**2.6 Results**

The proximity-to-target score in percentage for the sites along the three altitudinal transects from lower to upper forest borders at the southern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro of Mweka, Kilema and Marangu, is shown in Fig. 2. Table 5 shows average values for the sites along each transect grouped into three zones: HMFS, central part and the upper part of the forest reserve.

The HMFS shows, as expected, much lower values (average score: 60) compared with average score 99 for the central part and 92 for the upper part. Average scores for the complete transects are quite similar for Mweka (91) and Marangu (93) and lower for Kilema (80). It is the low values from HMFS (50) along the Kilema transect which draws that average down. In the Kilema transect about double as many sites were measured in the HMFS part of the transect as in the two other transects. Sites on low altitudes are overexploited and well developed sites are situated on higher altitudes (Fig. 2).

1 Represent important forest physiognomy and biodiversity if trees on a plant are

2 Directly associated to ecosystem services (Supporting, provisioning, regulating

3 Easy or intuitively understandably by local people as a relevant description of

5 Supporting learning processes and local participation in selection of indicators,

among the analyzed 54 sites there are 18 sites which are too affected by human impacts and encroachment that the sites cannot be regarded as be representative for closed forest or they contain mainly dense stands of *Erica* trees*.* These stands are omitted from the calculation of total average value and determination of targets, but these sites are of course included in the presentation of the CFEMI score for all sites (Table 5 and Fig. 2). Hermansen et al (2008)

Some variables are measured by using numerical data (number of tree species and stems, basal area, tree height, crown width, crown width sum and crown depth), and average value is calculated. Cover of epiphytes is variables estimated by using ordinal (categorical) data (covering of climbers and covering of vascular, lichens and bryophytes), and the

The score for each site is calculated as the percentage of the average value for all the nine variables for a certain site compared with the target. Hermansen (2008) contains a complete

The proximity-to-target score in percentage for the sites along the three altitudinal transects from lower to upper forest borders at the southern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro of Mweka, Kilema and Marangu, is shown in Fig. 2. Table 5 shows average values for the sites along each transect grouped into three zones: HMFS, central part and the upper part of the forest

The HMFS shows, as expected, much lower values (average score: 60) compared with average score 99 for the central part and 92 for the upper part. Average scores for the complete transects are quite similar for Mweka (91) and Marangu (93) and lower for Kilema (80). It is the low values from HMFS (50) along the Kilema transect which draws that average down. In the Kilema transect about double as many sites were measured in the HMFS part of the transect as in the two other transects. Sites on low altitudes are over-

exploited and well developed sites are situated on higher altitudes (Fig. 2).

**ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS** 

and cultural services)

forest services and goods

**TECHNICAL ASPECTS** 

measurement and calculation

4 Support learning processes

6 Support management efforts

7 Easy to measure and calculate 8 Does not hurt the ecosystem Table 2. Criteria for the selection of variables

gives a detailed description of field work and results.

average value is calculated from the ordinal values.

**2.6 Results** 

reserve.

list of calculated values of variables and score for all sites.

at an ecologically acceptable level

**MEDIATION AND LEARNING ASPECTS** 

**Criterion Description** 


Table 3. Measured and analyzed variables

Methodology for Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator – Case Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 15

Fig. 2. CFEMI score in percentage for the sites along the altitudinal transect Mweka, Kilema and Marangu, Mt Kilimanjaro. The Half Mile Forestry Strip (HMFS) is between 1590 m asl

and 1749 for Mweka, 1780 and 1880 for Kilema and 1820 and 2000 for Marunga.


Data are based on the measurement and estimation of 1502 trees within 36 sites (plots) of 1000 m2. The different targets are set close to the values for which are considered to be well developed stands (approximately 25 percentage above average values). All sites are within the forest reserve. Sites mainly containing more than 50 *Erica excelsa* trees and sites from Half Mile Forestry Strip are not included in calculation of average values and target values. Notes:


Table 4. CFEMI variables, total average values and target values.

The most significant observation is the large range of score on the Kilema track from the lowest (30 percentage point) to the highest score (134 percentage point). Especially the sites in the HMFS are far from the target for an ideal forest composition and structure. However, this was expected and obvious from simple visual inspection of the area. The HMFS is allocated to a buffer zone. People in the adjacent home garden farm land can collect fuel wood and other goods in strip under certain rules. But for all transects, the cutting of trees degrades the forest considerably. Some sites would not be categorized as forest according to standard definition. The total area of HMFS is 8769 ha where about half of this land can be afforested (Kivumbi & Newmark, 1991) and where there is considerable potential for increasing the forest quality and hence the value of forest ecosystem services to the local people by better management. For all transects, the most well-developed and maintained sites are between 2000 to 2500 m asl as noted by the fact that many of these sites scored above 100. Based on these data, it is reasonable to conclude that the CFEMI demonstrates and represents the ecological quality of the different forest sites.

