchez-Paus Díaz, A., Maniatis, D., Marchi, G., Mollicone, D., Ricci, S., Bastin, J.F. et al. 2016. Collect Earth: land use and land cover assessment through augmented visual interpretation. Remote Sensing, 8(10): 807.

BFW & ILEN, eds. 2017. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on landscape and human health: Forests, parks and green care. May 17-19, 2017, Vienna, Austria. Vienna, Austrian Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape, and Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. 143 pp.

Bickel, K., Richards, G., Köhl, M. & Vianna Rodrigues, R.L. 2006. Consistent representation of lands. In S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara & K. Tanabe, eds. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture, forestry and other land use, pp. 3.1–3.42. Hayama, Japan, IGES on behalf of IPCC.

Bina, O. 2013. The green economy and sustainable development: an uneasy balance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(6): 1023–1047.

Birch, J.C., Newton, A.C., Alvarez Aquino, C., Cantarello, E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T., Schiappacasse, I. & Tejedor Garavito, N. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(50): 21925–21930.

Birot, Y., ed. 2009. Living with wildfires: what science can tell us. A contribution to the science-policy dialogue. EFI Discussion Paper No. 15. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute. 82 pp.

Birot, Y., Gracia, C. & Palahí, M., eds. 2011. Water for forests and people in the Mediterranean 271 region – a challenging balance. What Science Can Tell Us No. 1. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute. 173 pp.

Blondel, J. 2006. The ‘design’ of Mediterranean landscapes: a millennial story of humans and ecological systems during the historic period. Human Ecology, 34(5): 713–729.

Blondel, J. & Aronson, J. 1999. Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. 352 pp.

Blondel, J., Aronson, J., Bodiou, J.Y. & Boeuf, G. 2010. The Mediterranean region: biological diversity in space and time. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 2nd edn. 392 pp.

Boffa, J.M. 1999. Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Conservation Guide No. 34. Rome, FAO. 250 pp.

Bonebrake, T.C., Syphard, A.D., Franklin, J., Anderson, K.E., Akçakaya, H.R., Mizerek, T., Winchell, C. & Regan, H.M. 2014. Fire management, managed relocation, and land conservation options for long-lived obligate seeding plants under global changes in climate, urbanization, and fire regime. Conservation Biology, 28(4): 1057–1067.

Bontemps, S., Defourny, P., Van Bogaert, E., Arino, O., Kalogirou, V. & Ramos Perez, J. 2011. GLOBCOVER 2009–products description and validation report. European Space Agency and Université Catholique de Louvain. 53 pp.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., ed. 1997a. Beyond fences: seeking social sustainability in conservation. Volume 1: A process companion. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. 129 pp.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., ed. 1997b. Beyond fences: seeking social sustainability in conservation. Volume 2: A resource book. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. 283 pp.

Bottalico, F., Pesola, L., Vizzarri, M., Antonello, L., Barbati, A., Chirici, G., Corona, P. et al. 2016. Modeling the influence of alternative forest management scenarios on wood production and carbon storage: A case study in the Mediterranean region. Environmental Research, 144(B): 72–87.

Bou Dagher Kharrat, M. 2017. Letter of the guest editor. Plant Sociology, 54(S1): 3.

Bozzano, M. 2017. The relevance of genetic considerations to ensure effective forest restoration. Plant Sociology, 54(S1): 5–10.

Bozzano, M., Jalonen, R., Thomas, E., Boshier, D., Gallo, L., Cavers, S., Bordács, S., Smith, P. & Loo, J., eds. 2014. Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species. State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources – Thematic Study. Rome, FAO and Bioversity International.

Brainerd, S. & Doornbos, S. 2013. European charter on fungi-gathering and biodiversity. In: IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group on behalf of the Bern Convention [online]. http: //www.univie.ac.at/oemykges/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/EUROPEAN-CHARTER-ON-FUNGI.pdf.

Branco, M. & Ramos, A.P. 2009. Coping with pests and diseases. In J. Aronson, J.S. Pereira & J.G. Pausas, eds. Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration, pp. 103–111. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Brand, U. 2012. Green economy – the next oxymoron? No lessons learned from failures of implementing sustainable development. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(1): 28–32.

Breadboard Labs & ESA. 2017. Curio. Web and mobile application. In: Curio canopy urban forest community platform [online]. Dublin, Ireland and Noordwijk, Netherlands, European Space Agency. Accessed: October 2017. https://www.curio.xyz/.

Brendel, O. & Cochard, H. 2011. How plant species cope with water stress. In Y. Birot, C. Gracia & M. Palahí, eds. Water for forest and people in the Mediterranean region – A challenging balance, pp. 76–80. What Science Can Tell Us No. 1. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute.

Brook, B.W., Sodhi, N.S. & Bradshaw, C.J.A. 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(8): 453–460.

Buckley, Y.M., Anderson, S., Catterall, C.P., Corlett, R.T., Engel, T., Gosper, C.R., Nathan, R. et al. 2006. Management of plant invasions mediated by frugivore interactions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(5): 848–857. 272

Bugalho, M. & Silva, L. 2014. Promoting sustainable management of cork oak landscapes through payments for ecosystem services: the WWF Green Heart of Cork project. Unasylva, 65(242): 29–33.

Bugalho, M.N., Plieninger, T., Aronson, J.A., Ellatifi, M. & Crespo, D.G. 2009. Open woodlands: A diversity of uses (and overuses). In J. Aronson, J.S. Pereira & J.G. Pausas, eds. Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration, pp. 33–45. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Bugalho, M.N., Caldeira, M.C., Pereira, J.S., Aronson, J. & Pausas, J.G. 2011a. Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(5): 278–286.

Bugalho, M.N., Lecomte, X., Gonçalves, M., Caldeira, M.C. & Branco, M. 2011b. Establishing grazing and grazing-excluded patches increases plant and invertebrate diversity in a Mediterranean oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(11): 2133–2139.

Bugge, M.M., Hansen, T. & Klitkou, A. 2016. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7): 691.

Buijs, A., Elands, B., Havik, G., Ambrose-Oji, B., Cvejic, R., Debellis, Y., Davies, C. et al. 2016. Innovative governance of urban green spaces. Learning form 18 innovative examples across Europe. Deliverable 6.2. of the green surge project, Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen. 177 pp.

Burkhard, B. & Maes, J. 2017. Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia, Pensoft Publishers. 376 pp.

Buse, J., Assmann, T., Friedman, A.L.L., Rittner, O. & Pavlicek, T. 2013. Wood-inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera) associated with oaks in a global biodiversity hotspot: a case study and checklist for Israel. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6(6): 687–703.

Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M. et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982): 1164–1168.

Butynski, T.M., Cortes, J., Waters, S., Fa, J., Hobbelink, M.E., van Lavieren, E., Belbachir, F. et al. 2008. Macaca sylvanus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008, e.T12561A3359140.

Cañellas, I., Sánchez-González, M., Bogino, S., Adame, P., Moreno-Fernández, D., Celia, H., Roig, S., Tomé, M., Paulo, J. & Bravo, F. 2017. Carbon sequestration in Mediterranean oak forests. In F. Bravo, V. LeMay & R. Jandl, eds. Managing forest ecosystems: The challenge of climate change, pp. 403–427. Managing Forest Ecosystems No. 34. Cham, Switzerland, Springer.

Calama, R., Gordo, J., Madrigal, G., Mutke, S., Conde, M., Montero, G. & Pardos, M. 2016. Enhanced tools for predicting annual stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) cone production at tree and forest scale in inner Spain. Forest Systems, 25(3): e079.

Calama, R., Manso, R., Lucas-Borja, M., Espelta, J., Piqué, M., Bravo, F., del Peso, C. & Pardos, M. 2017. Natural regeneration in Iberian pines: A review of dynamic processes and proposals for management. Forest Systems, 26(2): eR02S.

Camarero, J.J., Lloret, F., Corcuera, L., Peñuelas, J. & Gil-Pelegrín, E. 2004. Cambio global y decaimiento del bosque. In F. Valladares, ed. Ecología del bosque mediterráneo en un mundo cambiante, pp. 397–423. Madrid, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente Organismo Autónomo de Parques Naturales.

Campbell, L.A.D., Tkaczynski, P.J., Mouna, M., Qarro, M., Waterman, J. & Majolo, B. 2016. Behavioral responses to injury and death in wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Primates, 57(3): 309–315.

Camperio Ciani, A., Martinoli, L., Capiluppi, C., Arahou, M. & Mouna, M. 2001. Effects of water availability and habitat quality on bark-stripping behavior in Barbary macaques. Conservation Biology, 15(1): 259–265.

Camperio Ciani, A., Palentini, L., Arahou, M., Martinoli, L., Capiluppi, C. & Mouna, M. 2005. Population decline of Macaca sylvanus in the Middle Atlas of Morocco. Biological Conservation, 121(4): 635–641.

Campetella, G., Canullo, R. & Angelini, G. 2002. Lo stato delle querce camporili in un territorio del bacino del fiume Chienti (Macerata). Monti e Boschi, 53(5): 4–11. 273

Campos, P., Daly-Hassen, H. & Ovando-Pol, P. 2007. Cork oak forest management in Spain and Tunisia: two case studies of conflicts between sustainability and private income. International Forestry Review, 9(2): 610–626.

Canadell, J.G. & Raupach, M.R. 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science, 320(5882): 1456–1457.

Canales Martínez, G. & Vera Rebollo, J.F. 1985. Colonización del Cardenal Belluga en las tierras donadas por Guardamar del Segura: creación de un paisaje agrario y situación actual. Investigaciones Geográficas, 3: 143–160.

Cañellas, I., Roig, S., Poblaciones, M.J., Gea-Izquierdo, G. & Olea, L. 2007. An approach to acorn production in Iberian dehesas. Agroforestry Systems, 70(1): 3–9.

Carlton, J.T. 1996. Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biological conservation, 78(1): 97–106.

Carnicer, J., Barbeta, A., Sperlich, D., Coll, M. & Peñuelas, J. 2013. Contrasting trait syndromes in angiosperms and conifers are associated with different responses of tree growth to temperature on a large scale. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4: 409.

Carnicer, J., Coll, M., Ninyerola, M., Pons, X., Sánchez, G. & Peñuelas, J. 2011. Widespread crown condition decline, food web disruption, and amplified tree mortality with increased climate change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(4): 1474–1478.

Castagneyrol, B., Jactel, H., Vacher, C., Brockerhoff, E.G. & Koricheva, J. 2014. Effects of plant phylogenetic diversity on herbivory depend on herbivore specialization. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(1): 134–141.

CBD. 2017. Rapid assessment of progress under Aichi biodiversity targets 5, 14 and 15 in the Mediterranean region. Montreal, Canada, CBD Secretariat and FERI. 27 pp.

CBD SBSTTA. 2011. Report on how to improve sustainable use of biodiversity in a landscape perspective. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/13, Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. 14 pp. CBD SBSTTA Fifteenth meeting, Montreal, 7-11 November 2011, Item 4.3 of the provisional agenda.

CEDARE. 2013. Green Economy: Egypt sucess stories. Cairo, Egypt, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), and Center for Environment and Development for the Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE). 9 pp.

Cervinka, R., Höltge, J., Pirgie, L., Schwab, M., Sudkamp, J., Haluza, D., Arnberger, A., Eder, R. & Ebenberger, M. 2014. Green public health – Benefits of woodlands on human health and well-being. Vienna, Bundesforschungszentrum für Wald (BFW). 48 pp.

Cesaro, L., Cistulli, V., Merlo, M. & Pettenella, D. 1998. A stepwise procedure for cost benefit analysis (CBA) of forestry and soil/moisture conservation investments. In I. Tikkanen & B. Pajari, eds. Future forest policies in Europe – Balancing economic and ecological demands, pp. 149–167. EFI Proceedings No. 22. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute.

Chamorro, D., Luna, B., Ourcival, J.M., Kavgacı, A., Sirca, C., Mouillot, F., Arianoutsou, M. & Moreno, J.M. 2017. Germination sensitivity to water stress in four shrubby species across the Mediterranean Basin. Plant Biology, 19(1): 23–31.

Chaparro, L. & Terradas, J. 2009. Ecological services of urban forest in Barcelona. Bellaterra, Spain, Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 96 pp.

Charru, M., Seynave, I., Morneau, F. & Bontemps, J.D. 2010. Recent changes in forest productivity: An analysis of national forest inventory data for common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in north-eastern France. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(5): 864–874.

Chenchouni, H., Abdelkrim, S.B. & Athmane, B. 2008. The deterioration of the Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) in Algeria. In Proceedings of international conference “Adaptation of forests and forest management to changing climate with emphasis on forest health: a review of science, policies, and practices”, pp. 25–28. Umeå, Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), FAO & IUFRO.

Chichilnisky, G. 1997. What is sustainable development? Land Economics, 73(4): 467–491. 274

Chiriacò, M.V., Perugini, L., Cimini, D., D’Amato, E., Valentini, R., Bovio, G., Corona, P. & Barbati, A. 2013. Comparison of approaches for reporting forest fire-related biomass loss and greenhouse gas emissions in southern Europe. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22(6): 730–738.

Christopoulou, A., Fyllas, N.M., Andriopoulos, P., Koutsias, N., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. & Arianoutsou, M. 2014. Post-fire regeneration patterns of Pinus nigra in a recently burned area in Mount Taygetos, Southern Greece: The role of unburned forest patches. Forest ecology and management, 327: 148–156.

Christopoulou, O. 2011. Deforestation / reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: the case of Greece. In D. Godone & S. Stanchi, eds. Soil erosion studies, pp. 41–58. Rijeka, Croatia, InTech.

Chytrý, M., Maskell, L.C., Pino, J., Pyšek, P., Vilà, M., Font, X. & Smart, S.M. 2008. Habitat invasions by alien plants: a quantitative comparison among Mediterranean, subcontinental and oceanic regions of Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(2): 448–458.

CIDOB. 2015. Mediterranean trends and urban challenges. Policy brief, Barcelona, Spain, CIDOB Barcelona Centre for International Affairs. 6 pp.

CIESIN. 2017. Gridded population of the world, version 4 (GPWv4): Population density adjusted to match 2015 revision UN WPP country totals. In: Center for International Earth Science Information Network – Columbia University [online]. Palisades, USA, NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). [Cited July 2017]. https://doi.org/10.7927/H4HX19NJ.

Clark, K.H. & Nicholas, K.A. 2013. Introducing urban food forestry: a multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 28(9): 1649–1669.

Clement, V. 2008. Spanish wood pasture: origin and durability of an historical wooded landscape in Mediterranean Europe. Environment and History, 14(1): 67–87.

Clotet, M., Basnou, C., Bagaria, G. & Pino, J. 2016. Contrasting historical and current land-use correlation with diverse components of current alien plant invasions in Mediterranean habitats. Biological invasions, 18(10): 2897–2909.

Coello, J. 2011. El “impuesto por servicios ambientales de los bosques” de Croacia: integración de la sociedad en la protección y promoción forestal. Spanish Journal of Rural Development, 2(Extra 1): 15–24.

Coll, M., Peñuelas, J., Ninyerola, M., Pons, X. & Carnicer, J. 2013. Multivariate effect gradients driving forest demographic responses in the Iberian Peninsula. Forest Ecology and Management, 303: 195–209.

Collard, B.C.Y. & Mackill, D.J. 2008. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491): 557–572.

Colomer, R., Regato Pajares, P. & Enciso Encinas, E. 2014. Restoration plan: Mediterranean mosaic project, Shouf Biosphere Reserve. Maasser El Shouf, Lebanon, Al-Shouf Cedar Society. 86 pp.

Condés, S., Del Rio, M. & Sterba, H. 2013. Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. Forest Ecology and Management, 292: 86–95.

Corcobado, T., Cubera, E., Juárez, E., Moreno, G. & Solla, A. 2014. Drought events determine performance of Quercus ilex seedlings and increase their susceptibility to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 192-193: 1–8.

Cork Information Bureau. 2015. Cork sector in numbers 2015. Santa Maria de Lamas, Portugal, Portuguese Cork Association (APCOR). 15 pp.

Cork Information Bureau. 2016. Cork sector in numbers 2016. Santa Maria de Lamas, Portugal, Portuguese Cork Association (APCOR). 15 pp.

Corona, P., Ascoli, D., Barbati, A., Bovio, G., Colangelo, G., Elia, M., Garfì, V. et al. 2015. Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under Mediterranean environments. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 39(1): 24–45.

Cortina, J., Aledo, A., Bonet, A., Derak, M., Girón, J., López Ibarra, G.M., Ortiz, G. & Silva, E. 275 2017. Tools for participative prioritization of ecological restoration in the Region of Valencia (South-eastern Spain). Forêt Méditerranéenne, 38(3): 325–334.

Cortina, J., Maestre, F.T., Vallejo, R., Baeza, M.J., Valdecantos, A. & Pérez-Devesa, M. 2006. Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: are they related? Journal for Nature Conservation, 14(3): 152–160.

Cotillas, M., Sabaté, S., Gracia, C. & Espelta, J.M. 2009. Growth response of mixed Mediterranean oak coppices to rainfall reduction: Could selective thinning have any influence on it? Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7): 1677–1683.

Council of the European Union. 2006. Council decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013). Official Journal of the European Union, L 55(49): 20–29.

Croitoru, L. & Merlo, M. 2005. Mediterranean forest values. In M. Merlo & L. Croitoru, eds. Valuing mediterranean forests: towards total economic value, pp. 37–68. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing.

Croitoru, L. 2007. Valuing the non-timber forest products in the Mediterranean region. Ecological Economics, 63(4): 768–775.

Croitoru, L. & Liagre, L. 2013. Contribution of forests to a green economy in the Middle East and North Africa: Evidence, drivers and policy orientations. Rabat, GIZ. 30 pp.

Cuenca, C., Melero, M. & Cortina, J. 2016. Análisis de las políticas de restauración forestal en España (1983-2013). Cuadernos de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales, 42: 61–74.

