Madagascar Faa 118/119 Biodiveristy and Tropical Forestry Analysis

Home , Fiherenana River, Mahajanga, Menarandra River, Onilahy River

ANDREW WATSON - DAI

MADAGASCAR FAA 118/119 BIODIVERISTY AND TROPICAL FORESTRY ANALYSIS

May 2019 Acknowledgements

The 118/119 team would like to thank USAID/Madagascar staff for their support during the field assessments – especially Corinne Rafaell and Jean Patrice Randriamampionona who joined the team for field visits in the Boeny region and Baie de Baly National Park. USAID staff also provided valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this document as well as the presentation on the 118/119 analysis that was made at the start-up planning workshops for the new Mikajy and Hay Tao projects in early August 2018.

We would also like to thank the many people that generously shared their time and knowledge with the team during the field assessments. While most are listed in Annex 3 of this report, there are many other NGO staff and community members that collaborated with the team, notably in the villages of Mahaleotse and Mahaboboka (Atsimo Andrefana), Farafangana (Atsimo Atsinanana) and Baly de Baly National Park (Boeny).

We also thank Trevor Olexy (DAI) for the analyses of forest cover change that are summarized in Annex 9 of this report.

The image on the cover of this report is of one of the 150 or so Ploughshare Tortoises (Astrochelys yniphora or angonoka in Malagasy) that remain in the species’ native range in Baie de Baly National Park in northwest Madagascar. This iconic species – threatened by loss of habitat as well as poaching for the international pet trade – is one of the most endangered reptile species on earth. Its future in the wild is in the hands of a small group of dedicated conservationists and the local communities. Communities can benefit from conservation initiatives but only if these programs are thoroughly integrated with economic and social development programs that catalyze private sector investment and confound the efforts of profiteering local elites engaged in wildlife trafficking.

CONTRACT INFORMATION: This work is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development through the contract number AID-OAA-I-14-00014/AID-OAA-TO-15-00020 for the Biodiversity Results Integrated and Development Gains Enhanced (BRIDGE) project. BRIDGE is funded and managed by the USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment/Office of Forestry and Biodiversity.

DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

i Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 I. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Purpose ...... 3 1.2 Brief Description of the USAID Program ...... 3 1.3 Methodology ...... 4 II. Country Context ...... 6 2.1 Location and Country Context ...... 6 2.2 Biophysical Framework ...... 7 III. Status of the Country’s Biodiversity and Forests ...... 9 3.1 Major Ecosystem Types and Status ...... 9 3.2 Species Diversity and Status ...... 11 3.3 Genetic Diversity...... 13 3.4 Status and Management of Protected Areas and “Managed Forests” ...... 14 3.5 Status and Management of Key Natural Resources Outside Protected Areas ...... 18 IV. Value and Economic Potential ...... 20 4.1 Ecosystem Goods and Services ...... 20 4.2 Value of Biodiversity ...... 22 V. Legal Framework Affecting Conservation and Forest Management ...... 24 5.1 National Laws, Policies, and Strategies ...... 24 5.2 International Agreements ...... 26 5.3 Government Agencies ...... 27 5.4 Conservation Initiatives ...... 29 VI. Threats to Biodiversity and Forests ...... 31 6.1 Direct Threats to Biodiversity (Terrestrial, Aquatic, and Marine) and Forests ...... 31 6.2 Threat Factors (Drivers) ...... 35 VII. Actions Necessary to Conserve Biodiversity and Forests ...... 41 7.1 Integrated Programming – Avoiding the Risks Associated with Siloed Programming ...... 41 7.2 Opportunities to Link Sectors ...... 42 7.3 Emphasize Scalable Interventions ...... 45 7.4 Strengthen Environmental Governance ...... 46 7.5 Other Actions ...... 49 VIII. Extent to Which the Mission Meets the Identified Actions Needed ...... 51 IX. Recommendations ...... 53 9.1 Recommendations Based on Actions Necessary to Conserve Biodiversity and Forests ...... 53 9.2 Other Opportunities – Conservation Financing ...... 56 Annex 1: FAA 118/119 Analysis Team Members ...... 58 Annex 2: FAA 118/119 Scope of Work ...... 61

