**4.3 Forest management unit sub-process**

224 Sustainable Forest Management – Case Studies

upon international, EU and Spanish principles of forest sustainability, but recognizing the specific goals and constraints of Galicia. The revised PFG, developed by regional technical staff within the integrated process described below, would make explicit the long-term forest management goals of the region, the actions required to achieve goals, and terms of the "*co-responsibility contract"* that define responsibilities of forest sector players with respect

The second goal would involve the monitoring and control of results and actions to ensure

Forest District Management Plans (FDMPs) are intended to bridge the gap between the PFG and the management plans and actions of Forest Management Units (FMUs). According to the most recent draft Plan Forestal de España-PFE (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente 2002), this is the level in the management hierarchy where it is most appropriate to accommodate strategic social and economic development objectives defined by local communities and group and also consider landscape-level environmental constraints and objectives that require planning across forest ownership boundaries (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2002).

that the specific objectives of SFM for Galicia are being achieved.

Fig. 1. Proposed SFM Framework for Galicia

**4.2 District management sub-process** 

to actions.

Since most individual forests in Galicia are privately owned, the government does not have direct control of the forest management undertaken in them. This is particularly true of the very small ownerships that comprise almost 70% of Galician forests, where forest management (if there is any) is up to the individual owner. Even in the 30% of private forests owned by communities and managed by government foresters, community objectives may be at odds with those of the region or district. However, the government is not without tools to influence the management of private forests. The government controls subsidies for management activities and has the right to regulate some forest activities such as harvesting in certain forest types or authorizing the plantation of certain species (such as *Eucalyptus globulus*). Furthermore, the government could be seen as the sole organization capable of implementing a management infrastructure that would be capable of facilitating regional forest certification, which could be seen as the most viable approach to certification given ownership patterns. This infrastructure would include the planning and control mechanisms, Best Management Practice (or BMP) Codes and a series of silvicultural models (SMs) for major forest species.

In the absence of clear regional and district plans, it was difficult for the government to justify the use of such tools in any focused manner, and advancing credible forest certification was seen as difficult. With regional and district forest management guidelines and plans in place, the government would be able to give priority for subsidies and harvest approvals to forest owners who followed the district (and, thereby, regional) plans. As well, the implementation of the planning, monitoring and control systems envisioned in the new SFM process would facilitate the certification of even small forest ownerships, as long as they are managed in a way that conforms to the local FDMP, BMPs and SMs.
