Social-ecological Functions and Vulnerability Framework to Analyze Forest Policy Reforms

Abstract

ABSTRACT. We explore the impact of forest policy reforms implemented in the early 1990s in Niger in the wake of the severe droughts that affected the Sahel in the 1970s and 1980s. We focus on Sahelian multiple-use forest ecosystems and set out to analyze policy-induced changes in the patterns of interactions between various uses, users, and dry-forest ecosystems, interactions that influence the effective management of rural forests. We put forward the hypothesis that the new forest policy reforms were designed according to a vulnerability diagnosis, highlighting two stressors: droughts and increased demand for firewood. This led to a single-issue policy focused on firewood provision and was implemented through the Household Energy Strategy (HES). The HES established new local management schemes for "rural forests" through "rural firewood markets" (RMs) to regulate firewood harvesting and trade. We studied one of the first rural forests to become an RM in Niger in 1993. We used the concept of social-ecological functions as processes emerging from the interactions between social and ecological systems (SES). We identified sixteen SES functions and specifically analyzed the changes in three of them, whether they were targeted by the policy reform (firewood provision) or not (gum provision and livestock production). The changes generated by the creation of the RM have had different impacts on SES functions, as well as on the social and ecological components that contribute to these functions, because of their interaction with firewood provision. Mutual benefits and competitions between SES functions have been identified. The analysis of mutual benefits and competitions reflects the ambiguous role of the policy reform on rural forest ecosystems in Niger. Our results show that the patterns of interactions between key SES functions have played a more important role in the SES trajectory than any single resource such as timber or firewood. This provides insight into strengthening potential feedback between rural forest functions for improved resilience and livelihoods.

Public Policies and Management of Rural Forests: Lasting Alliance or Fool's Dialogue?

“…These diverging views on forests, and the policies they inspired, fuelled centuries of conflicts between farmers and forest managers and inspired the definition and enforcement of strict normative and prescriptive frameworks incorporating high levels of state intervention, legitimized by environmental and production interests. The consequences of these linger even now, as reported in several papers in a special issue: for India (Macura et al 2011), Morocco (Auclair et al 2011), and Niger (Rives et al 2012).…”

“…The development of scientific forestry established professional foresters as the only knowledgeable and legitimate forest managers, thus discarding farmers and local people. This has entailed important biases for rural forests management, as noted in the papers by Lescuyer et al (2012) in Cameroon, and Rives et al (2012) in Niger.…”

“…Although efforts are made by forest services and governments to incorporate a new vision of rural forest communities and forestry, they fail in fully translating this new vision into action. As revealed by Rives et al (2012) in Niger, decentralization released the state's monopoly over forest management and gave rights back to communities. However, sustainable forest management projects failed in questioning the representation of wood as the only function of local forests, as well as the only forest livelihood support.…”

“…This gap comes from a global misunderstanding: developers (who are often trained in forestry or agriculture) fail to understand the complexity of local social-ecological functions linked to rural forests (Rives et al 2012), whereas communities are reluctant to endorse the rationale and objectives of sustainable development as it is offered to them (Macura et al 2012). …”

Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps

“…This framework described six configurations resulting from combinations of the strength of ES interactions (weak, medium, strong) and the impact of a driver on pairs of ES (independent or shared). Rives et al (2012) further adapted this framework to characterize the influence relationships between ES by specifying the nature of interactions (competition or mutual benefit) and their origin (social system or ecological system). To advance from this original framework, we assumed that a more comprehensive understanding of the socialecological system would be gained by formally describing synergies and trade-offs between: (1) ES considering their different facets, (2) biodiversity, and (3) external ecological or social variables (Fig.…”