Cuttelod, A., García, N., Malak, D.A., Temple, H.J. & Katariya, V. 2009. The Mediterranean: a biodiversity hotspot under threat. In J.C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor & S.N. Stuart, eds. Wildlife in a changing world: An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of threatened species, pp. 89–101. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

Daget, P. 1977. Le bioclimat méditerranéen : analyse des formes climatiques par le système d’Emberger. Vegetatio, 34(2): 87–103.

Dahlberg, A., Genney, D.R. & Heilmann-Clausen, J. 2010. Developing a comprehensive strategy for fungal conservation in Europe: current status and future needs. Fungal Ecology, 3(2): 50–64.

Dahmani, A. & Meddi, M. 2009. Climate variability and its impact on water resources in the catchment area of Wadi Fekan Wilaya of Mascara (West Algeria). European Journal of Scientific Research, 36(3): 458–472.

Daly-Hassen, H., Croitoru, L., Tounsi, K., Aloui, A. & Jebari, S. 2012. Évaluation économique des biens et services des forêts tunisiennes. Note de synthèse. Tunis, FAO and General Directorate of Forests of Tunisia. 16 pp.

Daly-Hassen, H. 2016. Assessment of the socio-economic value of the goods and services provided by Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Regional synthesis. Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu, and Rome, FAO. 38 pp.

Daly-Hassen, H., Pettenella, D. & Tadesse, J.A. 2010. Economic instruments for the sustainable management of Mediterranean watersheds. Forest Systems, 19(2): 141–155.

Daly-Hassen, H., Riera, P., Mavsar, R., Gammoudi, A. & Garcia, D. 2017. Valuing trade-offs between local forest uses and environmental services in Tunisia. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(3): 268–282.

D’Amato, A.W., Bradford, J.B., Fraver, S. & Palik, B.J. 2013. Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability and climate response in north temperate forest ecosystems. Ecological applications, 23(8): 1735–1742.

Dano, K. 2005. Albania. In M. Merlo & L. Croitoru, eds. Valuing mediterranean forests: towards total economic value, pp. 241–248. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing.

Dasgupta, P. & Mäler, K.G. 2000. Net national product, wealth and social well-being. Environment and Development Economics, 5(1): 69–93.

de Dios-García, J., Pardos, M. & Calama, R. 2015. Interannual variability in competitive effects in 276 mixed and monospecific forests of Mediterranean stone pine. Forest Ecology and Management, 358: 230–239.

de Fátima Ferreiro, M. & Sousa, C. 2005. Innovation networks and the governance of rural territories: the case of Coruche. In R.P. Dameri, R. Garelli & M. Resta, eds. Proceedings of the 10th European conference on innovation and entrepreneurship–ECIE 2015, University of Genoa, Italy, 17-18 September 2015, pp. 205–213. Berks, UK, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

de Groot, R.S., Blignaut, J., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T. & Farley, J. 2013. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6): 1286–1293.

de Loë, R.C. & Patterson, J.J. 2018. Boundary judgments in water governance: diagnosing internal and external factors that matter in a complex world. Water Resources Management, 32(2): 565–581.

De Rigo, D., Bosco, C., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Houston Durrant, T., Barredo, J.I., Strona, G., Caudullo, G., Di Leo, M. & Boca, R. 2016. Forest resources in Europe: an integrated perspective on ecosystem services, disturbances and threats. In J. San-Miguel-Ayanz, D. de Rigo, G. Caudullo, T. Houston Durrant & A. Mauri, eds. European atlas of forest tree species, pp. 8–19. Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union.

de Sampaio e Paiva Camilo-Alves, C., da Clara, M.I.E. & de Almeida Ribeiro, N.M.C. 2013. Decline of Mediterranean oak trees and its association with Phytophthora cinnamomi: a review. European Journal of Forest Research, 132(3): 411–432.

de Wit, S. & Aben, R. 1999. The enclosed garden. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 010 Publishers. 192 pp.

del Río, M., Pretzsch, H., Ruíz-Peinado, R., Ampoorter, E., Annighöfer, P., Barbeito, I., Bielak, K. et al. 2017. Species interactions increase the temporal stability of community productivity in Pinus sylvestris–Fagus sylvatica mixtures across Europe. Journal of Ecology, 105(4): 1032–1043.

Deniz, T. & Ok, K. 2016. Valuation analysis in erosion control activities. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 66(1): 139–158. In Turkish.

Derak, M. & Cortina, J. 2014. Multi-criteria participative evaluation of Pinus halepensis plantations in a semiarid area of southeast Spain. Ecological Indicators, 43: 56–68.

Derneği, D. 2010. Profil d’écosystème. Hotspot de la biodiversité du bassin méditerranéen. Arlington, USA, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. 258 pp.

DESA. 2009. Population ageing and development 2009. New York, USA, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2 pp.

Desprez-Loustau, M.L., Marçais, B., Nageleisen, L.M., Piou, D. & Vannini, A. 2006. Interactive effects of drought and pathogens in forest trees. Annals of Forest Science, 63(6): 597–612.

di Castri, F. 1990. On invading species and invaded ecosystems: the interplay of historical chance and biological necessity. In F. di Castri, A.J. Hansen & M. Debussche, eds. Biological invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 3–16. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Di Castri, F. & Mooney, H., eds. 1973. Mediterranean type ecosystems: origin and structure. Ecological Studies No. 7. Berlin, Springer. 408 pp.

Di Filippo, A., Alessandrini, A., Biondi, F., Blasi, S., Portoghesi, L. & Piovesan, G. 2010. Climate change and oak growth decline: Dendroecology and stand productivity of a Turkey oak (Quercus cerris L.) old stored coppice in Central Italy. Annals of Forest Science, 67(7): 706.

Di Matteo, G., Angelis, P., Brugnoli, E., Cherubini, P. & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. 2010. Tree-ring Δ13C reveals the impact of past forest management on water-use efficiency in a Mediterranean oak coppice in Tuscany (Italy). Annals of Forest Science, 67(5): 510–510.

Di Matteo, G., Nardi, P. & Fabbio, G. 2017. On the use of stable carbon isotopes to detect the physiological impact of forest management: The case of Mediterranean coppice woodland. Forest Ecology and Management, 389: 158–166.

Di Pasquale, G., Allevato, E. & Migliozzi, A. 2012. La sopravvivenza della piantata aversana: un paesaggio straordinario a rischio di estinzione. In A. Ciacci, P. Rendini & A. Zifferero, eds. Archeologia 277 della vite e del vino in Etruria. Dalle tecniche dell’indagine archeologica alle prospettive della biologia molecolare, pp. 821–826. Borgo San Lorenzo, Italia, Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio.

Di Pasquale, G., Mazzoleni, S., Migliozzi, A. & Santini, A. 2010. Il paesaggio agrario italiano da Emilio Sereni ad oggi. In A. Alinovi, A. Santini, E. Buondonno, F. Soverina & L. Volpe, eds. Emilio Sereni ritrovare la memoria, pp. 201–207. Napoli, Italia, Doppiavoce.

Di Pasquale, G. & Russo Ermolli, E. 2010. L’ambiente dela vite nell’area tirrenica e le evidenze della sua coltivazione in epoca etrusca. In G. Di Pasquale, ed. Vinum nostrum. Arte, scienza e miti del vino nelle civiltà del Mediterraneo antico, pp. 62–65. Firenze, Italia, Giunti Editore.

Di Pasquale, G. 2014. Storia e geografia del paesaggio degli alberi mediterranei: verso un approccio integrato di ricerca per la valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale. In G. Bonini & C. Visentin, eds. Paesaggi in trasformazione. Teorie e pratiche della ricerca a cinquant’anni dalla Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano di Emilio Sereni, pp. 545–548. Gattatico and Bologna, Italia, Istituto Alcide Cervi – Biblioteca Archivio Emilio Sereni and Editrice Compositori.

Dias, F.S., Bugalho, M.N., Rodríguez-González, P.M., Albuquerque, A. & Cerdeira, J.O. 2015. Effects of forest certification on the ecological condition of Mediterranean streams. Journal of applied ecology, 52(1): 190–198.

Dias, F.S., Miller, D.L., Marques, T.A., Marcelino, J., Caldeira, M.C., Cerdeira, J.O. & Bugalho, M.N. 2016. Conservation zones promote oak regeneration and shrub diversity in certified Mediterranean oak woodlands. Biological Conservation, 195: 226–234.

Diáz, M., Campos, P. & Pulido, F.J. 1997. The Spanish dehesas: a diversity in land-use and wildlife. In D.J. Pain & M.W. Pienkowski, eds. Farming and birds in Europe: the Common Agricultural Policy and its implications for bird conservation, pp. 178–209. London, Academic Press.

Díaz-Villa, M.D., Marañón, T., Arroyo, J. & Garrido, B. 2003. Soil seed bank and floristic diversity in a forest-grassland mosaic in southern Spain. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14(5): 701–709.

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P.C. 2004. The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652): 1907–1912.

Ding, H., Chiabai, A., Silvestri, S. & Nunes, P.A.L.D. 2016. Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Services, 18: 141–153.

Ding, H., Silvestri, S., Chiabai, A. & Nunes, P.A.L.D. 2010. A hybrid approach to the valuation of climate change effects on ecosystem services: evidence from the European forests. Nota di lavoro 50.2010, Milan, Italy, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. 63 pp.

Doblas-Miranda, E., Alonso, R., Arnan, X., Bermejo, V., Brotons, L., de las Heras, J., Estiarte, M. et al. 2017. A review of the combination among global change factors in forests, shrublands and pastures of the Mediterranean region: Beyond drought effects. Global and Planetary Change, 148: 42–54.

Doblas-Miranda, E., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Lloret, F., Álvarez, A., Ávila, A., Bonet, F.J., Brotons, L. et al. 2015. Reassessing global change research priorities in mediterranean terrestrial ecosystems: how far have we come and where do we go from here? Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24(1): 25–43.

Doherty, T.S., Davis, R.A., van Etten, E.J.B., Collier, N. & Krawiec, J. 2015. Response of a shrubland mammal and reptile community to a history of landscape-scale wildfire. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24(4): 534–543.

Domingo, D., Lamelas-Gracia, M.T., Montealegre-Gracia, A.L. & de la Riva-Fernández, J. 2017. Comparison of regression models to estimate biomass losses and CO2 emissions using low-density airborne laser scanning data in a burnt Aleppo pine forest. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 50(1): 384–396.

Donoghue, M.J. 2008. A phylogenetic perspective on the distribution of plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(Supplement 1): 11549–11555.

Ducci, F. 2015. Genetic resources and forestry in the Mediterranean region in relation to global change. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 39(2): 70–93. 278

Ecostar. 2017. Borgotaro case study. In: Learn – Case studies [online]. Padova, Italy, University of Padova and ETIFOR Srl. [Cited 7 July 2017].
http://www.ecostarhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2_Borgotaro_Italy.pdf.

Edburg, S.L., Hicke, J.A., Brooks, P.D., Pendall, E.G., Ewers, B.E., Norton, U., Gochis, D., Gutmann, E.D. & Meddens, A.J.H. 2012. Cascading impacts of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on coupled biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(8): 416–424.

Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K., eds. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Agriculture, forestry and other land use, Vol. 4. Hayama, Japan, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 678 pp.

El Alami, A., van Lavieren, E., Aboufatima, R. & Chait, A. 2013. A survey of the endangered Barbary macaque Macaca sylvanus in the central high Atlas mountains of Morocco. Oryx, 47(3): 451–456.

El Halabi, A., Mitri, G. & Jazi, M. 2014. Monitoring post-fire regeneration of Pinus brutia in Lebanon. In D.X. Viegas, ed. Advances in forest fire research, pp. 564–568. Coimbra, Portugal, Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.

Eliades, N.G.H., Gailing, O., Leinemann, L., Fady, B. & Finkeldey, R. 2011. High genetic diversity and significant population structure in Cedrus brevifolia Henry, a narrow endemic Mediterranean tree from Cyprus. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 294(3): 185–198.

Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4): 663–674.

Enne, G., Zucca, C., Montoldi, A. & Noè, L. 2004. The role of grazing in agropastoral systems in the Mediterranean region and their environmental sustainability. In S. Schnabel & A. Ferreira, eds. Sustainability of agrosilvopastoral systems: Dehesas, montados, pp. 29–46. Advances in Geoecology No. 37. Stuttgart, Germany, Schweizerbart Science Publishers.

Eriksson, G. 1996. Evolutionary genetics and conservation of forest tree genetic resources. In J. Turok, G. Eriksson, J. Kleinschmit & S. Canger, eds. Noble hardwoods network. Report of the first meeting, 24-27 March 1996, Escherode, Germany, pp. 159–167. Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.

Eriksson, G. 1998. Sampling for genetic resources populations in the absence of genetic knowledge. In J. Turok, E. Collin, B. Demesure-Musch, G. Eriksson, J. Kleinschmit, M. Rusanen & R. Stephan, eds. Noble hardwoods network. Report of the second meeting, 22-25 March 1997, Lourizan, Spain, pp. 61–75. Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.

Eriksson, G., Namkoong, G. & Roberds, J.H. 1993. Dynamic gene conservation for uncertain futures. Forest Ecology and Management, 62(1-4): 15–37.

Espelta, J.M., Cortés, P., Molowny-Horas, R., Sánchez-Humanes, B. & Retana, J. 2008. Masting mediated by summer drought reduces acorn predation in Mediterranean oak forests. Ecology, 89(3): 805–817.

Estreguil, C., Caudullo, G., de Rigo, D. & San Miguel, J. 2013. Forest landscape in Europe: pattern, fragmentation and connectivity. JRC Scientific and Policy Report No. JRC 77295 / EUR 25717 EN. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 18 pp.

Étienne, M. 2005. Management of grazing animals for environmental quality. In E. Molina Alcaide, H. Ben Salem, K. Biala & P. Morand-Fehr, eds. Sustainable grazing, nutritional utilization and quality of sheep and goat products, pp. 225–235. Options Méditerranéennes, Série A No. 67. Paris, CIHEAM.

European Commission. 2004. Aid delivery methods. Volume 1. Project cycle management guidelines. Brussels, European Commission. 60 pp.

European Commission. 2012. Innovating for sustainable growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Brussels, European Union. 60 pp.

European Commission. 2013. A new EU forest strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2013) 659 final, Brussels, European Commission. 17 pp.

European Commission. 2017. Renewable energy progress report. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2017) 57 final, Brussels, European Commission. 18 pp.

European Environmental Agency. 2014. Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe. EEA Technical report No. 2/2014. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 53 pp.

European Union. 2015. Natura 2000 and forests, Part I-II. European Commission Technical Report No. 2015-088. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 108 pp.

Ezzine-de Blas, D., Kettunen, M., Russi, D., Lara-Pulido, J.A., Illes, A., Arias, C. & Guevara-Sanginés, A. 2016. Innovative mechanisms for financing biodiversity conservation: an exchange of experiences between Europe and Mexico. Summary of the key insights for CBD COP13 side event (16 December 2016), Cancun, Mexico. London, Institute for European Environmental Policy. 6 pp.

Fa, J.E., Taub, D.M., Menard, N. & Stewart, P.J. 1984. The distribution and current status of the Barbary macaque in North Africa. In J.E. Fa, ed. The Barbary macaque. A case study in conservation, pp. 79–111. Boston, MA, USA, Springer.

Fabbio, G. 2016. Coppice forests, or the changeable aspect of things, a review. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 40(2): 108–132.

Fady, B., Aravanopoulos, F.A., Alizoti, P., Mátyás, C., Von Wühlisch, G., Westergren, M., Belletti, P. et al. 2016. Evolution-based approach needed for the conservation and silviculture of peripheral forest tree populations. Forest ecology and management, 375: 66–75.

Fady-Welterlen, B. 2005. Is there really more biodiversity in Mediterranean forest ecosystems? Taxon, 54(4): 905–910.

FAO. 1997. Directory of seed sources of the Mediterranean conifers. Rome, FAO, and Ankara, Research Directorate of the Forest Tree Seeds and Tree Breeding of Turkey. 118 pp.

FAO. 1999. FRA 2000. A concept and strategy for ecological zoning for the global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 20, Rome, FAO. 28 pp.

FAO. 2001. Global forest resources assessment 2000. Main report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 140. Rome, FAO. 479 pp.

FAO. 2005. Élaboration participative de politiques pour une agriculture et un développement rural durables: lignes directrices basées sur le projet d’Agriculture et de développement rural durables – évolution des systèmes agricoles. Rome, FAO. 60 pp.

FAO. 2007. La situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2007: payer les agriculteurs pour les services environnementaux. Rome, FAO. 240 pp.

FAO. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Main report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 163. Rome, FAO. 343 pp.

FAO. 2012a. FRA 2015 terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 180. Rome, FAO. 31 pp.

FAO. 2012b. Global ecological zones for FAO forest reporting: 2010 update. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 179. Rome, FAO. 42 pp.

FAO. 2013. The strategic framework on mediterranean forests. Rome, FAO, 27 pp.

FAO. 2014. A new dynamic for Mediterranean forests. Unasylva, 65(242): 81.

FAO. 2014. The state of the world’s forest genetic resources 2014. Rome, FAO. 276 pp.

FAO. 2015a. Global forest resources assessment 2015: Desk reference. Rome, FAO. 244 pp.

FAO. 2015b. Global forest resources assessment 2015: How are the world’s forests changing? Rome, FAO, 2nd edn. 44 pp.

FAO. 2015c. Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands: building resilience and benefiting livelihoods. FAO Forestry Paper No. 175. Rome, FAO. 148 pp.

FAO. 2015d. Sustainable financing for forest and landscape restoration: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Rome, FAO and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. 131 pp.

FAO. 2016a. AQUASTAT. In: FAO Land and Water Division [online]. Rome, FAO. [Cited October 2017]. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm.

FAO. 2016b. Migration, agriculture and rural development: addressing the root causes of migration and harnessing its potential for development. Rome, FAO. 20 pp.

FAO. 2016c. State of the world’s forests. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome, FAO. 107 pp.

FAO. 2016d. Trees, forests and land use in drylands: The first global assessment. Rome, FAO. 31 pp.

FAO. 2017. FAOSTAT website. In: FAO Forestry Department [online]. Rome, FAO. Accessed: October 2017. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/.

FAO & CTFC. 2016. Promoting private sector investments in sustainable forestry. Expert workshop on financial and institutional innovation for reducing the risks of private sector investments in sustainable forestry, Solsona, 21-22 April 2016. Workshop report, Rome, FAO, and Solsona, Spain, Forest Sciences Centre of Catalonia. 36 pp.

FAO & EFI. 2015. State of Europe’s Forests 2015. Madrid, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 314 pp.

FAO & Plan Bleu. 2013. State of mediterranean forests 2013. Rome, FAO. 173 pp.

FAO, UNECE & ILO. 2000. Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Report of the team of specialists on participation in forestry. ILO Working Paper No. 163. Geneva, Switzerland, International Labour Office. 130 pp.

Fares, S., De Angelis, P., Matteucci, G. & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. 2004. Mediterranean forest vegetation: impact of environmental changes and potential for their mitigation. In Consorzio di Ricerca per lo Sviluppo di Sistemi Innovativi Agroambientali (CoRiSSIA), ed. Atti del 2o convegno nazionale piante mediterranee: Valorizzazione delle risorse e sviluppo sostenibile, Agrigento, Italia, 7-8 ottobre 2004. Canicattì, Italia, Tipografia Aurora di Cerrito.

Fares, S., Bajocco, S., Salvati, L., Camarretta, N., Dupuy, J.L., Xanthopoulos, G., Guijarro, M., Madrigal, J., Hernando, C. & Corona, P. 2017. Characterizing potential wildland fire fuel in live vegetation in the Mediterranean region. Annals of Forest Science, 74: 1.

Fazey, I., Evely, A.C., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Kruijsen, J., White, P.C.L., Newsham, A. et al. 2013. Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental Conservation, 40(1): 19–36.

Fernandes, P.M., Barros, A.M.G., Pinto, A. & Santos, J.a.A. 2016a. Characteristics and controls of extremely large wildfires in the western Mediterranean basin. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 121(8): 2141–2157.

Fernandes, P.M., Davies, G.M., Ascoli, D., Fernández, C., Moreira, F., Rigolot, E., Stoof, C.R., Vega, J.A. & Molina, D. 2013. Prescribed burning in southern Europe: developing fire management in a dynamic landscape. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(S1): e4–e14.

Fernandes, T.J.G., Del Campo, A.D., Herrera, R. & Molina, A.J. 2016b. Simultaneous assessment, through sap flow and stable isotopes, of water use efficiency (WUE) in thinned pines shows improvement in growth, tree-climate sensitivity and WUE, but not in WUEi. Forest Ecology and Management, 361: 298–308.

Fernández-de-Uña, L., McDowell, N.G., Cañellas, I. & Gea-Izquierdo, G. 2016. Disentangling the effect of competition, CO2 and climate on intrinsic water-use efficiency and tree growth. Journal of Ecology, 104(3): 678–690.

Fernández Nogueira, D. & Corbelle Rico, E. 2017. Cambios en los usos de suelo en la Península Ibérica: Un meta-análisis para el período 1985-2015. Biblio3W. Revista Bibliográfica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, 22(1): 215. 281

Fernández-Olalla, M., Muñoz-Igualada, J., Martínez-Jauregui, M., Rodríguez-Vigal, C. & San Miguel-Ayanz, A. 2006. Selección de especies y efecto del ciervo (Cervus elaphus L.) sobre arbustedos y matorrales de los Montes de Toledo, España central. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, 15(3): 329–338.

FNCOFOR. 2016. Chartes Forestières de Territoire (CFT), Plans d’Approvisionnement Territoriaux (PAT): deux outils au service des territoires forestiers. Paris, Fédération nationale des Communes forestières. 10 pp.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441–473.

Forest Europe. 2014. Forest Europe expert group and workshop on a pan-European approach to valuation of forest ecosystem service. Group of expert (2012-2014) and Belgrade workshop (Republic of Serbia), 24-25 September 2014. Final report. Madrid, Forest Europe–Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 96 pp.

Forestry Commission. 2011. Public engagement in forestry: A toolbox for public engagement in forest and woodland planning. Edinburgh, UK, Forestry Commission. 29 pp.

Forrester, D.I. 2014. The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: from pattern to process. Forest Ecology and Management, 312: 282–292.

Forrester, D.I., Bonal, D., Dawud, S., Gessler, A., Granier, A., Pollastrini, M. & Grossiord, C. 2016. Drought responses by individual tree species are not often correlated with tree species diversity in European forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(6): 1725–1734.

Founda, D., Giannakopoulos, C., Sarantopoulos, A., Petrakis, M. & Zerefos, C. 2008. Estimating present and future fire risk in Greece: links with the destructive fires of summer 2007. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10: EGU2008–A–07848.

Fraser, E.D. & Kenney, W.A. 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 26(2): 106–113.

FSC®. 2012. Global FSC certificates: type and distribution. February 2012. Bonn, Germany, Forest Stewardship Council. 18 pp.

FSC®. 2017. FSC facts & figures: January 6, 2017. Bonn, Germany, Forest Stewardship Council. 13 pp.

Gacemi, A. 2016. Analyse de vulnérabilité au changement climatique du couvert forestier. Forêt de Senalba (Algérie). Rome, FAO. 82 pp.

Garbelotto, M. & Pautasso, M. 2012. Impacts of exotic forest pathogens on Mediterranean ecosystems: four case studies. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 133(1): 101–116.

García Martín, G. & García Valdecanto, J.L. 2001. El arbolado urbano en las ciudades españolas. In Actas del III congreso forestal español: Montes para la sociedad del nuevo milenio, Granada, España, 25-28 septiembre 2001. Palencia, España, Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales.

García-Montero, L.G., García Robredo, F., Cicuendez Lopocana, V., Pascual Castaño, C. & Calderón, C. 2015. Final report of the project “Collecting data through Collect Earth tools on southern Europe dryland zones” in the framework of the Global Forest Survey project. Report of FAO project GCP/GLO/553/GER(BMU), Madrid, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

García-Montero, L.G., Pascual Castaño, C., Calderón, C. & García Robredo, F. 2016. Final report of the project “Collecting data through Collect Earth tools in Europe and North America zones in the context of the pilot on global assessment on trends in tree cover/land use” in the framework of the Global Forest Survey project. Report of FAO project GCP/GLO/553/GER(BMU), Madrid, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

García-Nieto, A.P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I. & Martín-López, B. 2013. Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4: 126–138.

García-Ruiz, J.M., López-Moreno, J.I., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Lasanta-Martínez, T. & Beguería, S. 2011. Mediterranean water resources in a global change scenario. Earth-Science Reviews, 105(3): 121–139. 282

Gates, C. 2011. Ancient cities: The archaeology of urban life in the ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome. Abingdon, UK, Routledge-Tayor and Francis, 2nd edn. 504 pp.

Gatica-Saavedra, P., Echeverría, C. & Nelson, C.R. 2017. Ecological indicators for assessing ecological success of forest restoration: a world review. Restoration Ecology, 25(6): 850–857.

Gatto, P., Pettenella, D. & Secco, L. 2009. Payments for forest environmental services: organisational models and related experiences in Italy. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2: 133–139.

Gatto, P., Vidale, E., Secco, L. & Pettenella, D. 2014. Exploring the willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services by residents of the Veneto Region. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 3(1): 21–43.

Gaussen, H. 1926. Végétation de la moitié orientale des Pyrénées. Sol,climat, végétation. Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 55(2): 5–564.

Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M. & Burgess, N.D. 2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161: 230–238.

Gerosa, G., Finco, A., Mereu, S., Vitale, M., Manes, F. & Denti, A.B. 2009. Comparison of seasonal variations of ozone exposure and fluxes in a Mediterranean Holm oak forest between the exceptionally dry 2003 and the following year. Environmental Pollution, 157(5): 1737–1744.

Gibbons, P., Lindenmayer, D.B., Fischer, J., Manning, A.D., Weinberg, A., Seddon, J., Ryan, P. & Barrett, G. 2008. The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes. Conservation Biology, 22(5): 1309–1319.

Gilbert, B. & Lechowicz, M.J. 2005. Invasibility and abiotic gradients: the positive correlation between native and exotic plant diversity. Ecology, 86(7): 1848–1855.

Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R. & Pauleit, S. 2007. Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1): 115–133.

Giorgi, F. 2006. Climate change hot-spots. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(8): L08707.

Gitas, I., Mitri, G., Veraverbeke, S. & Polychronaki, A. 2012. Advances in remote sensing of post-fire vegetation recovery monitoring–a review. In L. Fatoyinbo, ed. Remote sensing of biomass–Principles and applications, pp. 143–176. Rijeka, Croatia, InTech.

Gitlin, A.R., Sthultz, C.M., Bowker, M.A., Stumpf, S., Paxton, K.L., Kennedy, K., Muñoz, A., Bailey, J.K. & Whitham, T.G. 2006. Mortality gradients within and among dominant plant populations as barometers of ecosystem change during extreme drought. Conservation Biology, 20(5): 1477–1486.

Giuliarelli, D., Mingarelli, E., Corona, P., Pelleri, F., Alivernini, A. & Chianucci, F. 2016. Tree-oriented silviculture for valuable timber production in mixed Turkey oak (Quercus cerris L.) coppices in Italy. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 40(2): 148–154.

GIZ. 2012. The ABS Capacity Development Initiative. Programme document 2012 – 2015. Eschborn, Germany, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH. 25 pp.

Global Footprint Network. 2015. How can Mediterranean societies thrive in an era of decreasing resources? Chatelaine, Switzerland, Mediterranean Ecological Footprint Initiative. 25 pp.

Global Footprint Network. 2016. National footprint accounts 2016 edition. In: Free Public Data Set [online]. Oakland, USA. [Cited October 2017].
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free-2018/.

Gómez-Aparicio, L., Ibánez, B., Serrano, M.S., De Vita, P., Avila, J.M., Pérez-Ramos, I.M., García, L.V., Esperanza Sánchez, M. & Maranón, T. 2012. Spatial patterns of soil pathogens in declining Mediterranean forests: implications for tree species regeneration. New Phytologist, 194(4): 1014–1024.

Gómez-Aparicio, L., Zamora, R., Gómez, J.M., Hódar, J.A., Castro, J. & Baraza, E. 2004. Applying plant facilitation to forest restoration: a meta-analysis of the use of shrubs as nurse plants. Ecological Applications, 14(4): 1128–1138.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, 283

M., Saarikoski, H. et al. 2014. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1, Brussels, European Commission FP7. 33 pp.

Gómez-Gutiérrez, J.M., ed. 1992. El libro de las dehesas salmantinas. Salamanca, España, Junta de Castilla y León. 947 pp.

González-Moreno, P., Pino, J., Gassó, N. & Vilà, M. 2013. Landscape context modulates alien plant invasion in Mediterranean forest edges. Biological invasions, 15(3): 547–557.

Gorriz, E. & Prokofieva, I. 2014. Payments for environmental services in Mediterranean forests and the role of property rights. In M. Falque & H. Lamotte, eds. Agriculture and forestry: Property rights, economics and environment. 9th international conference, Aix Marseille university, 21-23 June 2012, pp. 385–428. Brussels, Bruylant.

Górriz Mifsud, E. 2013. Six years of payments for mature forests conservation in Girona (Catalonia, Spain ). In: EAERE international workshop. Evaluating forest conservation initiatives: new tools and policy needs, Barcelona, Spain, 10-12 December 2013. Poster.

Gouriveau, F. 2016. Pilot participatory management approaches in woodland areas in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey: lessons learned and potential applications across the Mediterranean. Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu, and Rome, FAO. 44 pp.

Gracia, C., Vanclay, J., Daly hassen, H., Sabaté, S. & Gyenge, J. 2011. Securing water for trees and people: possible avenues. In Y. Birot, C. Gracia & M. Palahí, eds. Water for forest and people in the Mediterranean region – A challenging balance, pp. 83–91. What Science Can Tell Us No. 1. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute.

Granata, A.V. & Hillman, A.L. 1998. Competing practice guidelines: using cost-effectiveness analysis to make optimal decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128(1): 56–63.

Grassi, G., House, J., Dentener, F., Federici, S., den Elzen, M. & Penman, J. 2017. The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 7: 220–226.

Gratani, L., Crescente, M.F., Varone, L., Puglielli, G., Catoni, R. & Bonito, A. 2017. Carbon storage by Mediterranean vegetation developing inside a protected area. Rendiconti Lincei, 28(2): 425–433.

Grieg-Gran, M., Bass, S., Booker, F. & Day, M. 2015. The role of forests in a green economy transformation in Africa. Nairobi, UNEP. 65 pp.

Grossiord, C., Granier, A., Ratcliffe, S., Bouriaud, O., Bruelheide, H., Chec´ ko, E., Forrester, D. et al. 2014. Tree diversity does not always improve resistance of forest ecosystems to drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(41): 14812–14815.

Guby, N.A.B. & Dobbertin, M. 1996. Quantitative estimates of coarse woody debris and standing dead trees in selected Swiss forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 5(6): 327–341.

Guerra, C.A., Maes, J., Geijzendorffer, I. & Metzger, M.J. 2016. An assessment of soil erosion prevention by vegetation in Mediterranean Europe: Current trends of ecosystem service provision. Ecological Indicators, 60: 213–222.

Guillemot, J., Klein, E., Davi, H. & Courbet, F. 2015. The effects of thinning intensity and tree size on the growth response to annual climate in Cedrus atlantica: a linear mixed modeling approach. Annals of Forest Science, 72(5): 651–663.

Guillerme, S., Alet, B., Briane, G., Fréderic, C. & Maire, E. 2009. L’arbre hors forêt en France. Diversité, usages et perspectives. Revue Forestière Française, 61(5): 543–560.

Guyot, V., Castagneyrol, B., Vialatte, A., Deconchat, M. & Jactel, H. 2016. Tree diversity reduces pest damage in mature forests across Europe. Biology Letters, 12(4): 20151037.

Habel, J.C., Drees, C., Schmitt, T. & Assmann, T. 2010. Review refugial areas and postglacial colonizations in the western Palearctic. In J.C. Habel & T. Assmann, eds. Relict species: Phylogeography and conservation biology, pp. 189–197. Berlin, Springer.

Habitat III Secretariat. 2016. New urban agenda. A/RES/71/256. United Nations. 54 pp.

Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. Raffaelli & C. Frid, eds. Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis, pp. 110–139. BES Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2012. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). Paper for the european environment agency, Nottingham, UK, University of Nottingham, Centre for Environmental Management. 17 pp.

Hampe, A. & Petit, R.J. 2005. Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecology Letters, 8(5): 461–467.

Hamrick, J. & Brotto, L. 2017. State of European markets 2017. Voluntary carbon. Washington, DC, Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace and ECOSTAR. 44 pp.

Hamrick, J.L. 2004. Response of forest trees to global environmental changes. Forest Ecology and Management, 197(1-3): 323–335.

Hani, N., Regato, P., Colomer, R., Pagliani, M., Bouwadi, M. & Zeineddine, Z. 2017. Adaptive forest landscape restoration as a contribution to more resilient ecosystems in the Shouf Biosphere Reserve (Lebanon). Plant Sociology, 54(1): 111–118.

Hansen, M.C. & DeFries, R.S. 2004. Detecting long-term global forest change using continuous fields of tree-cover maps from 8-km advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) data for the years 1982–99. Ecosystems, 7(7): 695–716.

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D. et al. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160): 850–853.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243–1248.

Hargita, Y. & Rüter, S. 2015. Analysis of the land use sector in INDCs of relevant Non-Annex I parties. Thünen Working Paper 50, Braunschweig, Germany, Thünen Institute. 82 pp.

HCEFLCD. 2005. Programme décennal (2005-2014). Rabat, Haut-Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification.

Heller, M. 1998. The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review, 111(3): 621–688.

Henry, F., Talon, B. & Dutoit, T. 2010. The age and history of the French Mediterranean steppe revisited by soil wood charcoal analysis. The Holocene, 20(1): 25–34.

Hepburn, S. 2009. Carbon rights as new property: The benefits of statutory verification. Sydney Law Review, 31(2): 239–271.

Héritier, A. & Lehmkuhl, D. 2008. The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 28(1): 1–17.

Heywood, V.H., ed. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 1152 pp.

Hickler, T., Vohland, K., Feehan, J., Miller, P.A., Smith, B., Costa, L., Giesecke, T. et al. 2012. Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(1): 50–63.

Hódar, J.A. & Zamora, R. 2004. Herbivory and climatic warming: a Mediterranean outbreaking caterpillar attacks a relict, boreal pine species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(3): 493–500.

Holman, I.P., Brown, C., Janes, V. & Sandars, D. 2017. Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis. Agricultural Systems, 151: 126–135.

Holmes, T.P. 2003. Non-market valuation. In E.O. Sills & K.L. Abt, eds. Forests in a market economy, p. 301. Forestry Sciences No. 72. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.

Houghton, R., Byers, B. & Nassikas, A. 2015. A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Nature Climate Change, 5: 1022–1023.

Houpin, S. 2011. Urban mobility and sustainable development in the Mediterranean: Regional diagnostic outlook. Blue Plan Papers No. 9. Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 103 pp.

Huhndorf, S.M., Lodge, D.J., Wang, C.J. & Stokland, J.N. 2004. Macrofungi on woody substrata. In G.M. Mueller, G.F. Bills & M.S. Foster, eds. Biodiversity of fungi. Inventory and monitoring methods, pp. 159–163. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier.

