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

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, 1999; TEEB, 2010).

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 distribution and social interaction processes (CBD, 2006).

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 environmentalism and eco-imperialism.

Vermeulen and Koziell (2002) give a review of biodiversity assessment and integration of global and local values including elaborating on the contrast

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

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

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

Especially in cases where many stakeholders and their interests pose a complex cultural and social relationship to the resources, the process to define targets for environmental improvement and performance can be difficult. The process involves negotiation and mediation between those involved. A tropical forest land where local people are directly dependent on forest resources is an example of such a case.

In order to increase the efficiency of environmental policy and management strong focus on performance is necessary and therein formulation of performance indicators. The purpose of this study is to present a deliberate and communication oriented multi-purpose forest resource indicator which may be equitable and understandable across cultural and societal borders, and also meet the requirements for *proximity- to-target* approach (Esty et al., 2006)).
