Sustainable Management of Mediterranean Planted Coniferous Forests: An Israeli Definition

Sustainable Management ofMediterranean Planted ConiferousForests: An Israeli Definition

Yagil Osem, Paul Ginsberg, Israel Tauber, Nir Atzmon, andAvi Perevolotsky

The definition of sustainable forest management (SFM) in Israel is unique, because the majority of itsforests are constructed and the availability of natural or historical forest references to serve asbenchmarks is very limited. The aim of this article is to propose a definition and a suitable frameworkfor the sustainable management of Mediterranean planted coniferous forests (MPCF) in Israel. Weconsider the unique historical and ecological characteristics of the MPCF and discuss their implicationsfor SFM. We propose a list of indicators specifically designed to suit the MPCF and a framework forevaluating sustainability according to forest objectives. We discuss the possibility of adopting a moreextensive management scheme based on natural processes of regeneration and succession. Ourapproach, which is based on the definition of forest objectives, on one hand, and the understandingof the local ecological and socioeconomical conditions, on the other hand, may be appropriate for SFMin other constructed forests throughout the world.

Keywords: sustainable forest management, pine, Pinus halepensis, criteria and indicators

P ine forests, planted during the last100 years, have now become a prin-cipal component of Israel’s land-

scape and heritage (Figure 1). Recently, apolicy regarding the sustainable develop-ment and management of these forests inIsrael was adopted by the Board of Directorsof the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (KKL)—anongovernment organization that acts as Is-rael’s forest service (KKL 2004). Neverthe-less, the applicative interpretation of this

policy still has to be determined. The defini-tion of sustainable forestry in Israel isunique, because the majority of its forestswere created through conifer afforesta-tion, based on imported genotypes of anative species and on exotic species andbecause the availability of natural or his-torical forest references to serve as bench-marks is very limited. The aim of thisstudy is to propose a definition and a suit-able framework for the sustainable man-

agement of Mediterranean planted conif-erous forests (MPCF) in Israel. In ourattempt to cope with this challenge, weconsider the specific objectives of theMPCF as well as the unique ecological,historical, and socioeconomical condi-tions of Israel. This approach may be suit-able for the sustainable management ofother constructed forests throughout theworld.

Forestry BackgroundOne-hundred years of afforestation

have led to the establishment of nearly100,000 ha of planted forests, covering ma-jor parts of the landscape that are unsuitablefor cultivation, in the Mediterranean zone ofIsrael. This amounts to nearly 4% of Israel’stotal area and about 8% of its Mediterraneanzone and represents less than 0.02 ha/capita(KKL 2007). As much as 85,000 ha wereplanted during the last 50 years. These for-ests were established over a wide range ofclimatic conditions (rainfall of 300–900mm/year) on a variety of soil types and to-pography.

Received August 1, 2007; accepted November 25, 2007.

Yagil Osem ([email protected]) is doctor, Department of Natural Resources, ARO, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel. Paul Ginsberg ([email protected]) isdirector, Forest Department, Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael northern regional office, and Israel Tauber ([email protected]) is director of forest management, GIS, andinformation, Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael–Land Development Authority, Forest Department, Kiryat, Haim, Israel. Nir Atzmon ([email protected]) is doctor, andAvi Perevolotsky ([email protected]) is professor, Department of Natural Resources, ARO, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel. The authors thank Gabriel Schillerfor useful comments to this study.

Copyright © 2008 by the Society of American Foresters.

38 Journal of Forestry • January/February 2008

AB

ST

RA

CT

international forestry

The major objectives of afforestation inIsrael during 1920–1970 were “protectingpublic land,” “providing employment,” and“improving the landscape to encourage set-tlement” (Amir and Rechtman 2006). Al-though not always defined as a major objec-tive, wood production also was regarded asan important benefit (Liphschitz and Biger2000) and provided a basis for the manage-ment strategy of the planted pine forest(planting densities, thinning regimes, andothers). Other economic and ecological ben-efits were regarded as secondary values atthat time. In light of these objectives, theForest Service concentrated on planting afew species, characterized by high establish-ment and growth rates under a wide varietyof edaphic and climatic conditions and re-quiring minimal care. Such a policy enabledthe afforestation of large areas in a short timeand at a relatively low cost, while achievingmost of the aforementioned goals. Three co-niferous tree species (Pinus halepensis, Pinusbrutia, and Cupressus sempervirens) werefound most suitable under these constraintsand became the main components ofplanted forests in Israel’s Mediterraneanzone. Of these three, the native P. halepensisis the dominant species, covering as much as40% of the forested area. Despite the exis-tence of a local ecotype, the planted P.halepensis forests in Israel were mostly basedon seed sources coming from the westernMediterranean (Schiller and Grunwald1987). A strategy of dense planting (about3,000 trees/ha) was adopted, to achieverapid crown closure, quick suppression ofcompeting natural vegetation, a straight up-ward growth form, and natural selection ofgenetically successful trees (Heth 1990).This concept of dense, monospecific, even-aged forests based on a pioneer speciesproved efficient in achieving the historicgoals. However, it resulted in the creation ofa forest ecosystem characterized by a shortlife cycle, limited diversity, and ecologicalstability (Noy-Meir 1989), and high sensi-tivity to pest outbreaks, fire, drought, andextreme climatic events (snowfall and strongwinds; Bonneh and Silverstone 1999; KKL,Forest Department 1999). Furthermore, asthese even-aged stands matured, they weredestined to be clearcut, potentially dimin-ishing habitat and landscape quality and, ifinappropriately applied, lead to increasedsoil erosion and degradation. Now, as thepotential stock of land for new afforestationis almost completely exhausted and as manyforest stands are approaching the end of

their rotation age, the focus of forest manag-ers is turning toward long-term manage-ment for regeneration and sustainable man-agement of established forests.