Hunter Jr, M.L. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, Prentice Hall. 370 pp.

Hurmekoski, E. 2017. How can wood construction reduce environmental degradation? Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute. 11 pp.

Hussein, M.A. 2008. Costs of environmental degradation: An analysis in the Middle East and North Africa region. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(3): 305–317.

i-Tree. 2017. i-Tree Eco user’s manual v6.0. Washington, DC, USDA Forest Service. 89 pp.

Ibáñez, B., Gómez-Aparicio, L., Stoll, P., Ávila, J.M., Pérez-Ramos, I.M. & Marañón, T. 2015. A neighborhood analysis of the consequences of Quercus suber decline for regeneration dynamics in Mediterranean forests. PLoS ONE, 10(2): e0117827.

IEMed. 2016. Annuaire IEMed de la Méditerranée 2016. Barcelone, Espagne, Institut Européen de la Méditerranée.

INS. 2016. Statistiques. In: Institut national de la statistique de la Tunisie [online]. Tunis, Tunisie. Accessed: November 2016. www.ins.nat.tn.

IPCC. 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 881 pp.

IPCC. 2007a. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC. 104 pp.

IPCC. 2007b. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 996 pp.

IPCC. 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 1535 pp.

IPCC. 2014a. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Working group II contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 1132 pp.

IPCC. 2014b. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects. Working group II contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 1820 pp.

IPCC. 2014c. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC. 151 pp.

IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2017-1. In: IUCN Global Species Programme Red List Unit [online]. Cambridge, UK, International Union for Conservation of Nature. Accessed: May 2017. http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Iverson, L.R. & McKenzie, D. 2013. Tree-species range shifts in a changing climate: detecting, modeling, assisting. Landscape Ecology, 28(5): 879–889.

Jactel, H. & Brockerhoff, E.G. 2007. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecology Letters, 10(9): 835–848.

Jactel, H., Petit, J., Desprez-Loustau, M.L., Delzon, S., Piou, D., Battisti, A. & Koricheva, J. 2012. Drought effects on damage by forest insects and pathogens: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 18(1): 267–276.

Janin Rivolin, U. 2010. EU territorial governance: learning from institutional progress. European Journal of Spatial Development, 38: 1–28. 286

Janssen, J.A.M., Rodwell, J.S., Criado, M.G., Gubbay, S., Haynes, T., Nieto, A., Sanders, N. et al. 2016. European red list of habitats – Part 2. Terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 38 pp.

Jessop, B. 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155): 29–45.

Johnsen, S.Å.K. & Rydstedt, L.W. 2013. Active use of the natural environment for emotion regulation. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 9(4): 798–819.

Josa, R., Jorba, M. & Vallejo, V.R. 2012. Opencast mine restoration in a Mediterranean semi-arid environment: failure of some common practices. Ecological Engineering, 42: 183–191.

Jucker, T., Bouriaud, O., Avacaritei, D. & Coomes, D.A. 2014. Stabilizing effects of diversity on aboveground wood production in forest ecosystems: linking patterns and processes. Ecology letters, 17(12): 1560–1569.

Jucker Riva, M., Daliakopoulos, I., Eckert, S., Hodel, E. & Liniger, H. 2017. Assessment of land degradation in Mediterranean forests and grazing lands using a landscape unit approach and the normalized difference vegetation index. Applied Geography, 86: 8–21.

Junninen, K., Similä, M., Kouki, J. & Kotiranta, H. 2006. Assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi along the gradients of succession and naturalness in boreal pine-dominated forests in Fennoscandia. Ecography, 29(1): 75–83.

Karadelev, M., Rusevska, K., Venturella, G., Torta, L. & Gargano, M.L. 2017. First record of Capnobotrys dingleyae (Metacapnodiaceae) on Taxus baccata for southern Europe. Plant Biosystems, 151(6): 941–943.

Kaya, G., Aytekin, A., Yıldız, Y., & S¸ altu, Z. 2009. Determining the economic value of protection of wildlife resources and hunting services in the Bartın Province. Project No. 107o072, Bartın, Turkey, TÜBITAK. 94 pp. In Turkish (Bartın Ilinde Yaban hayatı Kaynaklarını Korumanın ve Avlanma Hizmetinin Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi).

Kaya, G., Dasdemir, I. & Akca, Y. 2000. Determining the economic values of recreation services of the Soguksu National Park. Journal of The Bartin Faculty of Forestry, 1(1-2): 59–87.

Kaya, G. & Özyürek, E. 2015. Economic value estimation of scenic beauty of METU forest in the context of urban forest. Turkish Journal of Forestry Research, 1(2A): 15–28. In Turkish.

Keenan, R.J., Reams, G.A., Achard, F., de Freitas, J.V., Grainger, A. & Lindquist, E. 2015. Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 9–20.

Kelly, D. & Sork, V.L. 2002. Mast seeding in perennial plants: why, how, where? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33(1): 427–447.

Kerr, J.T. & Dobrowski, S.Z. 2013. Predicting the impacts of global change on species, communities and ecosystems: it takes time. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 22(3): 261–263.

Ketikidis, C., Christidou, M., Papadelis, E.C., Grammelis, P., Gypakis, A., Oberwimmer, R. & Kolck, M. 2016. Pilot applications proposal for sustainable woody biomass supply chains. International Journal of Energy Research, 40(1): 81–90.

Khalfaoui, M. & Daly-Hassen, H. 2017. Le conflit de la gestion forestière entre la soutenabilité des ressources naturelles et la subsistance de la population locale: étude de cas de Iteimia-Tunisie. In A. Jallais, ed. Approches territorialisées des usages de la forêt. Actes du colloque, p. 54. Paris, GIP Ecofor.

Kharas, H. 2017. The unprecedented expansion of the global middle class: An update. Global Economy & Development Working Paper No. 100. Washington, DC, Brookins Institute. 27 pp.

Kigomo, B.N. 2003. Forests and woodlands degradation in dryland Africa: a case for urgent global attention. In Proceedings of the XII world forestry congress, Québec City, Canada, pp. 0169–B3.

Kimiti, D.W., Riginos, C. & Belnap, J. 2017. Low-cost grass restoration using erosion barriers in a degraded African rangeland. Restoration Ecology, 25(3): 376–384. 287

Kint, V., Aertsen, W., Campioli, M., Vansteenkiste, D., Delcloo, A. & Muys, B. 2012. Radial growth change of temperate tree species in response to altered regional climate and air quality in the period 1901–2008. Climatic Change, 115(2): 343–363.

Kizos, T. & Plieninger, T. 2008. Agroforestry systems change in the Mediterranean: some evidence from Greek and Spanish examples. In Proceedings of the international Earth conference: Studying, modeling and sense making of planet Earth, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece, 1-6 June 2008, 9 pp. Mytilene, Greece, University of the Aegean, Department of Geography.

Klausmeyer, K.R. & Shaw, M.R. 2009. Climate change, habitat loss, protected areas and the climate adaptation potential of species in Mediterranean ecosystems worldwide. PLoS ONE, 4(7): e6392.

Kleinschmit, D., Arts, B. J. M.and Giurca, A., Mustalahti, I., Sergent, A. & Pülzl, H. 2017. Environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses. International Forestry Review, 19(S1): 41–55.

Konnert, M., Fady, B., Gömöry, D., A’Hara, S., Wolter, F., Ducci, F., Koskela, J., Bozzano, M., Maaten, T. & Kowalczyk, J. 2015. Use and transfer of forest reproductive material in Europe in the context of climate change. Rome, EUFORGEN, Bioversity International. 75 pp.

Konnert, M. & Hosius, B. 2010. Contribution of forest genetics for a sustainable forest management. Forstarchiv, 81(4): 170–174.

Kosoy, N. & Corbera, E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics, 69(6): 1228–1236.

Kotzen, B., ed. 2017. COST Action ES1104. Arid lands restoration and combat of desertification: Setting up a drylands and desert restoration hub. Arid lands restoration scientific fact sheets: State of the art knowledge in science, successes and case studies in restoration. EU COST ES1104. 128 pp.

Koutsias, N., Allgöwer, B., Kalabokidis, K., Mallinis, G., Balatsos, P. & Goldammer, J.G. 2015. Fire occurrence zoning from local to global scale in the European Mediterranean basin: implications for multi-scale fire management and policy. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 9(2): 195–204.

Koutsias, N., Arianoutsou, M., Kallimanis, A.S., Mallinis, G., Halley, J.M. & Dimopoulos, P. 2012. Where did the fires burn in Peloponnisos, Greece the summer of 2007? Evidence for a synergy of fuel and weather. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 156: 41–53.

Krajter Ostoić, S., Posavec, S., Paladinić, E., Županić, M., Beljan, K., Curman, M.,C´ aleta, M. & Šimunović, N. 2015. Forest land ownership change in Croatia. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Report. Vienna, European Forest Institute Central-East and South-East European Regional Office. 40 pp.

Kumar, B.M. & Nair, P.K.R., eds. 2011. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems. Opportunities and challenges. Advances in Agroforestry No. 8. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer. 310 pp.

Kuper, M., Dionnet, M., Hammani, A., Bekkar, Y., Garin, P. & Bluemling, B. 2009. Supporting the shift from state water to community water: lessons from a social learning approach to designing joint irrigation projects in Morocco. Ecology and Society, 14(1): 19.

La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M.L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B., Geneletti, D. & Crossman, N.D. 2017. Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators, 74: 392–402.

Laczko, F. & Aghazarm, C., eds. 2009. Migration, environment and climate change: assessing the evidence. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Migration. 441 pp.

Laestadius, L. 2015. Will World Forestry Congress see merit in trees outside the forest? In: Blog of the World Resources Institute [online]. Washington, DC, WRI. Accessed: 13 July 2017. http://www.wri.org/print/43267.

Lafortezza, R., Tanentzap, A.J., Elia, M., John, R., Sanesi, G. & Chen, J. 2015. Prioritizing fuel management in urban interfaces threatened by wildfires. Ecological Indicators, 48: 342–347.

Lainez, M., González, J.M., Aguilar, A. & Vela, C. 2018. Spanish strategy on bioeconomy: Towards a knowledge based sustainable innovation. New Biotechnology, 40(A): 87–95. 288

Landell-Mills, N. & Porras, I.T. 2002. Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. London, IIED. 254 pp.

Landmann, G. & Dreyer, E. 2006. Impacts of drought and heat on forests. Synthesis of available knowledge, with emphasis on the 2003 event in Europe. Annals of Forest Science, 63(6): 567–568.

Laouina, A., Aderghal, M., Al Karkouri, J., Antari, M., Chaker, M., Laghazi, Y., Machmachi, I. et al. 2010. The efforts for cork oak forest management and their effects on soil conservation. Forest Systems, 19(2): 263–277.

Lasanta-Martínez, T., Vicente-Serrano, S.M. & Cuadrat-Prats, J.M. 2005. Mountain Mediterranean landscape evolution caused by the abandonment of traditional primary activities: a study of the Spanish Central Pyrenees. Applied Geography, 25(1): 47–65.

Lazarev, G. 1993. Vers un éco-développement participatif. Paris, L’Harmattan. 271 pp.

Le, H.D., Smith, C., Herbohn, J. & Harrison, S. 2012. More than just trees: assessing reforestation success in tropical developing countries. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(1): 5–19.

Le Houérou, H.N. 1990. Agroforestry and sylvopastoralism to combat land degradation in the Mediterranean Basin: old approaches to new problems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 33(2): 99–109.

Lecina-Diaz, J., Alvarez, A. & Retana, J. 2014. Extreme fire severity patterns in topographic, convective and wind-driven historical wildfires of Mediterranean pine forests. PLoS ONE, 9(1): e85127.

Lefhaili, A. 2015. Caractérisation des agents et causes la déforestation et de la dégradation forestière dans le site de la Maâmora au Maroc. Technical report of the project “Maximize the production of goods and services of mediterranean forest ecosystems in the context of global changes”, Rome, FAO. 70 pp.

Leiva, M.J., Chapin, F.S. & Ales, R.F. 1997. Differences in species composition and diversity among Mediterranean grasslands with different history–the case of California and Spain. Ecography, 20(2): 97–106.

Lewis, S.L. & Maslin, M.A. 2015. Defining the anthropocene. Nature, 519(7542): 171–180.

Liang, J., Crowther, T.W., Picard, N., Wiser, S., Zhou, M., Alberti, G., Schulze, E.D. et al. 2016. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science, 354(6309): aaf8957.

Lichtenstein, M.E. & Montgomery, C.A. 2003. Biodiversity and timber in the coast range of Oregon: inside the production possibility frontier. Land Economics, 1(79): 56–73.

Linares, J., Delgado Huertas, A. & Carreira, J. 2011. Climatic trends and different drought adaptive capacity and vulnerability in a mixed Abies pinsapo-Pinus halepensis forest. Climatic Change, 105(1-2): 67–90.

Lindig-Cisneros, R., Desmond, J., Boyer, K.E. & Zedler, J.B. 2003. Wetland restoration thresholds: Can a degradation transition be reversed with increased effort? Ecological Applications, 13(1): 193–205.

Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Seidl, R. et al. 2010. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of european forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4): 698–709.

Lloret, F., Peñuelas, J., Prieto, P., Llorens, L. & Estiarte, M. 2009. Plant community changes induced by experimental climate change: seedling and adult species composition. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 11(1): 53–63.

Lloret, F., Peñuelas, J. & Estiarte, M. 2004. Experimental evidence of reduced diversity of seedlings due to climate modification in a Mediterranean-type community. Global Change Biology, 10(2): 248–258.

Locatelli, B. 2013. Services écosystémiques et changement climatique. Mémoire d’habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Grenoble 1, Grenoble, France, 79 pp.

Lovasi, G.S., Quinn, J.W., Neckerman, K.M., Perzanowski, M.S. & Rundle, A. 2008. Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62: 647–649. 289

Luna, B., Arianoutsou, M., Chamorro, D., Galanidis, A., Fyllas, N., Dimitrakopoulos, P., Ourcival, J. et al. 2014. Germination sensitivity of Mediterranean species to changing climate conditions. In J.M. Moreno, M. Arianoutsou, A. González-Cabán, F. Mouillot, W.C. Oechel, D. Spano, K. Thonicke, V.R. Vallejo & R. Vélez, eds. Forest fires under climate, social and economic changes in Europe, the Mediterranean and other fire-affected areas of the world – FUME: lessons learned and outlook, pp. 36–37. Toledo, Spain, FUME Project.

Luna, B., Moreno, J.M., Cruz, A. & Fernández-González, F. 2007. Heat-shock and seed germination of a group of Mediterranean plant species growing in a burned area: an approach based on plant functional types. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 60(3): 324–333.

Lund, H.G. 1999. A ‘forest’ by any other name…. Environmental Science and Policy, 2(2): 125–133.

Lundgren, B.O. & Raintree, J.B. 1983. Sustained agroforestry. In B.L. Nestel, ed. Agricultural research for development: potentials and challenges in Asia. Report of a conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, 24-29 October 1982, pp. 37–49. The Hague, The Netherlands, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Lybbert, T.J., Magnan, N. & Aboudrare, A. 2010. Household and local forest impacts of Morocco’s argan oil bonanza. Environment and Development Economics, 15(4): 439–464.

MAAF. 2016. Une stratégie bioéconomie pour la France. Enjeux et vision. Paris, République française, Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt. 36 pp.

MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J. & Gibon, A. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1): 47–69.

Mackill, D.J., Nguyen, H.T. & Zhang, J. 1999. Use of molecular markers in plant improvement programs for rainfed lowland rice. Field Crops Research, 64(1): 177–185.

Madison, A. 2001. The world economy: a millennial perspective. Development Centre Studies. Paris, OECD. 384 pp.

MADRP. 2015. Towards achieving Land Degradation Neutrality: turning the concept into practice. Algeria summary report to the UNCCD, Algiers, Ministère de l’Agriculture, du Développement Rural et de la Pêche. 31 pp.

Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L. & Zulian, G. 2011. A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services: Towards an atlas of ecosystem services. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 82 pp.

Maestre, F.T. & Cortina, J. 2004. Are Pinus halepensis plantations useful as a restoration tool in semiarid Mediterranean areas? Forest Ecology and Management, 198(1): 303–317.

Mairie de Paris. 2014. The Paris greening programme. Paris, Direction des espaces verts et de l’environnement, Agence d’écologie urbaine. 3 pp.

Malhi, Y. 2002. Carbon in the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere in the 21st century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1801): 2925–2945.

Mancini, L.D., Barbati, A. & Corona, P. 2017. Geospatial analysis of woodland fire occurrence and recurrence in Italy. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 41(1): 41–47.

Manetti, M., Becagli, C., Sansone, D. & Pelleri, F. 2016. Tree-oriented silviculture: A new approach for coppice stands. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 9: 791–800.

MANRE. 2007. Sustainable development strategy 2007. Nicosia, Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus. Full document in Greek, summary in English.

MAOTE. 2015. Compromisso para o crescimento verde. Lisboa, Governo de Portugal, Ministério do Ambiente, Ordenamento do Território e Energia. 190 pp.

MAPAMA. 2008a. Programa de acción nacional contra la desertificación (PAND). Madrid, Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente de España. 262 pp.

MAPAMA. 2008b. Tercer inventario forestal nacional 1997- 2007. In: Banco de Datos de la Naturaleza [online]. Madrid, España, Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. Accessed: 15 May 2018. http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/servicios/banco-datos-naturaleza/informacion-disponible/ifn3.aspx.

Maréchal, L., Semple, S., Majolo, B. & MacLarnon, A. 2016. Assessing the effects of tourist provisioning on the health of wild Barbary macaques in Morocco. PLoS ONE, 11(5): e0155920.

