Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services pp 207–233Cite as

Institutional and Historical Analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Madagascar

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Ecological Economics ((SEEC,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter aims to analyse the emergence of PES in Madagascar, a country recognised as a biodiversity hotspot where conservation policies have occupied a central place for over 25 years. Due to the relevance of institutional analysis in the international literature, this chapter illustrates the analytical method of an institutional path dependency approach taking Madagascar as an example. We begin with the history of environmental policy in Madagascar, highlighting the influence of international donors and resulting international standards and norms applied to a multitude of recent PES schemes. We then examine four water-related PES schemes and show how a historical analysis can provide relevant inputs for a PES analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pagos por servicios ambientales (PSA) – payment for ecosystem services (PES).

  2. 2.

    “The complexity of path generation increases considerably when we move our focus from technology and organisational fields to national institutional systems. It increases even further if we treat national institutional systems as potentially open systems in the double sense that they interact with each other while being embedded or nested within transnational institutional structures” (Djelic and Quack 2007, p. 167).

  3. 3.

    PES here is defined through Wunder’s definition (2005) but differs in two aspects: the presence of intermediaries between providers and beneficiaries for the furniture of the ecosystem service and the fact that the water PES studied here within are not yet contracted. The PES definition here is therefore used in a broader sense.

  4. 4.

    This chapter draws on a number of ongoing studies conducted by the Serena programme, which receives funding from the Agence nationale de la recherche under the SYSTERRA programme (ANR-08-STRA-13) http://www.serena-anr.org/

  5. 5.

    There is also the purely political dimension. Madagascar has suffered serious political instability since the early 1990s with a succession of four presidents between 1993 and 2009, each succession accompanied by serious social unrest, some governments being overthrown and one president impeached.

  6. 6.

    The three phases are referred to as Programme Environnemental 1, 2, 3 or PE1, PE2, PE3.

  7. 7.

    Andriamahefazafy and Méral (2004) have shown that the Madagascan government was able to provide only 2% of the total funding to set up and manage the network of protected areas for PE1 and 15–20% during PE2, donors providing the rest.

  8. 8.

    Speech by the President of the Republic of Madagascar at the Durban congress, interpreted by the IUCN as equivalent to the standard of 10% of each country’s land area under protection, which for Madagascar meant an increase from 1.7 to 6 million hectares (Borrini-Feyerabend and Nigel 2005).

  9. 9.

    Association Nationale de Gestion des Aires Protégées (national protected areas management association).

  10. 10.

    PE3 should have ended by 2009 but due to the political crisis has been more or less suspended. World Bank and GEF just lend US$50 million to strengthen the protected area system.

  11. 11.

    The Katoomba Group is an international network of actors working to promote and improve PES schemes. Madagascar joined the Katoomba Group in 2008 at the instigation of WWF, WCS, IC and USAID, among others.

  12. 12.

    Examples are the sales on the open market of carbon from the Markira protected area with IC and then with WCS; the funding application submitted to the World Bank BioCarbon Fund (BioCF) to buy emission reductions with the project to restore and conserve the Maromiza-Mantadia-Zahamena corridor; various REDD pilot projects (e.g. FORECA by GTZ and Intercoopération Suisse, PHCF by GoodPlanet/ActionCarbon and WWF).

  13. 13.

    In May 2001 ANGAP, IUCN and WWF organised an international symposium on sustainable funding for protected areas and other environmental programmes.

  14. 14.

    In early 2001 the environment ministry set up a committee to create a fiduciary fund. The preparatory work for the fund was supported by the World Bank, CI, KfW, USAID and WWF. The commission opted to create a foundation, FAPBM. In late 2004, FAPBM allocated an initial capital of US$5 million from the Madagascan government (debt-for-nature swap with Germany), USAID, CI and WWF. Other donors contributed later, including the World Bank, AFD/FFEM, KfW and GEF/UNDP. US$35 million was collected between 2004 and 2008. The aim was to reach a capital of US$50 million by 2012.

  15. 15.

    Unlike the previous project (integrated water resource management) which concerned only the actors upstream to the watershed, this PES project involves new actors being located downstream to the watershed, that is, in 25 km. This situation increases the coordination costs between all these actors.

  16. 16.

    Several GELOSE contracts (or “GELOSE marine” contracts) were launched in this period. Mangrove protection was a core issue for several of these contracts in coastal villages like Manombo (Fitsitiky), Ankilibe, Mangily and Belalanda.