Defining SustainableManagement of MPCFs

The definition of sustainable forestmanagement (SFM) as provided by theMinisterial Conference on the Protection ofForests in Europe (Helsinki Process) is gen-eral enough to encompass the MPCF ofIsrael, and it may well apply to it. As else-where, the current major focus of imple-mentation should be on the definition of rel-evant criteria and indicators (C&I) for SFM.Adopting a framework process as a modeland establishing a set of C&I suitable forIsrael could be the first step toward SFM.This process should be based on work al-ready done internationally. However, someelements, unique to the MPCF, which needto be defined and characterized, form themajor scope of this study.

Unique Characteristics of theMPCF and Their Implications forSFM

The MPCF can be uniquely character-ized through several aspects:

1. Artificiality. Israeli coniferous forests arecreations, based mainly on imported ge-notypes of the native P. halepensis(Schiller and Grunwald 1987) and exotic

Mediterranean conifers (Schiller andGenizi 1993), and differ strongly fromthe native Mediterranean maquis. Natu-ral P. halepensis stands in Israel are scarce,limited in size, and restricted to few sitesthat feature unique conditions (Schiller1985). Historical, botanical, and geo-graphical evidence suggest that the pro-portion of P. halepensis in the past nativearboreal vegetation of Israel also wasquite limited (Rabinowitch 1985, Liph-schitz and Biger 2001). The absence of alocal pine-dominated natural forest, ofsufficient scale to serve as reference, com-plicates the definition of sustainabilityfor Israel’s planted pine forests. Addi-tionally, using natural pine forests of thewestern Mediterranean as reference alsois problematic because they usually rep-resent quite different ecological condi-tions (i.e., more humid).

2. Uniformity. MPCFs are characterized bymonospecific, even-aged stands, basedon a small number of tree species (Figure2). Although such a forest structure alsocan occur naturally, it is widely believedto be more prone to pest outbreaks anddisease epidemics (Jactel et al. 2006,Koricheva et al. 2006) and is character-ized by low diversity and complexity and,possibly, low levels of resilience (De-Clerck et al. 2006).

3. Juvenility. Most of the MPCFs are first-generation and based on a short-lived pi-oneer species (P. halepensis). The cus-

Figure 1. A typical planted P. halepensis forest. The Balfur forest in the Lower Galilee region,northern Israel (approximately 600 mm of annual precipitation).

Journal of Forestry • January/February 2008 39

tomary strategy, based on relatively shortintervals of clear felling, may lead to theperpetuation of ecosystem juvenility andconsequent lack of progression toward amore diverse and complex system. Thus,a more gradual forest regeneration strat-egy based on natural regeneration may bemore appropriate (Nyland 2003). How-ever, at present, the experience of Israel’sForest Service in promoting and manag-ing forest regeneration via natural pro-cesses is quite limited.

4. Multifunctionality. MPCFs are intendedto provide a variety of benefits, includinglandscape improvement, recreation, soilstabilization, grazing land, timber pro-duction, and other ecosystem services(Keren Kayemeth Leisrael [KKL] Minis-try of Interior, Israel lands Administra-tion 1995, Amir and Rechtman 2006).Recent economic estimations report avery high recreational value of Israel’splanted forests (Tauber 1993, Beckerand Choresh 2007). Nevertheless, theeconomical value of forest benefits otherthan recreation, wood, or forage produc-tion is still hard to assess and the defini-tion of the appropriate managementschemes for their maximization is rathercomplicated.

5. Low Timber Value. The timber value ofMPCFs is relatively low (Tauber 1993,Amdur and Zaban 2006). After quite along period of claims and hopes thatthere would be some economic benefit ofafforestation in Israel, it is now com-monly agreed that in most cases this is anunjustified claim, and the costs of estab-lishing planted forests in Israel exceed byfar the income generated from harvestingthem. Thus, at present, the commonconflict concerning economic and envi-ronmental motivations for commercialtimber harvest is of relatively minor im-portance.

6. Public Ownership. MPCFs belong to thepublic and are managed primarily forproduction of public goods and services(Ginsberg 2000). Therefore, once estab-lished, the enforcement of a unified man-agement framework for SFM should berelatively feasible.

An additional set of characteristics canbe associated with the geographic region inwhich the MPCFs are distributed (see Scar-ascia-Mugnozza et al. 2000):

1. Environmental variability. Although

small in size, the Mediterranean zone ofIsrael extends over a wide climatic range,with a steep climatic gradient (Kadmonand Danin 1999) between 300 and 900mm of yearly average precipitation. Thiswide environmental variability requires asubregional adaptation of managementschemes (Kneeshaw et al. 2000, Mroseket al. 2006).

2. Aridity. The east Mediterranean climateis characterized by a relatively long, hot,and dry summer (125–150 days of dryseason). Conditions are particularlyharsh in the southern Mediterraneanzone of Israel (rainfall, 300 mm/year)and during periods of drought. Conse-quently, the number of tree species (in-cluding native tree species) suitable forextensive afforestation is somewhat lim-ited (Pausas et al. 2004a, 2004b). Withinthis context, it was suggested that the de-cline of many P. halepnsis stands at a rel-atively young age that occurred in Israeland possibly also their high sensitivity toattacks by a local pest (the Israeli pinebast scale, Matsucoccus josephi) should beattributed to the fact that these standswere established from imported seedsources coming from the more humidwestern Mediterranean.

