Social–ecological systems in transition: Lessons from a Symposium on Society, Natural Resources and Development in Madagascar held at the University of East Anglia in March 2007

People are part and not apart from ecosystems. Although this statement may seem trivial, its implication for research and management has been too frequently overlooked. The capacity of a landscape to sustain ecosystems services is a function of the social, ecological and cultural fabric of that landscape. Acknowledging that people are an integral part of landscapes, i.e. social–ecological systems (SES, see Figure 1) has led to the recognition that conservation values are in fact a product of a long history of conflicts and trade-offs over access to resources that are reflected in access regimes, local institutions and legal systems. This in turns leads to the need to recognize the value of local people's contribution to knowledge systems and research. This was a theme of a symposium held at the University of East Anglia in March 2007 with participants from many parts of the world sharing an interest in issues of development and natural resources in Madagascar. In this issue, four articles give highlights of the vibrant and interesting perspectives on human–landscape interactions presented at the symposium.

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for analysing social–ecological systems SES adapted from Berkes etal. (2003). Management practices are viewed as an interaction between social and ecological system, developed in response to ecosystem feedback.

In rural areas of Madagascar, people are directly dependent on local ecosystems for the generation of food, fuel, construction wood, medicines and for securing livelihoods during periods of crisis such as temporary drought.

Local ecosystems also have important cultural values. Generation of these ecosystem goods is dependent on underlying ecosystem processes such as water purification, flood control, local climate regulation, soil formation, nutrient assimilation, pollination and seed dispersal. Recent findings point out that biological diversity plays an important role in sustaining desirable ecosystem states in the face of change. This role is related to the diversity of functional groups and diversity of species and populations in contributing to maintain ecosystem services of value for human well-being and these insights provide the vital link between biodiversity and societal development.

However, strengthening ecosystems' capacity to provide ecosystem services requires at least three levels of analysis and understanding: One concerns the ecosystem itself; its dynamics, including diversity and processes and links to other ecosystems that can contribute to resilience.1 Another level relates to the management of the ecosystem, learning and generation of ecological knowledge, and how it is applied in management practices, including monitoring and responses to ecosystem dynamics. A third level focuses on the institutional dynamics, the governance system, that underlies management strategies, and that can allow for adequate responses to uncertainty and change.

Madagascar is a global biodiversity hotspot and has recently made significant advances in terms of strengthening protection of the nation's biodiversity that may be seen as a window of opportunity for new improved governance of the island's forests that are under pressure. Deforestation of Madagascar has previously been estimated to be very high, where a growing population practising slash-and-burn agriculture and pasture burning has been seen as the main driver of land use change. Recent studies, however, paint a more nuanced view on the deforestation rates and reveal a more complex set of drivers of land use change.

Understanding the drivers of deforestation is essential and the article by Moser suggests, using a nation-wide data set of commune-level variables, that higher population and fertility rates were associated with higher deforestation in the moist forest region in the 1990s. However, deforestation was lower in vanilla producing areas and higher in coffee producing areas, which runs counter to the theory that higher prices for crops drives deforestation since prices for vanilla growers in Madagascar were more favourable than for coffee growers. Provincial road access also led to more forest loss, but other road and market access variables were insignificant. In their article focusing on the littoral forest in southern Madagascar, Dawson and Ingram demonstrate that environmental change is highly variable in space and time, and that it is to some degree possible to uncouple and identify the causes of this variability using the SES framework as a basis for analysis.

Two recent policies are part of Madagascar's strategy to counteract the degenerative processes of forest loss. The first, announced at the World Park Congress in Durban, South Africa, in November 2003, prescribes an extension of the country's protected area from 1.7 million ha to 6 million ha by 2008. The second approach is a decentralisation of forest management, in line with an international focus on the role of local communities in conservation and natural resource management. In Madagascar, all non-private forest land is state property. However, the traditional land claims inherited from the ancestors (tanin-drazana) related to clans and lineages are still effective in many parts of Madagascar representing a common property regime with collective owners who organise to exclude or regulate non-owners and their use of resources. A legal framework for decentralizing forest management, the Gestion Locale Securisé(GELOSE) and Gestion Contractualisée des Forêts(GCF) has been introduced for land outside protected areas and a new institution, the SAPM (Système d'aires protégées Madagascar) are supervising the new protected areas and are responsible for developing contracts with local communities for co-management where applicable. One of the main arguments behind decentralisation of forest management is that effective rule enforcement is critical but costly for successful conservation of biodiversity in formally protected areas such as national parks, which is a particularly serious issue in resource-poor countries such as Madagascar. Sharing the tasks of monitoring and enforcement with local communities can significantly decrease such costs.

In this issue, Harding asks the question: Why is it difficult to achieve biodiversity conservation even if the financial and institutional means to do so are in place? She suggests that conservation can only happen under very limited and specific conditions relating to key actors' interests, the institutions that they negotiate and put in place to protect these interests, and resource users' reactions to these institutions.

The development and implementation of local management practices is framed by institutions, i.e. the formal and informal rules at different levels of organisation that guide human behaviour. This includes local customs, property rights regimes, social norms and conventions, national legislation and procedures for decision-making and conflict resolution. The institutional framework sets the conditions for human interaction with the ecosystem, including which management practices are permitted, and by whom. Local institutions for managing complex ecosystems are often overlooked, although they have the potential both to reveal important understanding of ecosystem-human interactions, and to improve the capacity to manage ecosystems for human wellbeing.

In this issue, Kaufman discusses management practices among cattle herding Mahafaly in southern Madagascar where the forest-pastures are resources linked to cattle. Pastures, grass, and trees all provide resources for livestock and cover in which to hide their cattle. He likens pastoralists drawing resources from the forest reserve to foreigners' withdrawing money from their bank accounts without withdrawing all of their savings. The economics of pastoralism in southern Madagascar is viewed as a strategy to manage risk. Contrary to what is often assumed, local management can and does add to the resilience of ecosystems to generate desired ecosystem services.

Expansion of the network of protected areas in Madagascar needs to address the key challenge of constructing reserves that do not challenge local livelihoods. Protected areas that are not anchored locally will remain vulnerable and costly to enforce. Failure to recognise social–ecological connections can lead to unintended consequences and demonstrates the need for the development of an interdisciplinary science that includes an expanded understanding of the coupled dynamics of social–ecological interactions. The articles in this issue provide many valuable insights into this complexity of humans and landscapes.

Notes

1. Resilience of social–ecological systems refers to the capacity to buffer change, to reorganise following disruption and for adaptation and learning.