**1.2 Locally rooted proximity-to-target forest indicator**

4 Sustainable Forest Management – Case Studies

of forest ecosystem values where there is a need for a significantly better quality communication process between the local level and global level of interests and concern. A premise of the framework is that it should be possible to establish a negotiated understanding of tropical forest resources conveyed by a knowledge system that supports or at least evens out some of the asymmetric influence and power of the globalized

The chapter begins with a discussion of forest management and indicators followed by a description of the Kilimanjaro case study from which the indicator and framework emerged.

The deterioration of tropical forests is increasing (FAO, 2007; MA, 2005; UNEP, 2007). The need for new initiatives for sustainable forest management has been raised by many authors and institutions (Studley, 2007; Van Bueren & Blom, 1996). There is a serious concern about insufficient means and instruments for a possible future sustainable use, management and governance of biodiversity and ecosystem resources (Newton & Kapos, 2002; Noss, 1990,

Especially indigenous and poor communities are vulnerable to failed governance because of their heavy reliance on local, natural resources for subsistence and income (Lawrence, 2000; Vermeulen & Koziell, 2002; WRI, 2005). Indigenous people and communities are also on the defensive in order to protect and develop their historical rights, cultural heritage, ecosystem resources and land. UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) includes framework for monitoring and indicators, and new targets for biodiversity are added to the Millennium Development Goals in order to cover genetic variety, quantity of different taxon, geographic

Studley (2007) states that virtually all aspects of diversity are in step decline due to the three interacting interdependent systems of indigenous knowledge, biodiversity and cultural diversity. All three are threatened with extinction. The list of threats includes rapid population growth, growth of international markets, westernised educational systems and mass media, environmental degradation, exogenous and imposed development processes, rapid modernisation, cultural homogenisation, lost language, globalisation, extreme

Vermeulen and Koziell (2002) give a review of biodiversity assessment and integration of

Studley (2007) suggests a vision for realising the aspirations of indigenous people to ensure the enhancement of biological and cultural diversity which includes an endogenous approach dependent on building the capacity of forest development staff in acculturation,

Wieler (2007) advises decision-makers that the development and implementation of an environmental monitoring system and adequate policy targets for improved environmental performance are crucial. She recommends an impact strategy that includes *relationship management* at the core to identify who are the people positioned to have influence on the

*"between "global values" – the indirect values (environmental services) and non-use values (future options and intrinsic existence values) that accrue to all humanity – and "local values" held by the day-to-day managers of biological diversity, whose concerns often prioritise direct use* 

community vis-à-vis the local community regarding communication of forest values.

**1.1 Local ecosystem resource governance and issues in forest management** 

The framework is then described and discussed.

distribution and social interaction processes (CBD, 2006).

global and local values including elaborating on the contrast

changes that need to be made (Creech et al., 2006).

*of good that biodiversity provides. Assessments are based on values."* 

cross-cultural bridging, forest concept mapping and information technologies.

environmentalism and eco-imperialism.

1999; TEEB, 2010).

A wide variety of ecological indicators have been generated for the purpose of reflecting trends and needs for realising policy targets and improved nature management. The terms environmental and ecological indicators are often used as synonyms or in an arbitrary manner. Here, the notion ecological indicator is regarded as a subset under environmental indicator and use of the term ecological indicator applies directly to the ecological processes (Niemeijer & de Groot, 2006; Smeets & Wetering, 1999). Usually ecological or environmental indicators are part of a linear and hierarchical management system which includes monitoring, reporting and decision making. Van Bueren and Blom (1996) suggest a structure starting with determining goals, outlining principles and criteria with guidelines for action, which are measured and verified by indicators before they are compared with established norms and discussed. The hierarchy of the management system consists of the input (an object, capacity or intention, e.g. management plan), the process (the management process) and the output (performance and results).

The hierarchical model is systematic, logical and effective, but it is open in order to include the mediation and negotiation perspective that could increase the local people's participation and influence in local management. The model could be developed further to be more systemic and include feedback thereby reducing the asymmetry between global and local interests.

