**4.1 Local and expert perceptions of sustainable forest management**

Alike this study indicates, previous studies equally show that local and expert perceptions of indicators for sustainable forest management often differ, but that these differences decrease while concerning ecological indicators (Karjala et al., 2004; Purnomo et al., 2005; Pokharel and Larsen, 2007; Sherry et al., 2005; Adam and Kneeshaw, 2008). This has been explained by the fact that C&I processes always largely focus on environmental (not socioeconomic) issues, so that there is less disagreement in what should be included in a meaningful set of indicators for ecological sustainability: ecosystem condition, biodiversity and ecosystem services are nearly always included (Adam and Kneeshaw, 2008). Rural populations often not only depend on natural resources, they also inherit a thorough traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) (Karjala et al., 2004) about their surrounding environment which is often in accordance with expert formulations, even if the vocabulary is different. Requirements like water and soil protection, critical habitat preservation or productive functions of forests are the concerns of both local people and experts.

In fact, the differences in perception between experts and villages in this study are based for a non-negligible part on the genetic diversity concept. About 42 % of eliminated indicators (5 out of 12) concern the criterion of genetic diversity. The neglect of genetic issues by local populations can be attributed to a lack of knowledge and difficulties to understand the concept.

On the other hand, villagers added some elements which were considered as relevant, independently from their scientific importance. For instance, the elements leading to the addition of *"1.3.8 Pleasantness of environment"* as an indicator included the beauty of the landscape, air quality, temperature and provision of shade. Aesthetic issues have been identified in previous studies to be typical local requirements which are not integrated at the expert levels (Adam and Kneeshaw, 2008). Bottom-up approaches and TEK can thus be seen as a way to integrate and connect ecological issues with cultural and communal aspects. This integration of connections / interlinkages in some indicators could be an answer to recent critics about the strict structure and isolation of elements into ecological, social and economic issues (Adam and Kneeshaw, 2008; Mendoza and Prabhu, 2003; Requardt 2007). Further this result also confirms that expert sets fail to address particular values and needs of local populations. Elements generated by local communities can complement expert sets by adding valuable knowledge. Moreover, they can increase the legitimacy of those sets, facilitate their implementation and the acceptance of the results, they can contribute to the conservation and recognition of TEK and reduce hierarchical conflicts.