Abbreviations

AGIRE:

Amélioration de la gestion intégrée des ressources en eau dans la Haute-Matriatra

ANGAP:

Association Nationale de Gestion des Aires Protégées (national protected areas management association)

APMM:

Association pour la Protection des Montagnes de Madagascar (association for the protection of Madagascar’s mountains)

CBNRM:

Community-based natural resource management

CI:

Conservation International

COFAV:

Fandriana-Vondrozo Forest Corridor

CSPF:

Commission Spéciale sur la Pérennisation Financière (special committee for sustainable funding)

ERI:

EcoRegional Initiatives

FAPBM:

Fondation pour les Aires Protégées et la Biodiversité de Madagascar (Madagascar foundation for protected areas and biodiversity)

GELOSE:

Gestion Locale Sécurisée (secure local management)

GRET:

Groupe de Recherche pour les Echanges Technologiques (research group for technology exchange) (professionals for a fair development)

HIPC:

Heavily indebted poor country

ICDP:

Integrated conservation and development programme

IRD:

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (institute for research for development)

IUCN:

International Union for Conservation of Nature

IWRM:

Integrated water resource management

JIRAMA:

JIro sy RAno MAlagasy (Madagascan public water and electricity company)

LDI:

Landscape Development Initiatives

NEAP:

National environmental action plan

NGO:

Non-governmental organisation

ONE:

Office National de l’Environnement (national environment board)

OPCI:

Organisme Public de Coopération Intercommunale (public body for inter-commune cooperation)

PES:

Payment for environmental services

REDD:

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

SNAP:

Système National d’Aires Protégées (national protected areas system)

UNDP:

United Nations Development Programme

USAID:

United States Agency for International Development

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

VOI:

Vondron’Olona Ifotony (grassroots community)

WCS:

Wildlife Conservation Society

WWF:

World Wide Fund for Nature

References

  • Andriamahefazafy, F., & Méral, P. (2004). La mise en œuvre des plans nationaux d’action environnementale: un renouveau des pratiques des bailleurs de fonds ? Mondes en développement, 32(127), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriamahefazafy, F., Méral, P., & Rakotoarijaona, J.-R. (2007). La planification environnementale: un outil pour le développement durable ? In C. Chaboud, G. Froger, & P. Méral (Eds.), Madagascar face aux enjeux du développement durable. Des politiques environnementales à l’action collective locale (pp. 23–49). Paris: Karthala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriamahefazafy F., Bidaud C., Monnery J., Serpantié G., & Toillier A. (2010). Genèse, contexte et adoption du concept de Service environnemental dans les politiques environnementales à Madagascar. Programme SERENA, Document de travail n°2010–04, 20 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, A., Montagne, P., & Karsenty, A. (Eds.). (2006). L’État et la gestion locale durable des forêts en Afrique francophone et à Madagascar. Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., & Nigel, D. (2005). Elan Durban … Nouvelles perspectives pour les Aires Protégées à Madagascar. Gland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahen-Fourot, L., &. Méral, P. (2011). Gouvernance des Paiements pour services environnementaux (PSE) à Madagascar: une analyse en termes de coûts de transaction. Programme Serena, Document de travail n°2011-06, 38 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carret, J-C., & Loyer, D. (2003). Comment financer le réseau d’aires protégées terrestres à Madagascar? Paper presented at the IUCN World Congress in Durban. World Bank, Agence française pour le développement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrière, S., Hervé, D., Andriamahefazafy, F., & Méral, P. (2011). Corridors: Compulsory passages ? The Malagasy example. In C. Aubertin & E. Rodary (Eds.), Protected areas, sustainable land? (pp. 53–69). Farnham: Ashgate/IRD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaboud, C., Froger, G., & Méral, P. (Eds.). (2007). Madagascar face aux enjeux du développement durable. Des politiques environnementales à l’action collective locale. Paris: Karthala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cspf (Commission spéciale sur la pérennisation financière). (2001). Stratégie de pérennisation financière pour l’environnement. Document établi dans le cadre du PE3, Antananarivo: Miméo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corson, C. (2012). From rhetoric to practice: How high-profile politics impeded community consultation in Madagascar’s new protected areas. Society & Natural Resources, 25(4), 336–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, A. E., Bagstad, K., Esposito, V., Moulaert, A., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica’s PES: Are we asking the right questions? Ecological Economics, 69, 2116–2126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M. L., & Quack, S. (2007). Overcoming path dependency: Path generation in open systems. Theory and Society, 36(2), 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, R. (2006). Non-governmental organisations and governance states: The impact of transnational environmental management networks in Madagascar. Environmental Politics, 15(5), 731–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durbin J., Andrianarimisa, A., & DeCosse, P. J. (2001). Le potentiel des contrats de conservation pour contribuer à la conservation de la biodiversité à Madagascar, mimeo, Madagascar. http://www.madadoc.mg/v02695_JOA.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2012.

  • Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65, 663–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics, 69, 2060–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P. J., & Kiss, A. (2002). ECOLOGY: Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718–1719.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Froger, G., & Méral, P. (2009). Les temps de la politique environnementale à Madagascar: entre continuité et bifurcation. In G. Froger, V. Géronimi, P. Méral, & P. Schembri (Eds.), Diversité des politiques de développement durable: temporalités et durabilités en conflit à Madagascar, au Mali et au Mexique (pp. 45–68). Paris: Karthala and Gemdev.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gezon, L. (2000). The changing face of NGOs: Structure and communitas in conservation and development in Madagascar. Urban Anthropology, 29(2), 181–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horning, N. R. (2008). Strong support for weak performance: Donor competition in Madagascar. African Affairs, 107(428), 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, C. (1996). The evolution of conservation efforts in Madagascar. International Environmental Affairs, 8(1), 50–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., & Muradian, R. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services. New Delhi/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand, T., Froger, G., & Le Coq, J. F. (2011). The efficiency of the Costa Rican payment for environmental services program under discussion. Programme SERENA. Document de travail n°2011-09, http://www.serena-anr.org/spip.php?article290. Accessed 29 Aug 2012.

  • Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méral, P., Froger, G., Andriamahefazafy, F., & Rabearisoa, A. (2011). Financing protected areas in Madagascar: New methods. In C. Aubertin & E. Rodary (Eds.), Protected areas, sustainable lands? (pp. 87–101). Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministère de l’Environnement. (2002). Document stratégique du PEIII. Madagascar: Antananarivo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1202–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N., Mittermeier, R., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853–858.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Office national de l’environnement (ONE). (2002). Bilan des réalisations PE1 et PE2. Antananarivo

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 712–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4, 254–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesche, D., Méral, P., Hrabanski, M., & Bonnin, M. (2012). Ecosystem services and payments for environmental services; two sides of the same coin? In R. Muradian & L. Rival (Eds.), Governing the provision of environmental services. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, R. D., & Sedjo, R. A. (1996). Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: A comparison of direct and indirect approaches. Environment and Development Economics, 1(02), 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB. (2010). Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. E. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toillier, A., Lardon, S., & Hervé, H. (2008). An environmental governance support tool: Community-based forest management contracts (Madagascar). International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(2/3/4), 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toillier, A. (2009). Etudes des possibilités de mise en œuvre d’un PSE pour la protection du bassin versant de la microcentrale hydroélectrique de Tolongoina, (Madagascar). Antananarivo: GRET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsley, J., Gaulke, P., & Ingram, D. (2001). USDA forest service mission, Fianarantsoa, Madagascar. In Support of the landscape development interventions project. Final Report Section 1: An outline and process for management of the pine plantations of the Haute Matsiatra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1245–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Jakarta: CIFOR.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We are especially grateful to Levi Everlove Johnson for his contribution and feedbacks. We also thank the reviewers and the editors of the book for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unité Mixte de Recherche GRED (IRD-Univ. Montpellier 3), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, 64501, 34394, Montpellier Cedex 5, France

    Cécile Bidaud, Philippe Méral, Georges Serpantié, Louison Cahen-Fourot & Aurélie Toillier

  2. Centre d’Economie et d’Ethique pour l’Environnement et le Développement à Madagascar, Faculté DEGS – Université d’Antananarivo, 905, Antananarivo, Madagascar

    Fano Andriamahefazafy

Authors
  1. Cécile Bidaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Méral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fano Andriamahefazafy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georges Serpantié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Louison Cahen-Fourot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aurélie Toillier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cécile Bidaud .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Cultural Anthropology and Development St, Radboud University Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 4, Nijmegen, 6525 GD, Netherlands

    Roldan Muradian

  2. , Institute of Social and Cultural Anthrop, University of Oxford, Banbury Road 51/53, Oxford, 0X2 6PE, United Kingdom

    Laura Rival

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bidaud, C., Méral, P., Andriamahefazafy, F., Serpantié, G., Cahen-Fourot, L., Toillier, A. (2013). Institutional and Historical Analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Madagascar. In: Muradian, R., Rival, L. (eds) Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation