**3.1 Construction of the BEM framework**

The construction of the indicator is built on a pre-understanding of communication as an instrument for mediation and negotiation of knowledge and interests, and that these processes are integrated and accepted as fundamental for further development of the context where FEMI will contribute.

Technically, most environmental indicator systems are designed within an open system concept which includes conceptual, normative and operational elements. The notion of a system often encompasses "*a combination of interacting elements organised to achieve one or more stated purposes"* (Haskins, 2006), and could be an assemblage of elements constituting a *natural system*, a *man-made system*, an *organizational system* or a *conceptual knowledge system*.

An ecological indicator system aiming to be a management tool can be defined within all these four classes of systems and merged into an overall communication system where the indicator and the different circumstances around the indicator become elements in the system. The challenge is to design and understand how the interaction across the boundary interfaces between the elements, the subsystem and eventually the environment outside the system boundary, influence and bring the system into being. Systems thinking is an underlying concept used to assist in combining the ecological and social elements in the development of FEMI such that the indicator moves closer to a management and stakeholder approach.

Van Bueren and Blom (1996) advanced the *"Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of Sustainable Forest Management Standards. Principles, Criteria, Indicators"* (PCI) on behalf of Tropenbos Foundation which challenges many of the aspects relevant for the FEMI indicator system. They suggest top-down oriented hierarchal framework for a forest management system with consistent standards based on the formulation of principles, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. In the context of development of FEMI, the PCI system appears to be an expert-oriented initiative that belongs to the sphere of influence and interests of the globals.

In order to create a structure involving the locals and strengthening their interests while supporting dialogue and continuous learning, the PCI framework has been modified. The

The methodology for development of EMI, FEMI and CFEMI is basically built on systems thinking and elements from systems engineering and used as tool for connecting different subsystems, such as stakeholder interests, forest ecology and management together into the larger system where the indicators are meant to work. An essential part of the methodology is the construction of the communication model Balanced Ecosystem Mediation (BEM)

The construction of the indicator is built on a pre-understanding of communication as an instrument for mediation and negotiation of knowledge and interests, and that these processes are integrated and accepted as fundamental for further development of the

Technically, most environmental indicator systems are designed within an open system concept which includes conceptual, normative and operational elements. The notion of a system often encompasses "*a combination of interacting elements organised to achieve one or more stated purposes"* (Haskins, 2006), and could be an assemblage of elements constituting a *natural system*, a *man-made system*, an *organizational system* or a *conceptual knowledge system*. An ecological indicator system aiming to be a management tool can be defined within all these four classes of systems and merged into an overall communication system where the indicator and the different circumstances around the indicator become elements in the system. The challenge is to design and understand how the interaction across the boundary interfaces between the elements, the subsystem and eventually the environment outside the system boundary, influence and bring the system into being. Systems thinking is an underlying concept used to assist in combining the ecological and social elements in the development of FEMI such that the indicator moves closer to a management and

Van Bueren and Blom (1996) advanced the *"Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of Sustainable Forest Management Standards. Principles, Criteria, Indicators"* (PCI) on behalf of Tropenbos Foundation which challenges many of the aspects relevant for the FEMI indicator system. They suggest top-down oriented hierarchal framework for a forest management system with consistent standards based on the formulation of principles, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. In the context of development of FEMI, the PCI system appears to be an expert-oriented initiative that belongs to the sphere of influence

In order to create a structure involving the locals and strengthening their interests while supporting dialogue and continuous learning, the PCI framework has been modified. The

 Mweka Kilema Marangu Average HMFS 68 (4) 50 (7) 72 (3) 60 (14) Central part 101 (8) 96 (11) 101 (9) 99 (28) Upper part 94 (6) 93 (2) 90 (4) 92 (12) Average 91 (18) 80 (20) 93 (16) 87 (54) 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.

**3.1 Construction of the BEM framework** 

context where FEMI will contribute.

stakeholder approach.

and interests of the globals.

framework.

**3. Framework for mediating balanced ecosystem indicators** 

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 (BEM)* Framework (Fig. 3).

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 control over local ecosystem services.

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 possibly a strong attenuation of the ecological resilience capacity.

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 the discourse.

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 (Hermansen, 2010.

Methodology for Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator – Case Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 19

here by local and global interests with accompanying impacts. Negotiated goals and aspects are the result of the process, integrating the consensuses of ecological content, definition of ecological service and values, and suggesting a political/management ecological regime that embraces the negotiated knowledge regime. Through genuine communicative mediation an

**Ecosystem knowledge** Mediation of scientific results Mediation of scientific methods

Mediation of local resources Mediation of scientific

**Global interests and** 

Identify scientific knowledge

Defining biodiversity and climate issues

**impact** 

support

concern

partnership

Move from global arrogance to universal

values/understanding

Identify global concerns Agree on concerns

Be accepted as partner Agree on working

**Negotiated goals or** 

Combining human

Defining a complete description of values and resilience capacity

management system

Common interests of using communication opportunities of FEMI

**aspects** 

resources


methods

Agree on

equitable and symmetric communication process may then emerge.

Table 7. Paramount goal and mediation of ecology

**impact** 

resources

Identify local concern and needs

Identify local human

ecological services:

**Part of management** Control Protect global ecological

Table 8. Typology of the different interests through the different mediation phases

MA (2005) is an initiative for handling the ecosystem resources under the vision of a globalized world and offers a framework both regarding ecosystem and geographic scaling. It further elaborates the relationship between the ecosystem and the human needs for ecosystem services that contribute to well-being and poverty reduction in the form of security, basic material for a good life and good social relations. This in turn necessitates requirements for freedom and choice of action. Status and quality of the forest on the global and regional scale will often be assessed in coarse categories such as area cover by forest, degree of deforestation, estimates of economic value of logs, stakeholder values etc. Application of the MA concept can easily result in a change of resource control and management away from already weak local participants to international bodies and business. FEMI is meant to adjust the management attitude in MA to facilitate a stronger

Assessments of the ecological status and trends require a set of indicator systems. *The Driving force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response* (DPSIR) framework (Smeets & Wetering, 1999)

**Pre-inventory** Practical training Communicating

Full access as respected partner

**3.4 Using FEMI to bring momentum to local management** 

deciding

**Mediation phases Local interests and** 

**Designing phases** Defining need of

**Part of inventory** Identifying and

**Ecosystem services and** 

**values** 

**Pre process understanding** 

**Interpretation of positions** 

**Part of continuously learning and negotiation process** 

local participation.

**Paramount objective Democratized Enlightened** 

The corresponding influence of how the understanding of ecology (scientific) and nature, and the epistemological and ontological approach, are also illustrated in Fig. 3, and derives from the case study work in which the *indicator* was designated to be the core element in the forest management system in order to strengthen the position of the locals. The BEM framework is built on a nature versus culture model presented by Hermansen (2006, 2010). FEMI is the general and theoretical model for the indicator, while CFEMI is intended to be a specific and practical indicator reflecting the complexity of the relationship between the

catchment forest ecosystem and local society.