Annex 3: List of Meetings with Contact Details ...... 76 Annex 4: Biodiversity Data Tables ...... 84 Annex 5: Overview of Ecosystem Services ...... 86 Annex 6: Analysis of FAA 118/119 Questionnaire Data ...... 88 Annex 7: Bibliography ...... 121 Annex 8: Case Studies and Site Visit Notes ...... 134 1 – CSO Efforts to Combat Wildlife Trafficking ...... 134 2 – Civil Society Lobbying Activities ...... 136 3 – The Angonoka: A Symbol of Madagascar’s Unique Fauna Under Threat of Extinction in the Wild 138 4 – Diversifying Livelihoods Opportunities in Fishing Communities of Southwest Madagascar ...... 141 5 – Multiple Use Sanitation Facility and Ecosystem Services: The Pride of Ambinaninony ...... 144 Annex 9: Analysis of Global Forest Watch Data for Madagascar ...... 145 Annex 10: Climate Change Projections ...... 149 Annex 11: Donor and NGO-Funded Projects in Madagascar that Support Conservation of Forests and Biodiversity ...... 151 Annex 12: Map Showing Madagascar’s Protected Area System ...... 159

iii

Acronyms

ABS Access and Benefit-Sharing ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency ALARM Application of the Law against Abuse on Natural Resources of Madagascar ANAE Association Nationale d’Actions Environnementales ANGAP Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées AQUALMA Aquaculture de la Mahajamba ATLAS Climate Changle Adaptation, Thought Leadership, and Assessments AVG Alliance Voahary Gasy BCM Biodiversity Conservation Madagascar BRIDGE Biodiversity Results and Integrated Development Gains Enhanced CAZ Corridor Forestier Ankeniheny – Zahamena CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEADIR Climate Economic Analysis for Development, Investment, and Resilience CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CI Conservation International CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CMS Convention on Migratory Species CNFEREF Centre National de Formation, d’Etudes et de Recherche en Environnement et Forestier COAP Code de Gestion des Aires Protégées CPI Corruption Perception Index CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort CRS Catholic Relief Services CSO Civil Society Organization CSP Centre de Surveillance des Pêches DBC/SAP Biodiversity Conservation/Protected Area System Directorate DEAP Droits d’Entrée dans les Aires Protégées (Protected Area Entry Rights/Fees) DEVRH Direction de l’Environnement et de la Valorisation des Ressources Halieutiques DREEF Directions Régionales – Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Ecologie et Forêts (Regional Directors of Environment, Ecology, and Forests) DRM Domestic Resource Mobilization DWCT Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust EA Environmental Assessment EAGLE Eco-Activists for Governance and Law Enforcement EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative ERI Eco-Regional Initiatives FAA Foreign Assistance Act

