**1. Introduction**

Communication of ecological and environmental knowledge, values and concerns by means of indicators is widely accepted and adopted as a part of environmental management systems, results-oriented politics and international reporting, and benchmarking initiatives.

Application of an indicator system is a normative course of action supported by different professional perspectives and parochial interests, struggling for resource control and ownership, investigation of business opportunities, and political interests. Development and selection of indicator systems is a natural extension of questions of justice and equity regarding resources, and should accordingly be conducted in an open, transparent and consensus-based process in spirit of enlightenment and democratic traditions.

The purpose of this work is to elaborate on the asymmetrical relationship between local and indigenous people dependent on their traditional rights to tropical forest habitation and those global interests who would intervene in their traditional understanding and use of the forest resources. Forest dwellers and native forest service users in developing countries may expect a large gap between their life world and the global actors. A methodology for devising a forest ecosystem indicator system intended to balance the asymmetry and re-allocate some of the knowledge power about the forest resources back to the local community, is suggested.

A framework for mediating ecological indicators is evolved in order to keep elements of global versus local interests, nature versus society and epistemology versus ontology together in one system. This construct is referred to as the *Balanced Ecosystem Mediation Framework* (BEM-framework) (Hermansen, 2008, 2010).

The framework emerged during a case study of the catchment forest reserve at the southern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro. By using data from a plant ecological investigation of the forest (Hermansen et al., 2008b) an ideal typological indicator was developed to be used in the BEM-framework. The proposed indicator is generally referred to as the *Ecosystem Mediating Indicator (EMI)* and the *Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator (FEMI)* when applied on forest ecosystem services. Further, as an illustration of its application to the catchment forest reserve at Mt. Kilimanjaro, a special case is suggested called the *Catchment Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator (CFEMI)*.

CFEMI is meant to be an equitable, and ecologically acceptable, instrument for building up a reservoir of transferable knowledge. CFEMI is designed for communication and management

Methodology for Forest Ecosystem Mediating Indicator – Case Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 5

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

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)).

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)

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

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

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).

dependent on forest resources is an example of such a case.

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

and the output (performance and results).

and local interests.

people.

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

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 framework is then described and discussed.