**Ecological aspects Category Indicators / variables Units Notes Average Target** 

Covering of vascular,

Data are based on the measurement and estimation of 1502 trees within 36 sites (plots) of 1000 m2. The different targets are set close to the values for which are considered to be well developed stands (approximately 25 percentage above average values). All sites are within the forest reserve. Sites mainly containing more than 50 *Erica excelsa* trees and sites from Half Mile Forestry Strip are not included in

lichens and bryophytes

Number of tree species

1. The number of trees per site varies between 2 and 89. Overall average number of stems is 41. 2. The sum of basal area per site varies between 0.1 and 13.2. The overall average is 6.0.

4. The average crown width per site (the horizontal project of the crown for each tree) varies between

5. The sum of crown width for all the trees within a site. The crowns are merged into each other and will therefore exceed 1000 m2. The sum varies between 70 and 5450 m2. The overall average is

6. The crown depth is the height between lowest living branch and top the tree and varies between 7.2 and 16.2 m as average for the different sites. The overall average is 11.8 m. The highest tree

7. Epiphyte cover is estimated by a non-linear classification and the calculated average is the average class for the tree within the plot. Target is set to 25 % above average. Average above 3.0 implies that the average tree has a substantial cover of epiphytes and climbers, which may play an

The most significant observation is the large range of score on the Kilema track from the lowest (30 percentage point) to the highest score (134 percentage point). Especially the sites in the HMFS are far from the target for an ideal forest composition and structure. However, this was expected and obvious from simple visual inspection of the area. The HMFS is allocated to a buffer zone. People in the adjacent home garden farm land can collect fuel wood and other goods in strip under certain rules. But for all transects, the cutting of trees degrades the forest considerably. Some sites would not be categorized as forest according to standard definition. The total area of HMFS is 8769 ha where about half of this land can be afforested (Kivumbi & Newmark, 1991) and where there is considerable potential for increasing the forest quality and hence the value of forest ecosystem services to the local people by better management. For all transects, the most well-developed and maintained sites are between 2000 to 2500 m asl as noted by the fact that many of these sites scored above 100. Based on these data, it is reasonable to conclude that the CFEMI demonstrates

3. The tree height varies between 6 and 40 m. The overall average is 19.2 m.

from 10 to 170 m2. The overall average is 67 m2. The largest crown is 961 m2.

8. The number of species within the sites varies between 2 and 13. The average is 6.7.

Number of stems no 1 40.6 50 Basal area m2 2 6.0 7.5 Tree height m 3 19.2 24

Crown width sum m2 5 2416 3020 Crown depth m 6 11.8 14.7

Covering of climbers class 7 1.5 1.9

class 7 2.3 2.9

no 8 6.7 8.4

**Leaf cover** Crown width m2 4 67.2 84

**Forest structure Tree** 

**Biodiversity Tree** 

**Biodiversity and water conservation** 

2416 m2

crown depth is 39 m

**structure** 

**Epiphyte cover** 

**species** 

calculation of average values and target values. Notes:

important role for water conservation and retention.

Table 4. CFEMI variables, total average values and target values.

and represents the ecological quality of the different forest sites.

Fig. 2. CFEMI score in percentage for the sites along the altitudinal transect Mweka, Kilema and Marangu, Mt Kilimanjaro. The Half Mile Forestry Strip (HMFS) is between 1590 m asl and 1749 for Mweka, 1780 and 1880 for Kilema and 1820 and 2000 for Marunga.

Methodology for Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator – Case Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 17

proposed structure allocates the indicator system a more interactive role, and enlarges the system to a construct that shows an ideal typological symmetric mediation between the locals versus globals, ecology versus nature (resources or ecosystem services), and society versus culture (Hermansen, 2008). The framework is called the *Balanced Ecosystems Mediation* 

The transecting lines S and V in Figure 6 represent the ideal symmetric or balanced case based on scientific and normative criteria and arguments. The vertical lines a, b, and c illustrate different constellations where the position, influence and control by the locals is more or less reduced or lost to the globals. The line **a** shows the situation where the locals are incapacitated and have lost most control over their ecosystem resources; line **b**  represents the situation where the locals have managed to participate in forest management; and line **c**, the situation where the locals have substantial influence and

If *V* is moving upwards the ecological interests and concerns increase with stronger emphasis on protection and conservation, and if *V* is moving downwards, society utilize more of the ecosystem services with an increased ecological unsustainability impact and

The BEM framework should be regarded as an open system where the borders between the elements and subsystem are interfaces where mediation and negotiation can occur between the stakeholders involved. Both mediation and negotiation can take many forms depending on the question discussed or stakeholders (and subgroup of stakeholders) participating in

s

Fig. 3. The construct of the Balanced Ecosystem Mediation (BEM) Framework with the two knowledge regimes ontological and epistemological. S and V are representing the ideal typological symmetry (or balance) regarding mediation and negotiation for globals versus locals stakeholders and society versus nature (as stakeholders) respectively

Goal Principles Criterion Indicator Norm

Globals Locals

S c b a

**O n t o l o g y**

Nature Ecosystem services

possibly a strong attenuation of the ecological resilience capacity.

**E p i s t e m o l o g y**

V

Ecology

*(BEM)* Framework (Fig. 3).

the discourse.

(Hermansen, 2010.

control over local ecosystem services.


Table 5. Average CFEMI score group for the three distinct altitudinal zones of the forest along the three transects Mweka, Kilema and Marangu at the southern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Number of sites is shown within parenthesis.