Maréchal, L., Semple, S., Majolo, B., Qarro, M., Heistermann, M. & MacLarnon, A. 2011. Impacts of tourism on anxiety and physiological stress levels in wild male Barbary macaques. Biological Conservation, 144(9): 2188–2193.

Maroto Álvarez, 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.

Martin, P.H., Canham, C.D. & Marks, P.L. 2009. Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(3): 142–149.

Martín-Benito, D., Del Río, M., Heinrich, I., Helle, G. & Cañellas, I. 2010. Response of climate-growth relationships and water use efficiency to thinning in a Pinus nigra afforestation. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(5): 967–975.

Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M. & Montes, C. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37(A): 220–228.

Martín-Ortega, P., García-Montero, L., Pascual, C., García-Robredo, F., Picard, N. & Bastin, J.F. 2017. Global drylands assessment using Collect Earth tools and opportunities for forest restoration: results in the Mediterranean region. Forêt Méditerranéenne, 38(3): 259–266.

Martínez Martínez, S., Estévez Malvar, M., Anguita Alegret, G., Rojo-Alboreca, A., Picos Martín, J., de Luque Ripoll, M. & Marín-Pageo, F. 2017. El proceso de adaptación del estándar español de gestión forestal sostenible a los nuevos principios y criterios del FSC. In Actas del 7o congreso forestal español. Palencia, España, Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales.

Martínez-Vilalta, J., Lloret, F. & Breshears, D.D. 2012. Drought-induced forest decline: causes, scope and implications. Biology Letters, 8(5): 689–691.

Masiero, M., Pettenella, D.M. & Secco, L. 2016. From failure to value: economic valuation for a selected set of products and services from Mediterranean forests. Forest Systems, 25(1): e051.

Matías, L., Zamora, R. & Castro, J. 2011. Repercussions of simulated climate change on the diversity of woody-recruit bank in a Mediterranean-type ecosystem. Ecosystems, 14(4): 672–682.

Matías, L., Zamora, R. & Castro, J. 2012. Sporadic rainy events are more critical than increasing of drought intensity for woody species recruitment in a Mediterranean community. Oecologia, 169(3): 833–844.

Matta, R. 2015. Towards effective national forest funds. FAO Forestry Paper No. 174. Rome, FAO. 80 pp.

MATTM. 2015. Towards achieving Land Degradation Neutrality: turning the concept into practice. Italy summary report to the UNCCD, Rome, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare. 36 pp.

Màtyàs, C. 2007. What do field trials tell about the future use of forest reproductive material? In J. Koskela, A. Buck & E. Teissier du Cros, eds. Climate change and forest genetic diversity: implications for sustainable forest management in Europe, pp. 53–69. Rome, Bioversity International.

Mauerhofer, V., Hubacek, K. & Coleby, A. 2013. From polluter pays to provider gets: distribution of rights and costs under payments for ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 18(4): 41.

Mavsar, R. & Riera, P. 2007. Valoración económica de las principales externalidades de los bosques mediterráneos españoles: Informe final. Barcelona, España, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. 93 pp.

Mavsar, R., Varela, E., Gouriveau, F. & Herreros, F. 2014. Methods and tools for socio-economic assessment of goods and services provided by Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Project report for 291 component 2 of the project “Optimized production of goods and services by mediterranean forest ecosystems in the context of global changes”, Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 127 pp.

Mazzoleni, S., di Pasquale, G., Mulligan, M., di Martino, P. & Rego, F., eds. 2004. Recent dynamics of the Mediterranean vegetation and landscape. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons. 306 pp.

McDonald, T., Gann, G.D., Jonson, J. & Dixon, K.W. 2016a. International standards for the practice of ecological restoration - Including principles and key concepts. Washington, DC, Society for Ecological Restoration. 47 pp.

McDonald, T., Jonson, J. & Dixon, K.W. 2016b. National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia. Restoration Ecology, 24(S1): S4–S32.

McDowell, N., Pockman, W.T., Allen, C.D., Breshears, D.D., Cobb, N., Kolb, T., Plaut, J. et al. 2008. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New phytologist, 178(4): 719–739.

McNeil, J.R. & Engelke, P. 2016. The great acceleration: An environmental history of the Anthropocene since 1945. Cambridge, USA, Harvard University Press. 288 pp.

MEC. 2016. The Spanish bioeconomy strategy, 2030 horizon. Madrid, Gobierno de España, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. 45 pp.

Médail, F. & Diadema, K. 2009. Glacial refugia influence plant diversity patterns in the Mediterranean Basin. Journal of Biogeography, 36(7): 1333–1345.

MEDDE. 2015. France national low-carbon strategy. Paris, République française, Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie. 202 pp.

MEFI. 2006. Guide de l’achat public éco-responsable: achat de produits. Guide approuvé par la Commission technique des marchés le 9 décembre 2004. Paris, Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de l’industrie, Groupe permanent d’étude des marchés « Développement durable, environnement ». 36 pp.

Megwai, G., Isatou Njie, N. & Richards, T. 2016. Exploring green economy strategies and policies in developing countries. International Journal of Green Economics, 10(3-4): 338.

Mehlman, P.T. 1988. Food resources of the wild Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) in high-altitude fir forest, Ghomaran Rif, Morocco. Journal of Zoology, 214(3): 469–490.

Ménard, N., Foulquier, A., Vallet, D., Qarro, M., Le Gouar, P. & Pierre, J.S. 2014a. How tourism and pastoralism influence population demographic changes in a threatened large mammal species. Animal Conservation, 17(2): 115–124.

Ménard, N., Motsch, P., Delahaye, A., Saintvanne, A., Le Flohic, G., Dupé, S., Vallet, D., Qarro, M. & Pierre, J.S. 2013. Effect of habitat quality on the ecological behaviour of a temperate-living primate: time-budget adjustments. Primates, 54(3): 217–228.

Ménard, N., Motsch, P., Delahaye, A., Saintvanne, A., Le Flohic, G., Dupé, S., Vallet, D., Qarro, M., Tattou, M.I. & Pierre, J.S. 2014b. Effect of habitat quality on diet flexibility in Barbary macaques. American Journal of Primatology, 76(7): 679–693.

Ménard, N. & Qarro, M. 1999. Bark stripping and water availability: a comparative study between Moroccan and Algerian Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Revue d’Écologie, 54(2): 123–132.

Ménard, N., Rantier, Y., Foulquier, A., Qarro, M., Chillasse, L., Vallet, D., Pierre, J.S. & Butet, A. 2014c. Impact of human pressure and forest fragmentation on the endangered Barbary macaque Macaca sylvanus in the Middle Atlas of Morocco. Oryx, 48(2): 276–284.

Mendoza, I., Gómez-Aparicio, L., Zamora, R. & Matías, L. 2009. Recruitment limitation of forest communities in a degraded Mediterranean landscape. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20(2): 367–376.

MEP. 2014. Green growth: connecting the economy and the environment in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel, State of Israel, Ministry of Environmental Protection. 14 pp.

MEPPPC. 2011. Strategy for sustainable development of the Republic of Croatia. Zagreb, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction. 51 pp.

Merlin, M., Perot, T., Perret, S., Korboulewsky, N. & Vallet, P. 2015. Effects of stand composition and tree size on resistance and resilience to drought in sessile oak and Scots pine. Forest Ecology and Management, 339: 22–33.

Merlo, M. & Croitoru, L., eds. 2005. Valuing mediterranean forests: towards total economic value. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing. 406 pp.

MESDE. 2015. National strategy of ecological transition towards sustainable development 2015-2020. Paris, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy of France. 128 pp.

MESP. 2012. Study on achievements and perspectives towards a green economy and sustainable growth in Serbia. National report for the world conference on sustainable development, Rio de Janeiro, 20-22 June 2012, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. 91 pp.

MESP. 2016. Connected for growth. Transition to a green economy in Slovenia. Summary. Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. 15 pp.

Metzger, M.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R. & Schröter, D. 2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114(1): 69–85.

Metzger, M.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Jongman, R.H.G., Sayre, R., Trabucco, A. & Zomer, R. 2013. A high-resolution bioclimate map of the world: a unifying framework for global biodiversity research and monitoring. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 22(5): 630–638.

Metzler, J. 2013. The importance of forests & trees outside forests for desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD). In: UNCCD COP 11 side event, Windhoek, Namibia.

MFWA. 2016. Turkey Land Degradation Neutrality national report 2016-2023. Ankara, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs. 76 pp.

Mhirit, O. & Et-Tobi, M. 2002. Los arboles fuera del bosque: El caso de Marruecos. In R. Bellefontaine, S. Petit, M. Pain-Orcet, P. Deleporte & J.G. Bertault, eds. Los árboles fuera del bosque. Hacia una mejor consideración, pp. 185–192. Guía FAO: Conservación No. 35. Rome, FAO.

Mhirit, O. & Et-Tobi, M. 2003. Trees outside forests in North Africa – Context and tendencies. In Proceedings of the XII world forestry congress, Québec City, Canada, pp. 0011–C4.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Washington, DC, Island Press. 245 pp.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute. 100 pp.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystems and human well-being. Health synthesis. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization. 64 pp.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005c. Ecosystems and human well-being. Synthesis. Washington, DC, Island Press. 137 pp.

Ministry of Environment. 2011. Lebanon’s second national communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Beirut, Republic of Lebanon. 191 pp.

Ministry of Environment. 2017. A national green growth plan for Jordan. Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 141 pp.

Ministry of Environment, UNDP & GEF. 2015. National greenhouse gas inventory report and mitigation analysis for the land use, land-use change and forestry sector in Lebanon. Beirut, Republic of Lebanon. 114 pp.

Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. 2011. Environment situation report. Ankara, Republic of Turkey, General Directorate of Environmental Impact Assessment, Permit and Inspection. 354 pp. In Turkish (2011 Türkiye çevre durum raporu).

Mittermeier, R.A., Robles Gil, P., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J. & da Fonseca, G.A.B. 2004. Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX Books on Nature. Mexico City, Mexico, CEMEX. 391 pp.

MMA. 1999. Spanish forestry strategy. Madrid, España, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Secretaría General de Medio Ambiente, Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. 330 pp.

Montealegre, A., Lamelas, M., García-Martín, A., Riva, J. & Escribano-Bernal, F. 2017. Using low-density discrete airborne laser scanning data to assess the potential carbon dioxide emission in case of a fire event in a Mediterranean pine forest. GIScience and Remote Sensing, 54(5): 721–740.

Moreira, A.C. & Martins, J.M.S. 2005. Influence of site factors on the impact of Phytophthora cinnamomi in cork oak stands in Portugal. Forest Pathology, 35(3): 145–162.

Moreira, F., Arianoutsou, M., Corona, P. & De las Heras, J. 2012. Post-fire management and restoration of southern European forests. Managing Forest Ecosystems No. 24. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer. 330 pp.

Moreira, F., Viedma, O., Arianoutsou, M., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., Rigolot, E., Barbati, A. et al. 2011. Landscape-wildfire interactions in southern Europe: implications for landscape management. Journal of environmental management, 92(10): 2389–2402.

Moreno, G. & Pulido, F.J. 2009. The functioning, management and persistence of dehesas. In A. Rigueiro-Rodróguez, J. McAdam & M.R. Mosquera-Losada, eds. Agroforestry in Europe: Current status and future prospects, pp. 127–160. Advances in Agroforestry No. 6. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.

Moreno, G., Gonzalez-Bornay, G., Pulido, F., Lopez-Diaz, M.L., Bertomeu, M., Juárez, E. & Diaz, M. 2016. Exploring the causes of high biodiversity of Iberian dehesas: the importance of wood pastures and marginal habitats. Agroforestry systems, 90(1): 87–105.

Moreno, J.M., Arianoutsou, M., González-Cabán, A., Mouillot, F., Oechel, W.C., Spano, D., Thonicke, K., Vallejo, V.R. & Vélez, R., eds. 2014. Forest fires under climate, social and economic changes in Europe, the Mediterranean and other fire-affected areas of the world – FUME: lessons learned and outlook. Toledo, Spain, FUME Project. 56 pp.

Moritz, M.A., Parisien, M.A., Batllori, E., Krawchuk, M.A., Van Dorn, J., Ganz, D.J. & Hayhoe, K. 2012. Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity. Ecosphere, 3(6): 1–22.

Morocco. 2015. Morocco Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) under the UNFCCC. Rabat, The Kingdom of Morocco. 15 pp.

Morocco & UNDP. 2012. Morocco’s youth employment strategy green. Rabat, Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and United Nations Development Programme. 22 pp.

MTEP. 2007. National strategy of sustainable development of Montenegro. Podgorica, Government of the Republic of Montenegro, Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Protection. 125 pp.

Muennig, P. & Bounthavong, M. 2016. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach. San Francisco, CA, USA, Jossey-Bass, 3rd edn. 480 pp.

Müller, J., Brustel, H., Brin, A., Bussler, H., Bouget, C., Obermaier, E., Heidinger, I.M.M. et al. 2015. Increasing temperature may compensate for lower amounts of dead wood in driving richness of saproxylic beetles. Ecography, 38(5): 499–509.

Müller, J. & Bütler, R. 2010. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. European Journal of Forest Research, 129(6): 981–992.

Murray, V. 2015. Assessment report on the legal and administrative implementation of the Bern Convention in Greece. Tech. Rep. T-PVS/Inf (2015) 22, Strasbourg, France, Council of Europe. 34 pp.

Musaoğlu, N., Erten, E., Aksu Bozbay, A. & Özcan O. 2014. Analysis of the causes and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation at the pilot site of Düzlerçamı, Turkey. Technical report of the project “Maximize the production of goods and services of mediterranean forest ecosystems in the context of global changes”, Rome, FAO. 114 pp.

Mutke, S., Gordo, J. & Gil, L. 2005. Variability of Mediterranean stone pine cone production: yield loss as response to climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 132(3-4): 263–272.

Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: “hot spots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist, 8(3): 187–208.

Myers, N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis. Environmentalist, 10(4): 243–256.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772): 853–858. 294

Nabuurs, G.J., Lindner, M., Verkerk, H., Gunia, K., Deda, P., Michalak, R. & Grassi, G. 2013. First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nature Climate Change, 3: 792–796.

Nanson, A. 2004. Génétique et amélioration des arbres forestiers. Gembloux, Belgique, Les presses agronomiques de Gembloux. 712 pp.

Nardi, P., Di Matteo, G., Palahi, M. & Scarascia Mugnozza, G. 2016. Structure and evolution of Mediterranean forest research: a science mapping approach. PLoS ONE, 11(5): e0155016.

Nastran, M. & Regina, H. 2016. Advancing urban ecosystem governance in Ljubljana. Environmental Science and Policy, 62: 123–126.

National Commission for Sustainable Development. 2006. A sustainable development strategy for the Maltese islands 2007-2016. Valletta, Government of Malta. 76 pp.

Navarro, F. & Cortina, J. 2011. Restauración forestal en el mediterráneo ibérico: la búsqueda de un nuevo paradigma. In P. Álvarez Uría Tejero, ed. Sostenibilidad en España 2011. Capítulo especial los bosques en España (2011 año internacional de los bosques), pp. 359–372. Madrid, Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad en España, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Fundación Biodiversidad, and Fundación General de la Universidad de Alcalá.

Nicholson-Cole, S.A. & Whitmarsh, L. 2008. Researching with stakeholders: Lessons from interdisciplinary climate change research. Tyndall Centre Briefing Note 32, Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre. 9 pp.

Nocentini, S., Buttoud, G., Ciancio, O. & Corona, P. 2017. Managing forests in a changing world: the need for a systemic approach. A review. Forest Systems, 26(1): eR01.

Nocentini, S. & Coll, L. 2013. Mediterranean forests: human use and complex adaptive systems. In C. Messier, K.J. Puettmann & K.D. Coates, eds. Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Building resilience to the challenge of global change, pp. 214–243. The Earthscan Forest Library. London, Routledge.

Nsibi, R., Souayah, N., Khouja, L.M., Khaldi, A. & Bouzid, S. 2006. Impacts des facteurs biotiques et abiotiques sur la dégradation de suberaie tunisienne. Geo-Eco-Trop, 30(1): 49–58.

O’Brian, L. 2016. Trees and woodlands. Nature’s health service. Farnham, UK, Forestry Commission England. 48 pp.

OECD. 2009. The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda. International Futures Programme. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 322 pp.

OECD. 2011. Towards green growth. OECD Green Growth Studies. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 144 pp.

OGM. 2013. Chestnut action plan 2013-2017. Ankara, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü – General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey. 56 pp. In Turkish (Kestane Eylem Planı 2013-2017).

OGM. 2014a. Gum tree (Pistacia lentiscus) action plan 2014-2019. Ankara, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü – General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey. 44 pp. In Turkish (Sakız Eylem Planı 2014-2019).

OGM. 2014b. Truffle forest action plan 2014-2018. Ankara, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü – General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey. 44 pp. In Turkish (Trüf Ormanı Eylem Planı 2014-2018).

Ohsawa, M. 2010. Beetle families as indicators of Coleopteran diversity in forests: a study using Malaise traps in the central mountainous region of Japan. Journal of insect conservation, 14(5): 479–484.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., d’Amico, J.A. et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. BioScience, 51(11): 933–938.

Orlović, S., Ivanković, M., Andonovski, V., Stojnić, S. & Isajev, V. 2015. Forest genetic resources to support global bioeconomy. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2): 51–61. 295

Ortego, J., Aguirre, M.P., Noguerales, V. & Cordero, P.J. 2015. Consequences of extensive habitat fragmentation in landscape-level patterns of genetic diversity and structure in the Mediterranean esparto grasshopper. Evolutionary Applications, 8(6): 621–632.

Ortiz, I. & Cummins, M., eds. 2011. Global inequality: beyond the bottom billion – A rapid review of income distribution in 141 countries. Social and Economic Policy Working Paper. New York, USA, UNICEF. 65 pp.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B. & Policansky, D. 1999. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412): 278–282.