3. Human Impact. The Mediterranean Ba-sin is characterized by a very long historyof high-pressure, human impact (Navehand Dan 1973, Blondel and Aronson

1999). Natural ecosystems with low an-thropogenic impact have disappearedfrom this region long ago. This maycomplicate the definition of naturalnessalong with the definition of the desiredstate of the forest. In contrast, it allowsmanagers to approach SFM as a processrather than focusing on a single ecosys-tem state (typically related to late succes-sion).

4. Diversity. As a consequence of thesharply varying climate, the diversity ofedaphic conditions, and the diverse his-tories of land use, the natural flora of theMediterranean zone is highly diverse andof high biological conservation value(Blondel and Aronson 1999). The influ-ence of planted conifer forests on thisnatural flora, which is already restrictedto a limited geographic distribution,should be strongly taken into consider-ation (Lavi et al. 2005).

In spite of all the aforementionedunique characteristics, the criteria to be de-fined for the sustainable management of theMPCFs in Israel should correspond to thosedefined for natural and planted forests foundin other, similar ecological zones. As else-where, the economic, social, and environ-mental benefits should be achieved in paral-lel with maintaining forest vitality,productivity, and regenerative capacity, pre-serving biodiversity, and avoiding damage to

Figure 2. A dense monospecific even-aged P. halepensis stand. The Shaharia forest locatedin the Shfela region in the southern part of the Mediterranean zone of Israel (approximately400 mm of annual precipitation).


other ecosystems. However, the importanceof each criterion, its indicators, and desiredcondition should be uniquely defined. Fur-thermore, these definitions should vary ac-cording to the environmental conditionsand management goals of each forest stand.

C&Is for SFM: Establishing aFramework

We propose a set of C&Is for SFM ofplanted Mediterranean coniferous forests inIsrael (Table 1). The list of criteria is basedon those developed by international forestorganizations, i.e., “Pan European Indica-tors for Sustainable Forest Management”(MCPFE 2002) and the “The MontrealProcess” (Anonymous 1995). The indica-tors listed in the following section were spe-cifically selected to suit the MPCF. Some ofthem are original whereas others were se-lected from various published sets of C&I.The particular significance to the MPCF, ofseveral indicators is explained (Table 1).Some of the indictors are represented by sev-eral complementary parameters. Additionalwork still is required to more fully define theappropriate measurement technique forsome of the parameters.

Defining the Desired ConditionAccording to Forest Objectives

The MPCFs in Israel are multifunc-tional (KKL 1995, Amir and Rechtman2006). Therefore, forest stands should bemanaged to achieve various objectives si-multaneously. However, the particular de-sired condition and the appropriate manage-ment schemes should vary according to thepriorities defined for each area of forest, i.e.,for each forest management unit. We pro-pose six forest types that differ in their prin-cipal management objectives:

1. Forest for recreation. Forest stands man-aged to create suitable conditions for hu-man recreational activity (shaded picnicand playground area). These manage-ment units should be highly accessible,with a dense tree cover, mostly clean,bare ground, low risk of fire outbreak,and developed facilities. At present, thepercentage of the total forest area in Israelcorresponding to this definition is about5%.

2. Forest for timber. Superior forest habi-tats managed to achieve high productionrates of quality timber. This optionshould be considered once the demand

for wood (mainly as heating fuel) exceedsthe wood production achieved throughforest thinning and felling at standard in-tervals.

3. Forest as rangelands. Forest units man-aged for the optimization of forage pro-duction and livestock husbandry. Thesestands should be characterized by a rela-tively low tree density, high herbaceousbiomass, and a relatively moderate to-pography. Currently, there are noplanted forests that are managed directlyfor this purpose. However, large portionsof the forested land (approximately 70%)are actually being used quite heavily forcattle (approximately 20%), sheep, andgoat husbandry (approximately 50%).Grazing serves as an effective tool for re-ducing the fuel load on the forest floor.

4. Forest for slope stabilization. Forest unitsthat are planted and/or managed forslope stabilization and the prevention ofsoil erosion. At present, one forest in theMediterranean zone in Israel is desig-nated specifically for this purpose: theTiberias Forest, about 300 ha, planted onthe steep marlstone slopes above thewestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Otherforest stands that were planted on rela-tively steep slopes also may correspond tothis definition and their managementschemes could be defined accordingly.

5. Forest as landscape. Such forest unitsthat probably constitute most of the for-est area in Israel should be managed tooptimize the landscape aesthetic value, tocreate shaded trails for recreational activ-ity and to serve as buffer zones and eco-logical corridors. These multifunctionalgoals should be met under extensivemanagement, through maximal consid-eration of natural ecological processesand factors (selection, succession, dis-persal, and natural enemies). Thus, theirachievement and optimization requiresdeep understanding and careful planningthat bears in mind both architectural andbiological aspects.

6. Forest as a provider of ecosystem services.Forest stands managed primarily to pro-vide ecosystem services such as water in-filtration, carbon sequestration, andbiodiversity. At present, no forest standin Israel is designated primarily for pro-viding ecosystem services.

The desired conditions for sustainabil-ity should be defined separately among andwithin these forest types and management

schemes should be applied to achieve theseconditions (Rempel et al. 2004). It shouldbe emphasized, on the other hand, that for-ests managed primarily under one objectivestill can make important contributions to-ward other objectives.

