## 3 Results
### Goals Adjustment  
The second simulation, performed with adjusted volume goals for the industries included in all scenarios (Table A5, Appendix C) (step 3 in Figure 3) and run with the forest stochastic distributions \(\text{FSD}_{1}\) to \(\text{FSD}_{5}\) (Appendix A) to look for the possible effects of resource distribution on the results, led to a more restricted selection of viable scenarios (Table 5, Figure 9). Scenarios 3 to 7 were not able to fulfil demand throughout the duration of the simulation period (Table 5, Figure 10). In these scenarios, simulations broke before \(\text{t}_{20}\) due to the lack of biomass available for industry operation (Figure 10). Scenarios 1, 9 and 10 had the lowest impact on standing volume (Id 1 and Id2) in the region (Figure 9). These were also the scenarios harvesting less in the area (Id 4). Scenario 8 exhibited the highest effect of competition on volume (Id 8), 45,600 m\({}^{3}\) (Table 5).  
This process conducted for the selection of scenarios 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 that complied with objectives 1 and 2 established initially (Table 1). These selected scenarios were, therefore, the ones considered sustainable (Objective 1), that increased mobilisation (Objective 3), and that simultaneously scored highly in terms of the remaining Objectives. Scenarios 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 presented irregular supply of  
Figure 8: Results of simulation for Scenario 3 in terms of volume extracted by each of the industrial activities comprised (**B1**, **B2**, **B3**) with indication of maximum volume goals and volume lost due to competition among industries. The charts show that demand decreases after simulation year 10 (9 for B3) indicating that the maximum volume goal was too optimistic and must be adjusted in the next step of the protocol.  
wood during the 20 years of simulations (Figure 10), and for this reason they were rejected (did not achieve Objective 2).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obj. 1**} & **Obj. 2** & **Obj. 3** & **Obj. 4** & **Obj. 5** & **Obj. 6** & **Obj.?** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenario**} & **Id 1** & **Id 2** & **Id 3** & **Id 4** & **Id 5** & **Id 6** & **Id 7** & **Id 8** & **Id 9** & **Id 10** \\  & **(m3/y)** & **(m3/y)** & **(Y/N)** & **(m3)** & **(f/m3)** & **(f/m3)** & **(ha)** & **(m3)** & **(ha)** & **(m3)** \\ \hline
1 & 45,350 & 46,470 & Yes & 524,588 & 8.39 & 16.56 & 2717 & 0 & 5056 & 396,398 \\ \hline
2 & 10,838 & 7225 & Yes & 1,154,367 & 10.36 & 16.87 & 1879 & 632 & 4945 & 323,078 \\ \hline
3 & 3607 & - & No & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
4 & 37,135 & - & No & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
5 & \(-\)3570 & - & No & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
6 & \(-\)3496 & - & No & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
7 & \(-\)13,024 & - & No & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
8 & 6542 & 4031 & Yes & 1,308,383 & 9.97 & 21.14 & 2718 & 45,600 & 4949 & 304,874 \\ \hline
9 & 17,544 & 19,280 & Yes & 1,088,890 & 8.40 & 23.64 & 2442 & 2232 & 5107 & 334,255 \\ \hline
10 & 27,090 & 27,506 & Yes & 902,343 & 10.35 & 23.72 & 2826 & 4851 & 5063 & 358,871 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Forest biomass assessment indicators outputs for the second simulation using adjusted volume goals (minimum and maximum) in each industry/scenario (Table A5, Appendix C). All values are averages of 5 simulations (FD1 to FD5).  
Figure 9: Standing volume (m3) in the study area over the 20-y simulation period in the second simulation for all scenarios considering strict minimum and maximum volume goals (Table A5, Appendix C).