Ottaviano, M., Tonti, D., Di Martino, P., Chirici, G. & Marchetti, M. 2014. Influenza degli alberi fuori foresta sul paesaggio agro-forestale. In Atti del II congresso internazionale di selvicoltura. Progettare il futuro per il settore forestale, Firenze, 26-29 novembre 2014, Vol. 2, pp. 996–1003. Firenze, Italia, Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali.

Özdikmen, H. 2012. The importance of Cerambycoidea for Turkish biodiversity on the base of the endemics (Coleoptera). Munis Entomology and Zoology, 7(2): 1125–1140.

Ozenda, P. 1975. Sur les étages de végétation dans les montagnes du bassin méditerranéen. Documents de cartographie écologique, 16: 1–32.

Pagoulatos, G. 2010. The Greek economy and the potential for green development. International Policy Analysis. Berlin, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 9 pp.

Palahi, M., Mavsar, R., Gracia, C. & Birot, Y. 2008. Mediterranean forests under focus. International Forestry Review, 10(4): 676–688.

Paletto, A., De Natale, F., Gasparini, P., Morelli, S. & Tosi, V. 2006. L’Inventario degli Alberi Fuori Foresta (IAFF) come strumento di analisi del paesaggio e supporto alle scelte di pianificazione territoriale. Forest@, 3: 253–266.

Panzini, F. 1993. Per i piaceri del popolo. L’evoluzione del giardino pubblico in Europa dalle origini al XX secolo. Bologna, Italia, Zanichelli. 350 pp.

Parfondry, M., Amongero, C. & Berrahmouni, N. 2017. Restoration in the Mediterranean: Overview of experiences mapped and lessons learnt. Forêt Méditerranéenne, 38(3): 273–278.

Pasalodos-Tato, M., Almazán Riballo, E., Montero, G. & Diaz-Balteiro, L. 2017. Evaluation of tree biomass carbon stock changes in Andalusian forests: comparison of two methodologies. Carbon Management, 8(2): 125–134.

Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B. & Verma, M. 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In P. Kumar, ed. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and economic foundations, pp. 183–256. London, Earthscan.

Pausas, J.G. & Fernández-Muñoz, S. 2012. Fire regime changes in the Western Mediterranean Basin: from fuel-limited to drought-driven fire regime. Climatic change, 110(1-2): 215–226.

Pautasso, M., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Holdenrieder, O., Pietravalle, S., Salama, N., Jeger, M.J., Lange, E. & Hehl-Lange, S. 2010. Plant health and global change–some implications for landscape management. Biological Reviews, 85(4): 729–755.

Pearce, D.W. 2006. Framework for assessing the distribution of environmental quality. In Y. Serret & N. Johnstone, eds. The distributional effect of environmental policy, pp. 23–78. Cheltenham, UK, OECD and Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd.

Pellegrini, P. & Baudry, S. 2014. Streets as new places to bring together both humans and plants: examples from Paris and Montpellier (France). Social and Cultural Geography, 15(8): 871–900.

Peñuelas, J., Gracia, C., Alistair Jump, I.F., Carnicer, J., Coll, M., Lloret, F., Yuste, J.C. et al. 2010. Introducing the climate change effects on Mediterranean forest ecosystems: observation, experimentation, simulation, and management. Forêt méditerranéenne, 31(4): 357–362.

Peñuelas, J., Ogaya, R., Boada, M. & Jump, A.S. 2007. Migration, invasion and decline: changes in recruitment and forest structure in a warming-linked shift of European beech forest in Catalonia (NE Spain). Ecography, 30(6): 829–837. 296

Pérez-Cabello, F., Echeverría, M.T., Ibarra, P. & de la Riva, J. 2009. Effects of fire on vegetation, soil and hydrogeomorphological behavior in Mediterranean ecosystems. In E. Chuvieco, ed. Earth observation of wildland fires in Mediterranean ecosystems, pp. 111–128. Berlin, Springer.

Pérez-Ramos, I.M., Ourcival, J.M., Limousin, J.M. & Rambal, S. 2010. Mast seeding under increasing drought: results from a long-term data set and from a rainfall exclusion experiment. Ecology, 91(10): 3057–3068.

Pérez-Ramos, I.M. & Marañón, T. 2012. Community-level seedling dynamics in Mediterranean forests: uncoupling between the canopy and the seedling layers. Journal of Vegetation Science, 23(3): 526–540.

Pérez-Ramos, I.M., Padilla-Díaz, C.M., Koenig, W.D. & Marañón, T. 2015. Environmental drivers of mast-seeding in Mediterranean oak species: does leaf habit matter? Journal of Ecology, 103(3): 691–700.

Pérez-Ramos, I.M., Rodríguez-Calcerrada, J., Ourcival, J.M. & Rambal, S. 2013. Quercus ilex recruitment in a drier world: a multi-stage demographic approach. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 15(2): 106–117.

Pérez-Ramos, I.M., Urbieta, I.R., Marañón, T., Zavala, M.A. & Kobe, R.K. 2008. Seed removal in two coexisting oak species: ecological consequences of seed size, plant cover and seed-drop timing. Oikos, 117(9): 1386–1396.

Pérez-Ramos, I.M., Urbieta, I.R., Zavala, M.A. & Marañón, T. 2012. Ontogenetic conflicts and rank reversals in two Mediterranean oak species: implications for coexistence. Journal of Ecology, 100(2): 467–477.

Pettenella, D., Vidale, E., Gatto, P. & Secco, L. 2012. Paying for water-related forest services: a survey on Italian payment mechanisms. iForest–Biogeosciences and Forestry, 5(4): 210–215.

Peyer, H.C. 2009. Viaggiare nel Medioevo. Dall’ospitalità alla locanda. Bari, Italia, Editori Laterza, 6th edn. 397 pp.

Pichot, C. 2011. Database of the Mediterranean conifer field trials. In C. Besacier, F. Ducci, M. Malagnoux & O. Souvannavong, eds. Status of the experimental network of Mediterranean forest genetic resources, pp. 33–38. Arezzo, Italy, CRA SEL, and Rome, FAO.

Pielke, R.A. 2005. Land use and climate change. Science, 310(5754): 1625–1626.

Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. Baltimore, USA, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pimentel, C., Calvão, T., Santos, M., Ferreira, C., Neves, M. & Nilsson, J.Å. 2006. Establishment and expansion of a Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep. Notodontidae) population with a shifted life cycle in a production pine forest, Central-Coastal Portugal. Forest Ecology and Management, 233(1): 108–115.

Pino, J., Arnan, X., Rodrigo, A. & Retana, J. 2013. Post-fire invasion and subsequent extinction of Conyza spp. in Mediterranean forests is mostly explained by local factors. Weed Research, 53(6): 470–478.

Pinto-Correia, T. & Mascarenhas, J. 1999. Contribution to the extensification/intensification debate: new trends in the Portuguese montado. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46(1): 125–131.

Pinto-Correia, T., Ribeiro, N. & Sá-Sousa, P. 2011. Introducing the montado, the cork and holm oak agroforestry system of Southern Portugal. Agroforestry Systems, 82(2): 99–104.

Piotti, A. 2009. The genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation: the case of forests. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2(3): 75–76.

Plan Bleu. 2015. Socio-economic assessment of goods and services provided by Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Methodological guide: factsheets and tools. Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 26 pp.

Plan Bleu. 2016. Mediterranean forests: Towards a better recognition of the economic and social value of goods and services through participative governance. Rome, FAO, and Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 66 pp.

Plan Bleu. 2017. Suivi de la mise en oeuvre de la Stratégie Méditerranéenne pour le Développement Durable 2016-2025. Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 32 pp.

Platia, G. 2010. New species and chorological notes of click beetles from the palearctic region, especially from the Middle East (Coleoptera, Elateridae). Boletin de la Sociedad Entomólogica Aragonesa, 46: 23–49.

Plieninger, T., Rolo, V. & Moreno, G. 2010. Large-scale patterns of Quercus ilex, Quercus suber, and Quercus pyrenaica regeneration in Central-Western Spain. Ecosystems, 13(5): 644–660.

PNUE & SwitchMed. 2016. Plan d’action national des Modes de Consommation et de Production Durables (MCPD) Algérie 2016-2030. Alger, Ministère des Ressources en Eau et de l’Environnement d’Algérie. 69 pp.

Polemis, E., Dimou, D.M. & Zervakis, G.I. 2013. The family Hymenochaetaceae (Agaricomycetes, Basidiomycota) in the islands of the Aegean Archipelago (Greece). Plant Biosystems, 147(2): 306–314.

Potschin, M. & Haines-Young, R. 2016. Defining and measuring ecosystem services. In M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish & R.K. Turner, eds. Routledge handbook of ecosystem services, pp. 25–42. Abingdon, UK, Routledge.

Premier Ministre. 2005. Circulaire du 5 avril 2005 portant sur les moyens à mettre en oeuvre dans les marchés publics de bois et produits dérivés pour promouvoir la gestion durable des forêts. Journal Officiel de la République Française, 82: 6336.

Pretzsch, H., Schütze, G. & Uhl, E. 2013. Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed versus pure forests: evidence of stress release by inter-specific facilitation. Plant Biology, 15(3): 483–495.

Pretzsch, H., Rio, M., Ammer, C., Avdagić, A., Barbeito, I., Bielak, K., Brazaitis, G. et al. 2015. Growth and yield of mixed versus pure stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) analysed along a productivity gradient through Europe. European Journal of Forest Research, 134(5): 927–947.

Prévosto, B., Monnier, Y., Ripert, C. & Fernandez, C. 2011. Can we use shelterwoods in Mediterranean pine forests to promote oak seedling development? Forest Ecology and Management, 262(8): 1426–1433.

Prichard, S.J., Stevens-Rumann, C.S. & Hessburg, P.F. 2017. Tamm review: Shifting global fire regimes: Lessons from reburns and research needs. Forest Ecology and Management, 396: 217–233.

Prokofieva, I., Górriz-Mifsud, E., Bonet, J.A. & Martínez de Aragón, J. 2017. Viability of introducing payments for the collection of wild forest mushrooms in Catalonia (North-East Spain). Small-scale Forestry, 16(2): 147–167.

Prokofieva, I., Wunder, S. & Vidale, E. 2012. Payments for Environmental Services: A way forward for Mediterranean forests? EFI Policy Brief No. 7. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute. 16 pp.

Pugliese, P., Bteich, M.R. & Al-Bitar, L. 2014. Mediterranean organic agriculture: key features, recent facts, latest figures. Report 2014. Bari, Italy, CIHEAM. 50 pp.

Pukkala, T. 2016. Which type of forest management provides most ecosystem services? Forest Ecosystems, 3(1): 9.

Pulido, F., García, E., Obrador, J.J. & Moreno, G. 2010. Multiple pathways for tree regeneration in anthropogenic savannas: incorporating biotic and abiotic drivers into management schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(6): 1272–1281.

Pulido, F.J. 2002. Biología reproductiva y conservación: el caso de la regeneración de bosques templados y subtropicales de robles (Quercus spp.). Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 75(1): 5–15.

Pulido, F.J. & Díaz, M. 2005. Regeneration of a Mediterranean oak: a whole-cycle approach. Écoscience, 12(1): 92–102.

Pulina, G., Canalis, C., Manni, C., Casula, A., Carta, L.A. & Camarda, I. 2016. Using a GIS technology to plan an agroforestry sustainable system in Sardinia. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 47(S1): 23–23. 298

Pülzl, H., Kleinschmit, D. & Arts, B. 2014. Bioeconomy – An emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4): 386–393.

Quézel, P. 1974. Les forêts du pourtour méditerranén. Programme MAB No. SC.74/CONF.660/3. Paris, UNESCO. 53 pp.

Quézel, P., ed. 1982. Definition and localization of terrestrian Mediterranean biota, Ecologia Mediterranea, Vol. 8. Marseille, France, Université d’Aix Marseille. 493 pp. Actes du colloque de Saint-Maximin (France) du 16-20/11/1981 de la Division des affaires scientifiques de l’OTAN.

Rackham, O. 1976. Trees and woodland in the British landscape. London, J. M. Dent. 204 pp.

Rackham, O. 2008. Ancient woodlands: modern threats. New Phytologist, 180(3): 571–586.

Raftoyannis, Y., Nocentini, S., Marchi, E., Calama Sainz, R., Garcia Guemes, C., Pilas, I., Peric, S. et al. 2014. Perceptions of forest experts on climate change and fire management in European Mediterranean forests. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 7(1): 33–41.

Rainforest Alliance. 2008. 2008 annual report. New York, USA, Rainforest Alliance. 36 pp.

Ratcliffe, S., Wirth, C., Jucker, T., der Plas, F., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Verheyen, K., Allan, E. et al. 2017. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. Ecology Letters, 20(11): 1414–1426.

Ratnam, W., Rajora, O.P., Finkeldey, R., Aravanopoulos, F., Bouvet, J.M., Vaillancourt, R.E., Kanashiro, M., Fady, B., Tomita, M. & Vinson, C. 2014. Genetic effects of forest management practices: global synthesis and perspectives. Forest Ecology and Management, 333: 52–65.

Regato, P. & Asmar, F. 2011. Analysis and evaluation of forestation efforts in Lebanon. Beirut, Ministry of Agriculture of Lebanon and FAO. 59 pp.

Rego, F., Silva, J., Fernandes, P. & Rigolot, E. 2010. Solving the fire paradox – Regulating the wildfire problem by the wise use of fire. In J.S. Silva, F. Rego, P. Fernandes & E. Rigolot, eds. Towards integrated fire management – Outcomes of the European project fire paradox, pp. 219–228. European Forest Institute Research Report No. 23. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute.

Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Ciais, P., Frank, D., Mahecha, M., Seneviratne, S., Zscheischler, J. et al. 2013. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature, 500: 287–95.

Reid, W.V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13(7): 275–280.

Republic of Albania. 2012. A new path for the sustainable development: a green economy for Albania. Stock taking Albanian Rio+20 report, Tirana, UNDESA and UNDP. 33 pp.

Republic of Albania. 2014. National strategy for development and integration 2015-2020. Tirana, Council of Ministers. 213 pp. Fourth Draft.

Resco de Dios, V., Fischer, C. & Colinas, C. 2007. Climate change effects on Mediterranean forests and preventive measures. New Forests, 33(1): 29–40.

Resilience Alliance. 2010. Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. Version 2.0. Wolfville, Canada, Resilience Alliance. 54 pp.

Rey Benayas, J.M., Martins, A., Nicolau, J.M. & Schulz, J.J. 2007. Abandonment of agricultural land: an overview of drivers and consequences. CAB reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2(57): 1–14.

Reyer, C.P., Bathgate, S., Blennow, K., Borges, J.G., Bugmann, H., Delzon, S., Faias, S.P. et al. 2017. Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? Environmental Research Letters, 12(3): 034027.

Riera, P. & Signorello, G., eds. 2012. Good practice guidelines for the non-market valuation of forest goods and services. Catania, Italy, University of Catania. 80 pp.

Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., McAdam, J. & Mosquera-Losada, M.R., eds. 2009. Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects. Advances in Agroforestry No. 6. Berlin, Springer. 462 pp.

Rivas-Martínez, S., Rivas-Sáenz, S. & Penas, A. 2011. Worldwide bioclimatic classification system. Global Geobotany, 1: 1–638. 299

Robinet, C., Baier, P., Pennerstorfer, J., Schopf, A. & Roques, A. 2007. Modelling the effects of climate change on the potential feeding activity of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep., Notodontidae) in France. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16(4): 460–471.

Robinet, C., Imbert, C.E., Rousselet, J., Sauvard, D., Garcia, J., Goussard, F. & Roques, A. 2012. Human-mediated long-distance jumps of the pine processionary moth in Europe. Biological Invasions, 14(8): 1557–1569.

Rodrigues, M., de la Riva, J. & Fotheringham, S. 2014. Modeling the spatial variation of the explanatory factors of human-caused wildfires in Spain using geographically weighted logistic regression. Applied Geography, 48: 52–63.

Rodríguez, J.P., Keith, D.A., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Murray, N.J., Nicholson, E., Regan, T.J., Miller, R.M. et al. 2015. A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 370(1662): 20140003.

Rodríguez-García, E., Ordóñez, C. & Bravo, F. 2011. Effects of shrub and canopy cover on the relative growth rate of Pinus pinaster Ait. seedlings of different sizes. Annals of Forest Science, 68(2): 337–346.

Rodríguez-Labajos, B. & Martínez-Alier, J. 2013. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: recent instances for debate. Conservation and Society, 11(4): 326–342.

Rogaume, Y. 2009. La combustion du bois et de la biomasse. Pollution Atmosphérique, Climat, Santé, Société, Numéro spécial: 65–82.

Rosenbaum, K.L. & Lindsay, J.M. 2001. An overview of national forest funds: current approaches and future opportunities. Contribution to the international workshop of experts on financing sustainable forest management, Oslo, Norway, 22-25 January 2001, Rome, FAO. 42 pp.

Roser, M. & Oriz-Ospina, E. 2017. Global extreme poverty. In: Our World in Data [online]. Oxford, UK, University of Oxford. [Cited November 2017]. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/.

Rossi, J.P., Garcia, J., Roques, A. & Rousselet, J. 2016. Trees outside forests in agricultural landscapes: spatial distribution and impact on habitat connectivity for forest organisms. Landscape Ecology, 31(2): 243–254.

Roubtsova, T.V. & Bostock, R.M. 2009. Episodic abiotic stress as a potential contributing factor to onset and severity of disease caused by Phytophthora ramorum in Rhododendron and Viburnum. Plant Disease, 93(9): 912–918.

Ruano, I., Pando, V. & Bravo, F. 2009. How do light and water influence Pinus pinaster Ait. germination and early seedling development? Forest Ecology and Management, 258(12): 2647–2653.