Analyzing SustainabilityThe proposed indicators for SFM are

designed for evaluating forest areas at theregional and national levels. “National level”refers to the total of planted coniferous for-ests in Israel; “regional level” refers to agroup of forest management units within adefined area. The indicators can be separatedinto quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative Indicators. The quanti-tative indicators are of two kinds. (1) “Abso-lute quantitative indicators,” which arebased on measurable indexes that standalone and can be evaluated directly at thenational or regional level. For example, “areaof forest subjected to annual wild fire” (inindicator 2.1, Table 1) or “yearly value ofwood output” (in 3.1). (2) “Relative quanti-tative indicators,” which are based on mea-surable indexes but require the designationof a desired condition, at the managementunit level, for evaluating the degree of sus-tainability. For example, “area of forest withsufficient natural regeneration” (in 2.2). Todetermine such indicators at the national orregional level, indexes such as “the density ofestablished tree seedlings” (for evaluatingnatural regeneration) should first be assessedlocally for each management unit and givena grade according to their proximity to thedefined desired condition. The desired con-dition of such indicators can differ amongforest types or among regions with differingenvironmental conditions (Mrosek 2001,Rempel et al. 2004). Then, the level of sus-tainability at the larger scales (national orregional) can be evaluated according to thetotal area of the management units that areachieving their desired condition.

Qualitative Indicators. Examples ofqualitative indicators include “the level ofthe firefighting system” (see Table 1, item7.8) or “the level of public knowledge of for-estry policy and plans” (see Table 1, item7.7). With such indicators, scores should,again, be given according to their proximityto a defined desired condition (Mrosek2001). The definition of the appropriatemulticriterion analysis approach for thecomprehensive evaluation of Israel’s forestsustainability is beyond the scope of this ar-ticle (see, e.g., Mendoza and Prabhu 2003).


Table 1. Criteria, indicators, and parameters for evaluating the sustainability of planted coniferous forests in Israel. The parameters areclassified according their applicability:

Indicator Parameter Significance to the MPCF

1. Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to global carbon cycles1.1. Forest area Total forest areaa

1.2. Forest age classes Distribution of forest age classesa

1.3. Standing biomass Total woody biomassb

1.4. Burned biomass Yearly amount of burned forest waste material (slash)a

Yearly amount of forest biomass burned by wild firesbIn absence of any other suitable solution some of the forest

waste material is still being burned.2. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality

2.1. Forest damage Fire—Yearly area of forest subjected to damage by wild fire(area of burned trees)a

Drought, pests and pollution—Area of forest subject todamage by drought, pest, or pollution (visible change inleaf color)a

Wind and snow—Forest area subjected to damage by windand snow (broken or bent trees)a

Natural stand decline—Forest area in which trees arenonvital (trunk diameter–tree age ratio and/or crownlength–tree height ratio)b

The MPCFs are highly sensitive to pest outbreaks, fire,drought, and extreme climatic events (snowfall andstrong wind).

2.2. Natural regeneration Seedlings—Area of forest with sufficient natural regeneration(established seedlings of forest trees)b

A shift toward a strategy of natural regeneration isconsidered as a means to enhance adaptation and reducefinancial costs and damage to the soil and the landscape.

2.3. Ecosystem processes Organisms—Forest area subject to changes in the activity oforganisms beneficial to ecosystem processesc

3. Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests3.1. Wood production Management—Area of forest defined as forest for timbera

Volume—Yearly volume of wood productiona

Value—Yearly value of wood output (thinning andfelling)a

Wood production is considered, at present, unprofitable

3.2. Pasture and forage forlivestock

Management—Area of forest defined as “forest asrangeland”b

Area of forest used for livestock grazingb

Number of grazing days in forestb

Economic value of rangeb

Income from grazing feesb

About 70% of the area of MPCF is used for livestockhusbandry

3.3. Other nonwood forestproducts

Yearly value of other nonwood forest products (mushrooms,aromatic plants, fruits, and more)c

The MPCF inhabit various species of edible mushroomsand aromatic herbs; at present, any data regarding theireconomical value are lacking

4. Maintenance, conservation, and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity and protection of ecosystems and natural resources4.1. Management for

biodiversityArea of forest defined as “forest as a provider of ecosystem

services”bFirst-generation MPCF are evolving from simple forest

ecosystems with low species diversity into more diverseand complex ones through a combination ofmanagement, disturbances, and natural dynamics

4.2. Forest structural diversity Forest type—Diversity of forest types based on the dominanttree speciesa

Forest age—Diversity of forest ages based on the age of themain layera

Forest density—Diversity of forest densities (within ageclasses)a

The simple structure of first generation MPCF is evolvinginto structurally complex forest systems viamanagement, disturbances, and natural dynamics

4.3. Uneven-aged mixed forest Mixed coniferous forest—Area of forest defined as a mixedconiferous forest (at least two dominant coniferousspecies)a

Mixed coniferous broadleaf forest—Area of forest defined as amixed coniferous broadleaf forest (at least one coniferousand one broadleaf species)a

Uneven aged mixed forest—Area of forest defined asuneven-aged mixed forest (at least two dominant speciesand two dominant age classes)b

A shift from monospecific even-aged stands toward mixedstands is considered as a means to increase biodiversityand complexity and to reduce the sensitivity tooutbreaks of pests

4.4. Understory vegetation Woody vegetation—Area of forest with developed understorywoody vegetation (by cover and diversity)b

Herbaceous vegetation—Area of forest with developedunderstory herbaceous vegetation (cover and diversity)b

Fostering the understory vegetation is considered as ameans to increase diversity and complexity and toreturn native Mediterranean tree species

4.5. Monitoring Area of forest under biodiversity monitoringc

4.6. Penetration of planted forestspecies into other naturallandscapes

Area of natural landscape (maquis, garrigue, and batha)subject to colonization by forest tree species (Pinus andCupressus)c

The leading forest species P. halepensis tends to colonizeneighboring natural landscapes

4.7. Use of silviculturalchemicals

Herbicides—Yearly use and types of herbicidesa

Pesticides—Yearly use and types of pesticidesa

Handling and disposal procedures—Existence of suitableprocedures for the handling and disposal of harmfulchemicalsb

Herbicides are commonly used to reduce herbaceousvegetation and promote establishment of saplings

Pesticides are also used against the pine processionarymoth (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni)


Possible Courses of ActionTwo significant but controversial is-

sues in the management strategy of theMPCF may best reflect the changing ap-

proach and its associated difficulties: (a) ashift toward a strategy of natural regener-ation and possible creation of a multiageforest (Nyland 2003) and (b) fostering the

regenerating Mediterranean maquis as awoody understory component to enhanceforest biological diversity and system com-plexity (Ginsberg 2006).

