per annum in 1962 -94 to 0.93 per cent per annum over Abstract The dry forests constitute one of the most distinct, yet least protected, ecosystems in Madagascar, the past 5 years. The most important factors underlying this process are slash-and-burn maize cultivation in the an island renowned for high levels of endemism. They have generally been considered one of the most intact of northern Mikea Forest and charcoal production at its southern fringe. Given these alarming circumstances, Madagascar's climax vegetation types and accordingly have received little conservation effort. In particular, the we suggest that combinations of conservation measures are required to safeguard the biological diversity of the Mikea Forest, a unique area between the Mangoky and Fiherenana rivers, currently receives negligible formal area. Specifically, we recommend the establishment of a large protected area to the north of Manombo, a co-protection. It contains remarkably diverse plant and reptile assemblages, including several taxa that are found ordinated network of community-based conservation areas throughout the Mikea Forest, development nowhere else, plus the only populations of two threatprojects to improve agriculture, and a regional research ened bird species: the subdesert mesite Monias benschi and education centre. and long-tailed ground-roller Uratelornis chimaera. From satellite imagery we estimate that primary forest cover declined by 15.6 per cent from 1962 to 1999, and that the Keywords Biodiversity, dry forest, Madagascar, Mikea rate of deforestation has increased from 0.35 per cent Forest, threats.Plate 2 Characteristic dry forest tree flora: Didierea madagascariensis (back right) and Adansonia fony (left) (Stuart Butchart).

Cultural identity is flexible, rich, and often debated, shaped by local and larger contexts. In this article we explore some of the complexity and diversity of how Mikea identity is constructed, particularly by those who identify themselves as such. The Mikea of southwestern Madagascar are associated with the forest and foraging and contrasted with Vezo fishers and Masikoro agropastoralists, yet these groups and their economic strategies both intermingle. Mystique, pride, stigma, and resource claims together provide diverse, often conflicting motivations in the use and manipulation of Mikea identity. Those who claim the label for themselves generally construct a relationship with the forest, either through present behavior and context or through oral histories linking the living with the ancestors. Nevertheless,behavior and descent may be diversely interpreted in identity claims and neither is sufficient alone to explain self-assertions of Mikea identity in every case. As with any identity, that of the Mikea is continuously recreated and transformed.

No abstract