Ruano, I., Rodríguez-García, E. & Bravo, F. 2013. Effects of pre-commercial thinning on growth and reproduction in post-fire regeneration of Pinus halepensis Mill. Annals of Forest Science, 70(4): 357–366.

Russi, D. 2010. El pagament per serveis ambientals: una eina per a la conservació dels recursos naturals a Catalunya. Papers de sostenibilitat No. 16. Barcelona, Espanya, Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible, Generalitat de Catalunya. 96 pp.

Saab, N. 2015. Green economy for a real Arab spring. Keynote address at the conference on the review of the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD), Florina, Malta, 17-18 February 2015. Beirut, Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED). 5 pp.

Sabogal, C., Besacier, C. & McGuire, D. 2015. Forest and landscape restoration: concepts, approaches and challenges for implementation. Unasylva, 66(245): 3–10.

Sagnard, F., Oddou-Muratorio, S., Pichot, C., Vendramin, G.G. & Fady, B. 2011. Effects of seed dispersal, adult tree and seedling density on the spatial genetic structure of regeneration at fine temporal and spatial scales. Tree Genetics and Genomes, 7(1): 37–48.

Salbitano, F., ed. 1988. Human influence on forest ecosystems development in Europe. Bologna, Italy, Pitagora. 397 pp.

Salbitano, F., Borelli, S., Conigliaro, M. & Chen, Y. 2016. Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. FAO Forestry Paper No. 178. Rome, FAO. 300

Sama, G. 2008. Preliminary notes on the Cerambycid fauna of North Africa with the description of new taxa. Quaderno di Studi e Notizie di Storia Naturale della Romagna, 27: 217–245.

Sama, G., Buse, J., Orbach, E., Friedman, A.L.L., Rittner, O. & Chikatunov, V. 2010. A new catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Israel with notes on their distribution and host plants. Munis Entomology and Zoology, 5(1): 1–51.

Sama, G. & Rapuzzi, P. 2011. Description of three new species of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from Turkey and Syria. Biodiversity Journal, 2(2): 85–88.

Sánchez, M.E., Caetano, P., Romero, M.A., Navarro, R.M. & Trapero, A. 2006. Phytophthora root rot as the main factor of oak decline in southern Spain. In C. Brasier, T. Jung & W. Oßwald, eds. Progress in research on Phytophthora diseases of forest trees, pp. 149–154. Farnham, UK, Forest Research.

Sardá, R., Pinedo, S., Gremare, A. & Taboada, S. 2000. Changes in the dynamics of shallow sandy-bottom assemblages due to sand extraction in the Catalan Western Mediterranean Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57(5): 1446–1453.

Saura, S., Estreguil, C., Mouton, C. & Rodríguez-Freire, M. 2011. Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecological Indicators, 11(2): 407–416.

Sayer, J., Buck, L. & Scherr, S. 2008. The ‘lally principles’. ArborVitae, Special Issue – Learning from landscapes: 4.

Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M. et al. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(21): 8349–8356.

Sayre, R., Dangermond, J., Frye, C., Vaughan, R., Aniello, P., Breyer, S., Cribbs, D. et al. 2014. A new map of global ecological land units — An ecophysiographic stratification approach. Washington D.C., USA, Association of American Geographers. 46 pp.

Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., Oswald, H., Piussi, P. & Radoglou, K. 2000. Forests of the Mediterranean region: gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecology and Management, 132(1): 97–109.

Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F. & Nita, V. 2015. The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts. Environmental Development, 15: 3–34.

Schlichting, C.D. 1986. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17(1): 667–693.

Schnell, S., Altrell, D., Ståhl, G. & Kleinn, C. 2014. The contribution of trees outside forests to national tree biomass and carbon stocks: A comparative study across three continents. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(1): 4197.

Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Araújo, M.B., Arnell, N.W., Bondeau, A. et al. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310(5752): 1333–1337.

Schulp, C.J.E., Nabuurs, G.J. & Verburg, P.H. 2008. Future carbon sequestration in Europe – Effects of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 127(3-4): 251–264.

Seddon, P.J. 2010. From reintroduction to assisted colonization: moving along the conservation translocation spectrum. Restoration Ecology, 18(6): 796–802.

Segur, M., Martel, S., Picardo, A., Medrano, P. & Santolaya, J.A.L. 2014. Old solutions for today’s problems in the Urbión Model Forest. In P. Katila, G. Galloway, W. de Jong, P. Pacheco & G. Mery, eds. Forests under pressure: Local responses to global issues, pp. 399–410. IUFRO World Series No. 32. Vienna, IUFRO.

Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.J., Rammer, W. & Verkerk, H. 2014. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nature Climate Change, 4: 806–810. 301

Sekercioglu, C.H. 2012. Bird functional diversity and ecosystem services in tropical forests, agroforests and agricultural areas. Journal of Ornithology, 153(S1): 153–161.

Seligman, N.G. & Perevolotsky, A. 1994. Has intensive grazing by domestic livestock degraded Mediterranean Basin rangelands? In M. Arianoutsou & R.H. Groves, eds. Plant-animal interactions in Mediterranean-type ecosystems, pp. 93–103. Tasks for vegetation science No. 31. The Hague, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publ.

Senn-Irlet, B., Heilmann-Clausen, J. & Dahlberg, A. 2007. Guidance for conservation of mushrooms in Europe. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Standing Committee, 27th meeting, Strasbourg, 26-29 November 2007 T-PVS (2007) 13, Strasbourg, France, Council of Europe. 34 pp.

SER. 2004. The SER International primer on ecological restoration. Science and policy working group, Tucson, USA, Society for Ecological Restoration International. 16 pp.

Sereni, E. 1997. History of the Italian agricultural landscape. Princeton, USA, Princeton University Press.

Shabani, N., Akhtari, S. & Sowlati, T. 2013. Value chain optimization of forest biomass for bioenergy production: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23: 299–311.

Shakesby, R.A. 2011. Post-wildfire soil erosion in the Mediterranean: review and future research directions. Earth-Science Reviews, 105(3-4): 71–100.

Shalaby, A., Ali, R.R. & Gad, A. 2012. Land degradation monitoring in the Nile delta of Egypt, using remote sensing and GIS. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(4): 292–303.

Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3): 379–423.

Sheets, V.L. & Manzer, C.D. 1991. Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: some effects of adding trees along city streets. Environment and Behavior, 23(3): 285–304.

Sills, E.O. & Abt, K.L. 2003. Introduction. In E.O. Sills & K.L. Abt, eds. Forests in a market economy, pp. 1–7. Forestry Sciences No. 72. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.

Silva, J.S. & Catry, F. 2006. Forest fires in cork oak (Quercus suber L.) stands in Portugal. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63(3): 235–257.

Silva, L.C.R. & Anand, M. 2013. Probing for the influence of atmospheric CO2 and climate change on forest ecosystems across biomes. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 22(1): 83–92.

Silva, L.C.R., Anand, M. & Leithead, M.D. 2010. Recent widespread tree growth decline despite increasing atmospheric CO2. PLoS ONE, 5(7): e11543.

Sirami, C., Nespoulous, A., Cheylan, J.P., Marty, P., Hvenegaard, G.T., Geniez, P., Schatz, B. & Martin, J.L. 2010. Long-term anthropogenic and ecological dynamics of a Mediterranean landscape: impacts on multiple taxa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96(4): 214–223.

Slafer, G.A., Araus, J.L., Royo, C. & García del Moral, L.F. 2005. Promising eco-physiological traits for genetic improvement of cereal yields in Mediterranean environments. Annals of Applied Biology, 146(1): 61–70.

Sloan, S., Jenkins, C.N., Joppa, L.N., Gaveau, D.L.A. & Laurance, W.F. 2014. Remaining natural vegetation in the global biodiversity hotspots. Biological Conservation, 177: 12–24.

Slovenia Forest Service. 2012. Working report on non-wood forest products produced by the Mediterranean forests. Solsona, Spain, SYLVAMED project, CTFC. 39 pp.

Sluiter, R. & de Jong, S.M. 2007. Spatial patterns of Mediterranean land abandonment and related land cover transitions. Landscape Ecology, 22(4): 559–576.

Smith, J. 2010. The history of temperate agroforestry. Newbury, UK, Organic Research Centre. 17 pp.

Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H. et al. 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, J.C. Minx, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth et al., eds. Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 811–922. New York, USA, Cambridge University Press. 302

Söderström, B., Svensson, B., Vessby, K. & Glimskär, A. 2001. Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(11): 1839–1863.

Sohn, J.A., Hartig, F., Kohler, M., Huss, J. & Bauhus, J. 2016a. Heavy and frequent thinning promotes drought adaptation in Pinus sylvestris forests. Ecological Applications, 26(7): 2190–2205.

Sohn, J.A., Saha, S. & Bauhus, J. 2016b. Potential of forest thinning to mitigate drought stress: A meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management, 380: 261–273.

Solomou, A.D., Proutsos, N.D., Karetsos, G. & Tsagari, K. 2017. Effects of climate change on vegetation in Mediterranean forests: a review. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 2(1): 240–247.

Speight, M.C.D. 1989. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and Environment Series No. 42. Strasbourg, France, Council of Europe. 79 pp.

Sörensen, L. 2007. A spatial analysis approach to the global delineation of dryland areas of relevance to the CBD Programme of work on dry and subhumid lands. Cambridge, UK, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC).

Stamou, Z., Xystrakis, F. & Koutsias, N. 2016. The role of fire as a long-term landscape modifier: Evidence from long-term fire observations (1922–2000) in Greece. Applied Geography, 74: 47–55.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R. et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223): 1259855.

Stevens, V. 1997. The ecological role of coarse woody debris: an overview of the ecological importance of CWD in BC forests. Working Paper No. 30. Victoria, Canada, British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, Research Program. 26 pp.

Stokland, J.N., Siitonen, J. & Jonsson, B.G. 2012. Biodiversity in dead wood. Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 521 pp.

Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C. & Reed, M.S. 2006. Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 39.

Sukhdev, P.W., Schröter-Schlaack, H., Nesshöver, C., Bishop, C., Brink, J., Gundimeda, H., Kumar, P. & Simmons, B. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. 333.95 E19. Geneva, Switzerland, UNEP. 36 pp.

Sullivan, W.C., Kuo, F.E. & Depooter, S.F. 2004. The fruit of urban nature: vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36(5): 678–700.

Svenning, J.C., Normand, S. & Kageyama, M. 2008. Glacial refugia of temperate trees in Europe: insights from species distribution modelling. Journal of Ecology, 96(6): 1117–1127.

Symeonakis, E., Caccetta, P.A., Wallace, J.F., Arnau-Rosalen, E., Calvo-Cases, A. & Koukoulas, S. 2017. Multi-temporal forest cover change and forest density trend detection in a Mediterranean environment. Land Degradation and Development, 28(4): 1188–1198.

Taleb, M.S. 2014. Argan tree (Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels) in Morocco: function, management and access and benefit sharing. In: World Congress on Agroforestry, 10-14 February 2014, Delhi, India [online]. Rabat, Institut Scientifique, Université Mohammed V-Agdal. Poster. http://blog.worldagroforestry.org/index.php/2014/03/24/moroccos-tree-of-life-in-decline/.

Tardieu, L. 2016. Economic evaluation of the impacts of transportation infrastructures on ecosystem services. In D. Geneletti, ed. Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment, pp. 113–139. Research Handbook Series. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd.

Tasoulas, E., Varras, G., Tsirogiannis, I. & Myriounis, C. 2013. Development of a GIS application for urban forestry management planning. Procedia Technology, 8: 70–80.

The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2017. Global food security index 2017: Measuring food security and the impact of resource risks. London, The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. 54 pp.

Thomas, E., Jalonen, R., Loo, J., Boshier, D., Gallo, L., Cavers, S., Bordács, S., Smith, P. & Bozzano, M. 2014. Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species. Forest Ecology and Management, 333: 66–75.

Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S. & Mosseler, A. 2010. A synthesis on the biodiversity-resilience relationships in forest ecosystems. In T. Koizumi, K. Okabe, I. Thompson, K. Sugimura, T. Toma & K. Fujita, eds. The role of forest biodiversity in the sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services in agroforestry, fisheries, and forestry. Proceedings of international symposium for the Convention on Biological Diversity, 26-28 April 2010, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 9–19. Ibaraki, Japan, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute.

Thompson, J.D. 2005. Plant evolution in the Mediterranean. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. 304 pp.

Thonicke, K., Fyllas, N., Arneth, A., Knorr, W. & Wu, M. 2014. Modelling vegetation and ecosystem responses to climate change and fire regime. In J.M. Moreno, M. Arianoutsou, A. González-Cabán, F. Mouillot, W.C. Oechel, D. Spano, K. Thonicke, V.R. Vallejo & R. Vélez, eds. Forest fires under climate, social and economic changes in Europe, the Mediterranean and other fire-affected areas of the world – FUME: lessons learned and outlook, pp. 32–33. Toledo, Spain, FUME Project.

Thurner, M., Beer, C., Santoro, M., Carvalhais, N., Wutzler, T., Schepaschenko, D., Shvidenko, A. et al. 2014. Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and temperate forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(3): 297–310.

Tolunay, A., Adjyaman, E., Akyol, A., Ence, D., Türkollu, T. & Ayhan, V. 2014. An investigation on forage yield capacity of kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.) and grazing planning of Mediterranean maquis scrublands for traditional goat farming. The Scientific World Journal, 2014: 398479.

Torres, D. & Martinet, A. 2016. Quelles perspectives pour une mobilisation de la finance carbone en appui au programme de reboisement libanais ? Rome, FAO, and Valbonne, France, Plan Bleu. 37 pp.

Tsopelas, P., Angelopoulos, A., Economou, A. & Soulioti, N. 2004. Mistletoe (Viscum album) in the fir forest of Mount Parnis, Greece. Forest ecology and management, 202(1-3): 59–65.

Tucker, G., Underwood, E., Farmer, A., Scalera, R., Dickie, I., McConville, A. & van Vliet, W. 2013. Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU biodiversity strategy. Report to the European Commission ENV.B.2/ETU/2011/0053r, London, Institute for European Environmental Policy. 507 pp.

Tucker, G.M. & Evans, M.I. 1997. Habitats for birds in Europe: a conservation strategy for the wider environment. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 6. Cambridge, UK, BirdLife International. 464 pp.

Turco, M., Bedia, J., Di Liberto, F., Fiorucci, P., von Hardenberg, J., Koutsias, N., Llasat, M.C., Xystrakis, F. & Provenzale, A. 2016. Decreasing fires in Mediterranean Europe. PLoS ONE, 11(3): e0150663.

Turco, M., Llasat, M.C., von Hardenberg, J. & Provenzale, A. 2014. Climate change impacts on wildfires in a Mediterranean environment. Climatic Change, 125(3): 369–380.

Turco, M., von Hardenberg, J., AghaKouchak, A., Llasat, M., Provenzale, A. & Trigo, R. 2017. On the key role of droughts in the dynamics of summer fires in Mediterranean Europe. Nature Scientific Reports, 7: 81.

UICN France. 2014. La Liste rouge des écosystèmes en France: habitats forestiers de France métropolitaine. Recueil des études de cas. Paris, Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature. 94 pp.

UN Environment. 2015. Moroccan city defies desertification by harnessing solar power and treated wastewater. In: UNEP News Centre [online]. Nairobi. Press release. [Cited November 2017]. http://web.unep.org/newscentre/moroccan-city-defies-desertification-harnessing-solar-power-and-treated-wastewater.

UN-ESCAP. 2009. What is good governance? Bangkok, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 3 pp.

UN-Habitat. 2008a. State of the world’s cities 2008/2009: Harmonious cities. State of the World’s Cities Report. London, Earthscan. 259 pp.

UN-Habitat. 2008b. State of the world’s cities 2010/2011: Cities for all – Bridging the urban divide. State of the World’s Cities Report. London, Earthscan. 259 pp.

UNDP. 2016. Human development report 2016. Human development for everyone. New York, USA, United Nations Development Programme. 271 pp.

UNECA. 2014a. The green economy in Algeria: an opportunity to diversify and stimulate domestic production. Rabat, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Office for North Africa. 12 pp.

UNECA. 2014b. The green economy in Morocco: a strategic goal involving partnership dynamics and intensified coordination of policies and initiatives. Rabat, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Office for North Africa. 17 pp.

UNECA. 2014c. The green economy in Tunisia: an implementation tool of the new sustainable development strategy (2014-2020). Rabat, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Office for North Africa. 17 pp.

UNECA. 2015. Rapport sur les politiques d’économie verte inclusive et la transformation structurelle en Tunisie. Rabat, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Office for North Africa. 76 pp.

UNECE & FAO. 2011a. The European forest sector outlook study II 2010-2030. ECE/TIM/SP/28. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations. 107 pp.

UNECE & FAO. 2011b. State of Europe’s Forests 2011: status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Oslo, Norway, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 344 pp.

UNECE & FAO. 2014. Rovaniemi action plan for the forest sector in a green economy. Geneva timber and forest study paper No. 35. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations. 46 pp.

UNEP. 2011. Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP. 2013. Green growth scoping study. Serbia. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office for Europe. 51 pp.

UNEP. 2014a. Green Economy: Egypt fact sheet. Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme. 2 pp.

UNEP. 2014b. Green growth scoping study. Egypt. Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme. 75 pp.

UNEP & SwitchMed. 2015. Sustainable consumption and production action plan for the industrial sector in Lebanon 2015. Beirut, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Industry of the Republic of Lebanon. 68 pp.

UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. 2017. The world database on protected areas (WDPA). In: Protected Planet [online]. Cambridge, UK, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and International Union for Conservation of Nature. [Cited October 2017]. https://www.protectedplanet.net/.

UNEP/MAP. 2016. Mediterranean strategy for sustainable development 2016-2025. Investing in environmental sustainability to achieve social and economic development. Valbonne, France, United Nations Environment Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan. 83 pp.