Table 1. Continued

Indicator Parameter Significance to the MPCF

4.8. Treatment of prunedmaterial

The existence of suitable procedures for the treatment ofpruned materiala

Slash burning will be outlawed in Israel as of 1.10.08;chipping and reuse is the preferred treatment

5. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources5.1. Management for protective

functions Area of forest defined as “Forest for slope stabilization”b

5.2. Soil erosionArea of forest subject to significant soil erosionb

Accumulating length of forest roads damaged by soil erosionb

5.3. Soil and water pollution

Area of forest subject to soil and ground water or streamwater pollution (e.g., salinity, pH, nutrients, and heavymetals)b

5.4. Soil disturbanceForest area subject to significant soil disturbance (e.g.,

compaction and structure destruction)c

6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple social and economic benefits6.1. Economic activity Extent of economic activity contributed by the forestsc

6.2. Employment

The number of KKL forestry employeesa

The number of contractors working for the KKLc

Safety, health and welfare in forest workb

6.3. Recreation

Management—area of forest defined as “forest forrecreation”b

Public use—Public use of forest (number of visits)a

Recreation facilities—Number of recreation facilities:standard and level of maintenance a

Hiking trails—Amount and length of trails in forestsb

Scenic roads—Number and length of scenic roads in forestsb

Information—Area of forest sufficiently covered by maps andinformation for recreationa

The per capita forest area in Israel is about 0.02 ha, whichis more than 10 times smaller compared with countriesof the northeastern and northwestern MediterraneanBasin

6.4. Cultural and historicalvalues

Historical sites—The number of historical sites, and level ofconservation and maintenanceb

Monuments—The number of monuments, and level ofmaintenance b

Primarily funded through donations, planted forests serveas “living memorials,” which commemorate variouscommunities, personalities, and significant events inIsraeli and Jewish history

7. Legal, institutional, and economic framework for forest management

7.1. Legal framework

The level of the legal and regulatory framework that protectsforestsa

Area of forest that is legally protectedb

7.2. Financial support The level of financial support and investment in the forestaForestry budget was reduced by about 50% during the last

10 yr7.3. Monitoring system The level of the forest monitoring systemb

7.4. Management strategy

The area of forest managed under a defined managementobjectiveb

The area of forest in which the long-term management planis achievedc

The definition of forest objectives and suitablemanagement strategies are at the center of a professionaldiscussion

7.5. Forest researchYearly amount of forest research fundinga

The number of research projects taking place in the foresta

7.6. Education and forestrytraining

Academic education—Yearly numbers of forestry courses andstudentsa

Training programs—The existence and level of forestrytraining programsa

Academic degrees—Number of employees in the forestservice with academic degrees in their field of worka

7.7. Public knowledge andparticipation

Information—The amount and availability of information ontrees, forests and forestrya

Public knowledge—The level of public knowledge of forestrypolicy and plansc

Public participation—The level of public participation indecisionmaking and forestry actionsc

Cooperation with other organizations—The level ofcooperation between the Forest Service and other nationaland local organizationsc

Conifer-based forestry has been a focal point of criticismby Israeli environmental groups since the 1960s; in spiteof this, and in light of growing developmental pressureson Israel’s limited open space resources, planted foreststoday are valued as an important landscape resource andan effective means to protect public, open areas; thecultivation and support of educated, public stakeholdersin the forests’ future is deemed a critical tool for theircontinued existence

7.8. Supporting systems

Pests import prevention—The level of systems to prevent theimport of organisms harmful to forestsb

Forest firefighting—The level of forest firefighting systemsa

a Immediately applicable according to available data.b Applicable subject to minor improvements of the existing monitoring systems.c Applicable only after the establishment of new monitoring systems. In column 3 we explain the unique significance of certain indicators to the MCPF.


Natural Regeneration. The basis ofthe natural regeneration approach lies inabandoning the cyclical clearcutting/plant-ing paradigm and promoting regenerationfrom naturally dispersed seeds and existingunderstory stock (Figure 3). P. halepensis,and, to a less extent, P. brutia are quite wellknown for their self-regenerating capacity(Schiller 1979, Boydak 2004). Possible ad-vantages to be gained by adopting a naturalregeneration policy are (a) adaptation—thepromotion of adaptation by the selection ofseed trees and seedlings by means of thin-ning and natural mortality; (b) the achieve-ment of a gradual stand replacement (Pom-merening and Murphy 2004) and avoidanceof landscape and habitat alteration associ-ated with clearcutting and site preparation;and (c) reduction of costs, i.e., reductions insite preparation, tending, and planting ex-penditures (Zwolinski and Groenwald2004). Possible drawbacks are (a) complex-ity—the appropriate management strategyis complex, involving temporal and spatialvariations among forest sites, tree species,and forest uses; (b) exclusion of grazing andrisk of fire—the probable need to excludegrazing for a long period of time, to protectthe young trees, which increases the fire riskbecause of accumulation of fuels in the un-derstory; (c) increased costs—because of in-creased labor requirements for forest treat-ments, i.e., thinning, handling of understoryvegetation, and more; (d) wood produc-tion—complication of wood harvesting;and (e) stakeholder involvement—complexsite management regimes will increase pos-sible conflicts with long- and short-term us-ers.