To incorporate both a systematic and a systemic forest management model it follows that a new approach to the construction of indicators is needed. Van Bueren & Blom (1996) outline very well the demand for quality in the work of designing sustainable forest indicators and they warn about incorrectly formulated criteria for management standards and indicators. However, an indicator for a forest management system that aims to increase local participation and equality regarding influence and control over local resources also must be easy to understand and use. The work for sustainable forest management rests on the assumption that local people understand how to protect the forest ecosystem services better than a scientifically constructed indicator, which fails to incorporate the knowledge of local people.

Hence, the study proposes an ecological communication model that enlarges the objectives and applications of ecological indicators. The proposed indicator framework has purposes beyond measuring ecological status, impacts or performance. The indicator should also be a tool for reflexive learning and communication including mediation and negotiation between stakeholders on the global and local scale, which includes nature itself represented by the sciences of ecology (Hermansen, 2006, 2010; Latour, 2004) as a stakeholder (Elkington, 1998).

Methodology for Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator – Case Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 7

for the "*keepers of the forest*" (Studley, 2007) promoting interaction between the indigenous

The CFEMI is pilot scheme developed on site as a specific ecological mediating indicator. CFEMI is based on experience from an ecological investigation of the plant life in a tropical moist forest at Mt. Kilimanjaro (Hermansen et al*.*, 2008). CFEMI is a composed indicator showing how far a certain site in a specific forest deviates from norms or targets, in this case sites at different altitudes in the forest belt between 1600 and 2700 m asl on the southern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro (Fig. 1). The targets represent a specific defined and assumed, optimal ecological state. It is essential to point out that the purpose of CFEMI is not to be universal, but instead to be a measure for strengthening the local actors's role in defining their forest resources and sustainable forest management in the context of the catchment forest. This means that CFEMI may be regarded as a quasi-indicator (Andersen & Fagerhaug, 2002) more concerned with local and situational reality and thereby of limited

**2. Case study: Construction of the catchment forest ecosystem mediating** 

value for general utilization and comparability for benchmarking with other areas.

Fig. 1. Kilimanjaro Forest Reserve and the three transects Mweka, Kilema and Marangu. The upper forest border mainly follows the Kilimanjaro National Park border. The Half Mile

The procedure applied for constructing the indicator includes definition of system, goals, objectives, identifying relevant ecological factors and variables, outlining methods for measurement and data collection, negotiating the construction of the index and calculation

Forestry Strip is shaded. (Modified from Newmark, 1991)

knowledge system, biodiversity and cultural diversity.

**indicator** 

First, ecology is addressed as a necessary knowledge system in an epistemological context for understanding the relationship and integration of natural resources to a globally recognized system, and second, the indigenous knowledge system is addressed in order to strengthen local motivation, control and proper management of community depending on a sustainable use of the ecosystem resources in an ontological context.

To make a distinction between the local context and interests and the global context and interests, two stakeholder groups, *locals* and *globals,* are introduced. The denotation of the rather new and little used term globals is not explained in dictionaries. Baumann (1998) and Strassberg (2003) refer to globals as people who are relatively free from territorial constraints, obligation, and the duty to contribute to the daily life of a community. Locals are geographically bound and they may bear the consequences of globalization. Bird and Stevens (2003) elaborate on the relationship between proximate locals and globals that may find it more difficult to work with each other because of issues of *trust*. This article attempts to enhance the understanding of locals and globals to include not only interests but also the context of the understanding of the forest ecosystem in order to make an ecosystem indicator which is ecologically founded and accepted (global perspective) and locally understood and equitable (local perspective).

Scientifically oriented assessments and validations as well as normatively oriented assessments and validations are integrated with local understanding of the forest as a source of necessary ecological goods and services to the local community. To increase the momentum of an indicator system it may be designed as a *proximity-to-target* performance indicator. The process of deciding the targets provides an opportunity for locals and globals to make reflections concerning targets, i.e. the ecological quality of the forest.