UNEP/MAP. 2017. Agenda item 4: Review of quality status report (QSR). Quality status report (QSR) cross-cutting and horizontal issues. Working document of the 6th Meeting of the Ecosystem Approach Coordination Group, Athens, 11 September 2017 UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.444/11, Athens, United Nations Environment Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan. 15 pp.

UNESCO. 2012. The United Nations World Water Development report 4: Managing water under uncertainty and risk: Executive summary. Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 64 pp.

UNESCO. 2017. Liste du patrimoine mondial. In: Centre du patrimoine mondial [online]. Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. [Cited March 2017]. http://whc.unesco.org/fr/list.305

UNESCO & FAO, eds. 1963. Ecological study of the Mediterranean zone. Bioclimatic map of the Mediterranean zone. Explanatory notes. Arid zone research No. 21. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris and FAO, Rome.

UNESCO & FAO, eds. 1970. Carte de la végétation de la région méditerranéenne : notice explicative. vegetation map of the Mediterranean zone. Explanatory notes. Arid zone research No. 30. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris and FAO, Rome. 90 pp.

United Nations. 1992a. Convention on Biological Diversity. New York, USA, CBD. 28 pp.

United Nations. 1992b. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York, USA, UNFCCC. 33 pp.

United Nations. 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. New York, USA, UNCCD. 54 pp.

United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its Seventieth session on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1, New York, USA, United Nations General Assembly. 35 pp.

UNWTO. 2017. Tourism statistics. In: UNWTO eLibrary [online]. Madrid, World Tourism Organization. Accessed: November 2017. https://www.e-unwto.org/toc/unwtotfb/current.

Urwin, K. & Jordan, A. 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1): 180–191.

Valente, S., Coelho, C., Ribeiro, C. & Soares, J. 2013. Forest intervention areas (ZIF): a new approach for non-industrial private forest management in Portugal. Silva Lusitana, 21(2): 137–161.

Valente, S., Coelho, C., Ribeiro, C., Liniger, H., Schwilch, G., Figueiredo, E. & Bachmann, F. 2015. How much management is enough? Stakeholder views on forest management in fire-prone areas in central Portugal. Forest Policy and Economics, 53: 1–11.

Valladares, F., Benavides, R., Rabasa, S.G., Díaz, M., Pausas, J.G., Paula, S. & Simonson, W.D. 2014. Global change and Mediterranean forests: current impacts and potential responses. In D.A. Coomes, D.F.R.P. Burslem & W.D. Simonson, eds. Forests and global change, pp. 47–75. Ecological Reviews. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Vallejo, R. 2005. Restoring Mediterranean forests. In S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri & N. Dudley, eds. Forest restoration in landscapes: Beyond planting trees, pp. 313–319. New York, USA, Springer.

Van de Peer, T., Mereu, S., Verheyen, K., Saura, J.M.C., Morillas, L., Roales, J., Cascio, M.L., Spano, D., Paquette, A. & Muys, B. 2018. Tree seedling vitality improves with functional diversity in a Mediterranean common garden experiment. Forest Ecology and Management, 409: 614–633.

van der Plas, F., Manning, P., Soliveres, S., Allan, E., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Verheyen, K., Wirth, C. et al. 2016. Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(13): 3557–3562.

van der Werff, H. & Consiglio, T. 2004. Distribution and conservation significance of endemic species of flowering plants in Peru. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(9): 1699–1713.

van Noordwijk, M. 2013. Trees outside forest on the mitigation-adaptation interface. In: UNFCCC Workshop on technical and scientific aspects of ecosystems with high-carbon reservoirs not covered by other agenda items under the Convention, 24-25 October 2013. United Nations Campus “Altes Abgeordneten-Hochhaus”, Konferenzraum 2 (F-U-230), Bonn, Germany.

Vangansbeke, P., Blondeel, H., Landuyt, D., De Frenne, P., Gorissen, L. & Verheyen, K. 2016. Spatially combining wood production and recreation with biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(13): 3213–3239.

Vannière, B., Colombaroli, D., Chapron, E., Leroux, A., Tinner, W. & Magny, M. 2008. Climate versus human-driven fire regimes in Mediterranean landscapes: the Holocene record of Lago dell’Accesa (Tuscany, Italy). Quaternary Science Reviews, 27(11): 1181–1196. 306

Vayreda, J., Martinez-Vilalta, J., Gracia, M., Canadell, J.G. & Retana, J. 2016. Anthropogenic-driven rapid shifts in tree distribution lead to increased dominance of broadleaf species. Global change biology, 22(12): 3984–3995.

Vaz, A.S., Kueffer, C., Kull, C.A., Richardson, D.M., Vicente, J.R., Kühn, I., Schröter, M., Hauck, J., Bonn, A. & Honrado, J.a.P. 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Services, 23: 94–107.

Vendramin, G. & Morgante, M. 2006. Genetic diversity in forest tree populations and conservation: analysis of neutral and adaptive variation. In J. Ruane & A. Sonnino, eds. The role of biotechnology in exploring and protecting agricultural genetic resources, pp. 145–146. Rome, FAO.

Vendramin, G.G., Fady, B., González-Martínez, S.C., Hu, F.S., Scotti, I., Sebastiani, F., Soto, Á. & Petit, R.J. 2008. Genetically depauperate but widespread: the case of an emblematic Mediterranean pine. Evolution, 62(3): 680–688.

Venter, O., Sanderson, E.W., Magrach, A., Allan, J.R., Beher, J., Jones, K.R., Possingham, H.P. et al. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications, 7: 12558.

Venturella, G., Gargano, M.L., Compagno, R., La Rosa, A., Polemis, E. & Zervakis, G.I. 2016. Diversity of macrofungi and exploitation of edible mushroom resources in the National Park “Appennino Lucano, Val D’Agri, Lagonegrese” (Italy). Plant Biosystems, 150(5): 1030–1037.

Venturella, G. 2017. Buchwaldoboletus lignicola (Boletaceae), a rare basidiomycete from Europe. Plant Biosystems, 151(4): 574–576.

Verkaik, I. & Espelta, J.M. 2006. Post-fire regeneration thinning, cone production, serotiny and regeneration age in Pinus halepensis. Forest Ecology and Management, 231(1-3): 155–163.

Verkaik, I., Rieradevall, M., Cooper, S.D., Melack, J.M., Dudley, T.L. & Prat, N. 2013. Fire as a disturbance in Mediterranean climate streams. Hydrobiologia, 719(1): 353–382.

Verkerk, P., Martinez de Arano, I. & Palahí, M. 2018. The bio-economy as an opportunity to tackle wildfires in Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Forest Policy and Economics, 86: 1–3.

Vidale, E., Da Re, R. & Pettenella, D. 2015. Trends, rural impacts and future developments of regional WFP market. Project deliverable of the StarTree project (EU project 311919) D3.2, Legnaro, Italy, University of Padua. 44 pp.

Viedma, O. 2008. The influence of topography and fire in controlling landscape composition and structure in Sierra de Gredos (Central Spain). Landscape Ecology, 23(6): 657–672.

Vilà, M., Inchausti, P., Vayreda, J., Barrantes, O., Gracia, C., Ibáñez, J.J. & Mata, T. 2005. Confounding factors in the observational productivity-diversity relationship in forests. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Körner & E.D. Schulze, eds. Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems, pp. 65–86. Ecological Studies No. 176. Berlin, Springer.

Vilà, M., Pino, J. & Font, X. 2007. Regional assessment of plant invasions across different habitat types. Journal of Vegetation Science, 18(1): 35–42.

Vilà-Cabrera, A., Coll, L., Martínez-Vilalta, J. & Retana, J. 2018. Forest management for adaptation to climate change in the Mediterranean basin: A synthesis of evidence. Forest Ecology and Management, 407: 16–22.

von Döhren, P. & Haase, D. 2015. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators, 52: 490–497.

Wakeley, J. 2000. The effects of subdivision on the genetic divergence of populations and species. Evolution, 54(4): 1092–1101.

Walsh, K.J. 2013. The archaeology of Mediterranean landscapes: Human-environment interaction from the Neolithic to the Roman period. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 384 pp.

Wang, C., Yang, Y. & Zhang, Y. 2011. Economic development, rural livelihoods, and ecological restoration: evidence from China. Ambio, 40(1): 78–87.

Waters, S. & El-Harrad, A. 2013. A note on the effective use of social media to raise awareness against the illegal trade in Barbary macaques. African Primates, 8: 67–68. 307

Waters, S., El Harrad, A., Chetuan, M., Bell, S. & Setchell, J.M. 2017. Domestic dogs disturb and kill Barbary macaques in Bouhachem forest, North Morocco. African primates, 12.

Waters, S.S. 2014. Including people in primate conservation: a case study of shepherds and Barbary macaques in Bouhachem forest, northern Morocco. Ph.D. thesis, Durham University, Durham, UK.

WCED. 1987. Our common future. Tech. Rep. A/42/427, New York, USA, World Commission on Environment and Development. 318 pp.

WEF. 2011. Scenarios for the Mediterranean region. World Scenario Series. Geneva, Switzerland, World Economic Forum. 39 pp.

WEF. 2015. Global risks 2015. Geneva, Switzerland, World Economic Forum, 10th edn. 65 pp.

Weiss, G., Pettenellla, D., Ollonqvist, G. & Slee, B., eds. 2001. Innovation in forestry: territorial and value chain relationships. Wallingford, UK, CAB International. 331 pp.

Whisenant, S.G. 1999. Repairing damaged wildlands: a process-orientated, landscape-scale approach. Biological Conservation, Restoration, and Sustainability No. 1. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 328 pp.

White, S.M., Bullock, J.M., Hooftman, D.A.P. & Chapman, D.S. 2017. Modelling the spread and control of Xylella fastidiosa in the early stages of invasion in Apulia, Italy. Biological Invasions, 19(6): 1825–1837.

WHO. 2016. Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence. Copenhagen, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. 80 pp.

Willer, H. & Lernoud, J., eds. 2017. The world of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends 2017. Frick, Switzerland, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), and Bonn, Germany, IFOAM – Organics International. 332 pp.

Williams, M.I. & Dumroese, R.K. 2013. Preparing for climate change: forestry and assisted migration. Journal of Forestry, 111(4): 287–297.

Williams, M. 2000. Dark ages and dark areas: global deforestation in the deep past. Journal of historical geography, 26(1): 28–46.

Wolf, K. 2005. Civic nature: valuation: assessments of human functioning and well-being in cities. In Forging solutions: Applying ecological economics to current problems, Proceedings of the 3rd biennial conference of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics (July 20-23, 2005). Tacoma, WA, USA, Earth Economics.

Wolf, K.L. 2004. Economics and public value of urban forests. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 13(Special Issue on Urban and Periurban Forestry): 31–33.

World Bank. 2001. Turkey – Forestry sector review. Public Expenditure Review 22458-TU, Washington, DC, World Bank Group. 81 pp.

World Bank. 2013. Turkey green growth policy paper: towards a greener economy. Washington DC, USA, World Bank Group. 112 pp.

World Bank. 2015a. Population estimates and projections. In: World Bank Open Data [online]. Washington, DC, World Bank Group. [Cited October 2016].
https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/population-estimates-and-projections.

World Bank. 2015b. World development indicators. In: World Bank Open Data [online]. Washington, DC, World Bank Group. [Cited November 2017].
https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators.

World Bank. 2016. Romania green growth country assessment: addressing a changing climate and moving to low carbon. Washington DC, USA, World Bank Group. 207 pp.

World Bank. 2017. Poverty, forest dependence and migration in the forest communities of Turkey: evidence and policy impact analysis. Washington, DC, PROFOR, World Bank Group. 50 pp.

Wortley, L., Hero, J.M. & Howes, M. 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restoration Ecology, 21(5): 537–543.

WTTC. 2015. Travel and tourism economic impact 2015 – World. London, World Travel and Tourism Council. 20 pp.

[1]Unless otherwise stated, the report takes into account the 21 signatory countries to the Barcelona Convention (Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey), but also the six following countries and territories that are part of the Mediterranean bioclimatic basin: Bulgaria, Jordan, Palestine, Portugal, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

[2]A flagship specie is defined as a specie both popular and charismatic serving as a symbol and rallying point to stimulate conservation awareness and action (Heywood, 1995).

[3]Plan Bleu (2017) pointed out that between 2000 and 2009 only six Mediterranean countries reduced their environmental footprint.

[4]The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index measuring the evolution of a country according to three criteria: life expectancy at birth, average length of schooling and expected years of schooling, gross national income per capita in USD in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP is a conversion factor indicating the number of units of a country currency needed to buy on this country’s market what one could buy with 1 dollar in the USA. The HDI is standardized and allows countries’ classification according to values between 0 and 1.

[5]Data available for European countries and the ten South European Neighborhood Policy countries: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia.

[6]The impact of climate change on Mediterranean forests and possible responses to it are developed in specific chapters of this report (Chapters 5 and 8).

[1]Same list of 27 countries as in Chapter 1, cf. page 2.

[2]The decrease shown for Portugal is calculated over the period 1990-2010.

[1]Wide range of land-use systems and technologies in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms and bamboo, etc.) used deliberately on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals production in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequences (Lundgren and Raintree, 1983).

[2]Clark and Nicholas (2013): the intentional and strategic use of woody perennial food producing species in urban edible landscapes to improve the sustainability and resilience of urban communities.

[1]Composite measure of the number of individuals released into a region to which they are not native (Carlton, 1996).

[1]These numbers also include other types of forest and cannot be attributed solely to Mediterranean forests.

[2]More information on https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=39&v=h2VoGtA1ZiA

[3]Countries included are: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia and Turkey.

[4]http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/civilians-fell-rare-syrian-trees-for-firewood_12581

[5]This study also includes Central Europe, Northern Europe and Scandinavian Europe in its analysis.

[6]This chapter considers this issue from a global perspective and does not focus on differences at the local/international level.

[1]www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/

[2]www.agroambient.gva.es/web/medio-natural/patfor

[3]The collaborative roadmap for FLR monitoring is being implemented by an open coalition of partners, with a core group composed of FAO, IUCN, WRI, CBD Secretariat and UN Environment.

[4]MEDFORVAL is a network of practitioners and decision-makers working on protecting, managing or restoring the ecological values of Mediterranean forests, see medforval.aifm.org/en.

[5]Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, State of Palestine, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Turkey.

[6]Algeria, France, Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey.

[1]Turkey has recently been re-classified as an Annex I country (list of developed countries).

[2]http://www.unredd.net/documents/redd-papers-and-publications-90/un-redd-publications-1191/15996-key-achievements-of-the-un-redd-programme-2008-2016.html.

[3]Common garden: field test in which many individuals (clones, families, populations) of a given plant species sampled from an identified geographic area are grown in a common environment, making it possible to infer genetic information from the observation of phenotypic differences. These networks were previously known as “multisite comparative trials.”

[1]https://www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml

[2]FSC: https://ic.fsc.org/; PEFC: https://www.pefc.org/.

[1]http://www.fao.org/in-action/fapda/forestry-tool/policies/es/

[2]“By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.”

[3]“By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks have been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 percent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.”

[4]Spanish forest policy includes forest fires, http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/politica-forestal/incendios-forestales/

[5]Forest fires policy of Turkey, http://www.carfu.org/?p=1393

[6]http://www.fao.org/in-action/fapda/forestry-tool/policies/es/

[7]https://www.ogm.gov.tr/Baskanliklar/ToprakMuhafazaveHavzaIslahi/Sayfalar/Toprak-Muhafaza-ve-Havza-Islahi.aspx

[1]http://www6.inra.fr/informed-foresterra_eng/

[2]These methods and their application are detailed in factsheets developed by Plan Bleu (2015).

[3]The choice experiment method is a questionnaire-based technique that seeks to discover individual preferences for simultaneous changes in the attributes that comprise an environmental good or service. The basic premise of the choice experiment is that a forest good or service can be disaggregated to a bundle of attributes or features and that individuals are sensitive to changes in these attributes.

[4]The net present value (NPV) corresponds to the additional net benefits for the duration of the management scenario.

[5]The internal rate of return (IRR) corresponds to the discount rate for which the NPV is null.

[6]Valorization of value chains for woody biomass are key elements of several bioeconomy policies and strategies in Europe at both regional and national levels (Scarlat et al., 2015).

[7]Care should be taken when using these last options; burning treated wood can cause damage the environment and human health. These trade-offs should therefore be taken into account in the value chain (Zelikoff et al., 2002; Rogaume, 2009).

[8]Refers to the transfer of the tax burden from landowner and collector to the middle man, maintaining traceability.

[9]The intermediary, for example, facilitates the negotiation process, implements the administrative procedures for payment or monitors the ecosystem services level.

[1]In 2007-2014 the programme ran within the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (ENPI); it runs within the ENI over the period 2015-2020.

[2]http://www.enpicbcmed.eu/enicbcmed-2014-2020

[3]http://www.icnf.pt/portal/fundos/fundo-florestal-permanente

[4]http://www.s-kzg.si/en/fund-management/

[5]https://www.landscare.org/

[6]http://www.cepf.net/grants/project_database/Pages/default.aspx

[7]http://www.eib.org/products/blending/ncff/index.htm

[8]http://planbleu.org/en/activites/foret/optimizing-production-goods-and-services-mediterranean-forests-context-global

[9]See presentations at the Regional Workshop towards a common position of CPMF partners on REDD+, 2014: http://www.fao.org/forestry/82870/fr/.

[10]http://www.greenclimate.fund/-/development-of-argan-orchards-in-degraded-environment-dared

[11]http://www.abs-initiative.info/countries-and-regions/africa/

[12]http://www.abs-initiative.info/countries-and-regions/africa/

[13]http://mirlo.co/

[14]https://www.azzeroco2.it/compensation-through-afforestation

[15]http://www.huellacero.com

[16]http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/temas/mitigacion-politicas-y-medidas/proyectos-absorcion-co2.aspx

[17]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3269