At present, planted pine forest standsthat have reached beyond the age of 60 yearsare quite limited in Israel amounting toabout 500 ha in the case of P. halepensis and120 ha in the case of P. brutia (KKL 2007).The oldest among these are stands of 81 (P.halepensis) and 79 (P. brutia) years old.Thus, up to now, the creation of new pinestands via natural regeneration processes hasonly occurred unintentionally after, in mostcases, wild fires or fatal attacks by the Israelipine bast scale (M. josephi). Experience bythe local Forest Service in managing old pinestands toward natural regeneration is, there-fore, lacking. Furthermore, the definition ofthe appropriate rotation time still is difficultbecause references regarding the lifespan ofP. halepensis and P. brutia under the variousenvironmental and management conditionsof Israel’s forests are very limited. We pro-

pose that the shift toward a strategy of natu-ral regeneration should be applied with cau-tion beginning with declining stands andgradually integrating into the rotation a por-tion of the old stands (more than 60 yearsold), which are still in good shape, whilemanaging the other portion for preservationof the old forest phase.

Fostering the Native Maquis as aWoody Understory Component. The na-tive vegetation characterizing major parts ofthe afforested land in Israel is the Mediter-ranean maquis in its various forms (Kadmonand Harari-Kremer 1999). A forest structureof scattered coniferous trees, i.e., P. halepen-sis at 100–200 trees/ha, within a dense Med-iterranean maquis dominated by the com-mon evergreen oak (Quercus calliprinos)occurs naturally in parts of the Mount Car-mel region (Schiller 1985, Schiller et al.1997). Similar formations also occur be-cause of the penetration of pine seedlingsfrom planted forest stands into neighboringnatural landscapes (Lavi et al. 2005), andconversely because of the recovery of the ma-quis in relatively sparsely planted pine stands(Lev-Yadun et al. 1999). It is possible thatthe combination of a dense maquis and scat-tered pine trees (P. halepensis) represents anative form of climax vegetation that mayhave existed in some regions of Israel otherthan the Carmel.

The highly degraded state of the maquisin the first half of the 20th century may haveprovided the basic motivation for the coni-

fer-based afforestation enterprise in Israel.Preparation of forest planting sites and post-planting treatments caused further destruc-tion of the remanent maquis. However, un-der the protection and facilitation of plantedforests, the Mediterranean maquis slowly re-covered and developed as a woody under-story layer of vegetation (Lev-Yadun et al.1999). The pace of this process varies acrosshabitats, forest age and cover levels, grazingregimes, and landscape history. The last ofthese includes fire events and land-use pat-terns. The development of the subforest, in-cluding the regeneration of Mediterraneanbroadleaf tree species, which once may havebeen considered a nuisance, now can be seenas providing the potential for the develop-ment of a highly diverse and complex, mixedMediterranean forest (Figure 4). Fosteringthe maquis as understory vegetation can bedone by means of thinning the forest, limit-ing grazing pressure, and planting or sowingnative tree and shrub species. Possible gainsfrom this approach are (a) diversity—in-creased forest diversity and system complex-ity; (b) resistance and resilience—lowerprobability of and quicker recovery from se-vere pest outbreaks (Jactel et al. 2006, De-Clerck 2006); (c) ecosystem functioning—enhanced productivity and nutrient cycling(Kelty 2006, Vila et al. 2007); (d) rapidground cover and better soil stabilization(Casermeiro et al. 2004, Chirino et al.2006); and (e) the return and encourage-ment of long-lived, native tree species. Con-

Figure 3. Natural regeneration of P. halepensis in the forest understory. Lower Galileeregion.


versely, significant drawbacks that mightarise are (a) the need for complex and site-specific management strategies (Pommeren-ing and Murphy 2004); (b) access—creat-ing an impassable thicket in the understory;(c) suppression of regenerating coniferoustrees (De las Heras et al. 2002); (d) suppres-sion of the herbaceous vegetation and re-duced forage production (Papachristou et al.1996); and (e) increased fuel material andfire risk.

ConclusionsThe history and characteristics of

MPCF in Israel has resulted in the creationof a unique, artificially created ecosystem.The National Forest Service, which, untilrecently, concentrated on establishing newforests, dominated by monocultures of P.halepensis, now faces the challenge of man-aging and renewing these first-generationforests according to the principles of SFM.Therefore, we propose a practical definitionfor SFM of MPCF in Israel, based on thefollowing guidelines: (a) dividing the forestsinto distinct management units according tothe principal forest objective, to be selectedout of six proposed objectives; (b) definingthe desired conditions, in various aspects, foreach management unit, according to itsprinciple objective and environmental con-ditions; (c) applying management tools toachieve the defined desired conditions; and(d) monitoring and analyzing sustainabilityaccording to the proposed set of seven crite-ria and 35 indicators for SFM. In otherwords, managers should use the proposed setof indicators to assess in each of their forestunits, the proximity to the desired conditionthat was defined with respect to the principalforest objective while bearing in mind spe-cific local constraints (e.g., environmental,social, and more).

This process should be reevaluated con-stantly to ensure ongoing improvement ofthe management schemes and of the defini-tions of indicators and the desired condi-tion. With regard to the largest portion ofthe MPCFm, which should be designated as“forest as landscape,” the shift toward an ex-tensive management scheme based on natu-ral processes of regeneration and successionmay indicate a significant turning point.However, implementation of such a strategyis bound to encounter difficulties and risksthat should be subjected to careful consider-ation. Our approach, which is based on thedefinition of forest objectives, on one hand,and the understanding of the local ecological

and socioeconomical conditions, on theother hand, may be appropriate for SFM inother constructed forests throughout theworld.

Literature CitedAMIR, S., AND O. RECHTMAN. 2006. The devel-

opment of forest policy in Israel in the 20thcentury: Implications for the future. For. PolicyEcon. 8:35–51.

AMDUR, L., AND H. ZABAN. 2006. Commercialafforestation in Israel—Economic feasibilityand policy study. Forest 8:14–20 (in Hebrew,English abstract).

ANONYMOUS. 1995. Criteria and indicators forthe conservation and sustainable managementof temperate and boreal forests. The MontrealProcess, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa,27 p. Can. J. For. Res.–Rev. Can. Rech. For.36:324–336.

BECKER, N., AND Y. CHORESH. 2007. Economicestimate of the recreational value of Biria For-est: Application of the travel cost method. For-est 9:33–39. (in Hebrew, English abstract).

BLONDEL, J., AND J. ARONSON. 1999. Biology andwildlife of the Mediterranean Region. OxfordUniversity Press, New York. 328 p.

BONNEH, O., A. SILVERSTONE. 1999. Forest re-newal in the northern region. KKL Forest De-partment unpublished report. (in Hebrew).

BOYDAK, M. 2004. Silvicultural characteristicsand natural regeneration of Pinus brutiaTen.—A review. Plant Ecol. 171:153–163.

CASERMEIRO, M.A., J.A. MOLINA, M.T.D.L.CARAVACA, J.H. COSTA, M.I.H. MASSANET,AND P.S. MORENO. 2004. Influence of scrubson runoff and sediment loss in soils of Medi-terranean climate. Catena 57:91–107.

CHIRINO, E., A. BONET, J. BELLOT, AND J.R.SANCHEZ. 2006. Effects of 30-year-old Aleppopine plantations on runoff, soil erosion, andplant diversity in a semi-arid landscape insouth eastern Spain. Catena 65:19–29.

DE LAS HERAS, J., J.J. MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, A.I.GONZALEZ-OCHOA, P. FERRANDIS, AND J.M.HERRANZ. 2002. Establishment of Pinushalepensis Mill. saplings following fire: Effectsof competition with shrub species. ActaOecol.–Int. J. Ecol. 23:91–97.

DECLERCK, F.A.J., M.G. BARBOUR, AND J.O.SAWYER. 2006. Species richness and stand sta-bility in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada.Ecology 87:2787–2799.

GINSBERG, P. 2000. Afforestation in Israel: Asource of social goods and services. J. For. 98:32–36.

GINSBERG, P. 2006. Restoring biodiversity topine afforestations in Israel. J. Nat. Conserv.14:207–216.

HETH, D. 1990. Planting density of Aleppo pine.Hasade 71:288–290 (in Hebrew).

JACTEL, H., P. MENASSIEU, F. VETILLARD, A.GAULIER, J.C. SAMALENS, AND E.G. BROCKER-HOFF. 2006. Tree species diversity reduces theinvasibility of maritime pine stands by the bastscale, Matsucoccus feytaudi (Homoptera: Mar-garodidae). Can. J. For. Res.–Rev. Can. Rech.For. 36:314–323.

KADMON, R., AND A. DANIN. 1999. Distributionof plant species in Israel in relation to spatialvariation in rainfall. J. Veg. Sci. 10:421–432.

KADMON, R., AND R. HARARI-KREMER. 1999.Landscape-scale regeneration dynamics of dis-turbed Mediterranean maquis. J. Veg. Sci. 10:393–402.

Figure 4. The recovery and development of the Mediterranean maquis as a woody under-story layer of vegetation and creation of a mixed coniferous broadleaved forest. Individualsof the common oak (Q. calliprinos) growing in the understory of a mixed P. halepensis andC. sempervirens forest. The Baram forest in the Upper Galilee region, Northern Israel(approximately 800 mm of annual precipitation).


KELTY, M.J. 2006. The role of species mixtures inplantation forestry. For. Ecol. Manag.233:195–204.

KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL (KKL), MINISTRY OF

INTERIOR, ISRAEL LANDS ADMINISTRATION.1995. National Master Plan No. 22: Forests andforestry. KKL Forestry Department, PlanningDivision, Eshtaol, Israel (in Hebrew). 91 p.

KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL (KKL). 2004. KerenKayemeth Leisrael, a policy for sustainable devel-opment (in Hebrew). KKL 13 p.

KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL (KKL). 2007. Greeninformation: Forest Statistics. The Departmentof Forest Management and GIS, the ForestDepartment, Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael –Jew-ish National Fund. 16 p.

KNEESHAW, D.D., A. LEDUC, P. DRAPEAU, S.GAUTHIER, D. PARE, R. CARIGNAN, R.DOUCET, L. BOUTHILLIER, AND C. MESSIER.2000. Development of integrated ecologicalstandards of sustainable forest management atan operational scale. For. Chron. 76:481–493.

KORICHEVA, J., H. VEHVILAINEN, J. RIIHIMAKI, K.RUOHOMAKI, P. KAITANIEMI, AND H. RANTA.2006. Diversification of tree stands as a meansto manage pests and diseases in boreal forests:Myth or reality? Can. J. For. Res.—Rev. Can.For. Rech. 36:324–336.

LAVI A, PEREVOLOTSKY A, KIGEL J, AND NOY-MEIR, I. 2005. Invasion of Pinus halepensisfrom plantations into adjacent natural habi-tats. Appl. Veg. Sci. 8:85–92.

LEV-YADUN, S., G. SCHILLER, AND A. PEREVO-LOTSKY. 1999. Towards sustainable forestry inthe east Mediterranean, or from non-forest to sus-tainable forest: The Israeli case (Poster). MED-PINE: International Workshop on Mediterra-nean Pines, University of Haifa and KerenKayemeth LeIsrael (KKL), Bet Oren, Israel,Feb. 7–12, 1999. 1 p.

LIPHSCHITZ, N., AND G. BIGER. 2000. Green dressfor a country. Afforestation in Eretz-Israel, thefirst hundred years 1850–1950, KKL, ArielPublishing House, Jerusalem. 265 p.

LIPHSCHITZ, N., AND G. BIGER. 2001. Past distri-bution of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) in themountains of Israel (Palestine). Holocene 11:427–436.

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE PROTECTION

OF FORESTS IN EUROPE. (MCPFE) EXPERT

LEVEL MEETING, 2002. Improved Pan-Euro-pean indicators for sustainable forest manage-ment, MCPFE, Vienna, Austria.

MENDOZA, G.A., AND R. PRABHU. 2003. Quali-tative multi-criteria approaches to assessing in-dicators of sustainable forest resource manage-ment. For. Ecol. Manag. 174:329–343.

MROSEK, T. 2001. Developing and testing of amethod for the analysis and assessment of mul-tiple forest use from a forest conservation per-spective. For. Ecol. Manag. 140:65–74.

MROSEK, T., D. BALSILLIE, AND P. SCHLEIFEN-BAUM. 2006. Field testing of a criteria and in-dicators system for sustainable forest manage-ment at the local level. Case study resultsconcerning the sustainability of the private for-est Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve inOntario, Canada. For. Policy Econ.8:593–609.

NAVEH, Z., AND J. DAN. 1973. Man’s impact onthe several regions with Mediterranean cli-mate. P. 363–371 in Mediterranean type ecosys-tems—Origin and structure, Di Castri, F., andH.A. Moony (eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin.

NOY-MEIR, I. 1989. An ecological viewpoint onafforestation in Israel: Past and future. Allg.Forst Zeitsch. 24–26:614–618.

NYLAND, R.D. 2003. Even- to uneven-aged: Thechallenges of conversion. For. Ecol. Manag. 17:291–300.

PAPACHRISTOU, T.G., P.D. PLATIS, AND V.P. PA-PANASTASIS. 1996. Forage production andsmall ruminant grazing responses in Mediter-ranean shrublands as influenced by the reduc-tion of shrub cover. Agrofor. Syst. 35:225–238.

PAUSAS, J.G., C. BLADE, A. VALDECANTOS, J.P.SEVA, D. FUENTES, J.A. ALLOZA, A. VILAGROSA,S. BAUTISTA, J. CORTINA, AND R. VALLEJO.2004a. Pines and oaks in the restoration ofMediterranean landscapes of Spain: New per-spectives for an old practice—A review. PlantEcol. 171:209–220.

PAUSAS, J.G., E. RIBEIRO, AND R. VALLEJO.2004b. Post-fire regeneration variability of Pi-nus halepensis in the eastern Iberian Peninsula.For. Ecol. Manag. 203:251–259.

POMMERENING, A., AND S.T. MURPHY. 2004. Areview of the history, definitions and methodsof continuous cover forestry with special atten-tion to afforestation and restocking. Forestry77:27–44.

RABINOWITCH, A. 1985. Arboreal plant commu-nities of the Mediterranean ecosystem in Israel.Rotem 18:5–13 (in Hebrew, English abstract).

REMPEL, R.S., D.W. ANDISON, AND S.J. HAN-NON. 2004. Guiding principles for developingan indicator and monitoring framework. For.Chron. 80:82–90.

SCARASCIA-MUGNOZZA, G., H. OSWALD, P.PIUSSI, AND K. RADOGLOU. 2000. Forests of theMediterranean region: Gaps in knowledge andresearch needs. For. Ecol. Manag. 132(1):97–109.

SCHILLER, G. 1979. Factors involved in naturalregeneration of Aleppo pine. Pamphlet 201,Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel. 90 p.

SCHILLER, G. 1985. Natural Pinus halepensis: Dis-tribution and genetic relations. Rotem18:69–78 (in Hebrew, English abstract).

SCHILLER, G., AND C. GRUNWALD. 1987. Resinmonoterpenes in range-wide provenance trialsof Pinus halepensis Mill. in Israel. Silvae Genet.36:109–114.

SCHILLER, G., AND A. GENIZI. 1993. An attemptto identify the origin of Pinus brutia planta-tions in Israel by needle resin composition. Sil-vae Genetica 42(2-3):63–68.

SCHILLER, G., G. NE’EMAN, AND L. KOROL. 1997.Post-fire vegetation dynamics in a native Pinushalepensis Mill. forest on Mt. Carmel, Israel.Israel J. Plant Sci. 45:297–308.

TAUBER, I. 1993. Economic evaluation of the Is-raeli forest. School of Forestry, Auburn Univ.,Auburn, AL. 18 p.

VILA, M., J. VAYREDA, L. COMAS, J.J. IBANEZ, T.MATA, AND B. OBON. 2007. Species richnessand wood production: A positive associationin Mediterranean forests. Ecol. Lett. 10:241–250.

ZWOLINSKI, J., AND W. GROENWALD. 2004. Nat-ural regeneration of pine plantations as a costeffective way of stand re-establishment. For-estry 77:483–493.


Sustainable Management of Mediterranean Planted Coniferous Forests: An Israeli Definition

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Management of Mediterranean Planted Coniferous Forests: An Israeli Definition