FAB Forest and Biodiversity FANALAMANGA Fanjarian’Ala Ambatondrazaka Moramanga FAPBM Fondation pour les Aires Protégées et la Biodiversité de Madagascar FID Fonds d’Intervention pour le Développement GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility GCF Gestion Contractualisée des Forêts or Green Climate Fund GDP Gross Domestic Product GELOSE Gestion Locale Sécurisée GERP Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur les Primates de Madagascar GFW Global Forest Watch GFWSS Gravity Flow Water Services System GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GLAD Global Land Analysis & Discovery Group GPS Gouvernement – Privé – Société Civile ha hectare HVM Hery Vaovao ho an’i Madagasikara IBO Open Budget Index ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project IMF International Monetary Fund IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature JARIALA Malagasy word meaning “forest management” km kilometer KRAOMA Kraomita Malagasy LC Least Concern LMMA Locally Managed Marine Area m meter MaMaBaie Makira/Masoala/Baie d’Antongil MAPAR Miaraka amin’ny Prezidà Andry Rajoelina MATSF Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et des Services Fonciers MBG Missouri Botanical Garden MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assesment MECIE Mise en Conformité des Investissements avec l’Environnement MEEF Ministry of Environment, Ecology, and Forests MGA Malagasy Ariary (currency) MIHARI Madagascar Locally Managed Marine Area Network MinAgri Ministry of Agriculture (Ministère de l’Agriculture) mm millimeter MMP Ministère des Mines et du Pétrole MRHP Ministère des Ressources Halieutiques et de la Pêche MRPA Managed Resources Protected Areas MSIS Multi-Sector Information Service NDP National Development Plan NEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPA New Protected Area OLEP Organe de Lutte contre les Evenements de Pollution ONE Office National de l’Environnement ONESF Observatoire National de l’Environnement Secteur Forestier PA Protected Area PAC Pole Anti-Corruption PADAP Projet Agriculture Durable par une Approche Paysage PAGE Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PHE Population, Health, and Environment PRA Plateforme des Réseaux d’Acteurs PREA Programme de Réformes pour l’Efficacité de l’Administration PSSE Plan de Sauvegarde Sociale et Environnementale QMM QIT Madagascar Minerals RANO WASH Rural Access to New Opportunities in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene REBIOMA Réseau de la Biodiversité de Madagascar REDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation ROHY Rindran’ny Olompirenena Hiarovana ny Iaraha-manana SAC Schémas d’Aménagement Communaux SADC Southern African Development Community SAGE Service d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement SCAPES Sustainable Conservation Approaches in Priority Ecosystems SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SIF Solidarité des Intervenants sur le Foncier / Sehatra lombonana ho an’ny Fananantany SNAT Schéma National d’Aménagement du Territoire SNGF Silo National des Graines Forestières SNLCC Stratégie Nationale de Lutte Contre la Corruption SRAT Schéma Régional d’Aménagement du Territoire SSNP Social Safety Net Project TGRN Transferts de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles TIM Tiako I Madagasikara (political party) TRAFFIC Trade Record Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce TREM Tantalus Rare Earth Madagascar TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene WAVES Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WISCO Wuhan Iron & Steel Company

WPC World Parks Congress WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wildlife Fund

vii

Executive Summary Madagascar is unique. Not only is it one of the largest tropical islands but it has been isolated from other land masses for tens of millions of years. Moreover, its biophysical and ecological diversity combined with its long isolation have given rise to unequalled biological diversity. When people arrived on the island less than 4,000 years ago, the wildlife and natural habitats were pristine, but since then the human impact on the environment has been dramatic. The rate of deforestation and environmental degradation has accelerated over the past 50 years and has been most dramatic over the past few years. In 2017 alone, Madagascar lost over 500,000 ha of its tree cover – about 4 percent of the total. At this rate of forest loss, the country will have little forest cover outside of protected areas (PA) within two or three decades. The potential loss of biological diversity – including many rare and endemic species of plants and animals – will be devastating. Today, 95 percent of Madagascar’s 112 species of lemur – all of which are found nowhere else – are under threat of extinction.

Over the past 30 years, the Government of Madagascar (GOM) has received considerable support from international donors – notably USAID, The World Bank, and the United Nations – to implement effective conservation efforts. The GOM has made ambitious commitments to expand the country’s system of PAs and is hoping to achieve a target of 17 percent coverage within the next few years (the current coverage is about 12 percent). Such initiatives are praiseworthy, but there is a real risk that many PAs are simply “paper parks” without adequate funding to support their management needs. Furthermore, many Malagasy perceive these conservation efforts to be at odds with desperately needed economic development; Madagascar is one of the poorest countries in the world and has some of the lowest rates of access to basic services such as education, healthcare, potable water, and electrical power. Many people – both rural and urban, wealthy and poor, and including Malagasy politicians and senior civil servants – see conservation efforts to be counter to the country’s development needs.

This view is a false dichotomy. In reality, much of the country’s economic growth has been reliant on the island’s natural resources. In addition, the livelihoods and wellbeing of many Malagasy are inexorably tied to the health of the natural environment including the resources and ecological services that it provides. Conservation initiatives in Madagascar must firmly establish the positive linkages between the natural environment and economic development that is sustainable and socially equitable. The resilience of Malagasy families – especially poor and disadvantaged people in rural communities – is heavily reliant on the services that are provided by healthy ecosystems that provide food and water, sustain livelihoods and provide protection from economic shocks and natural disasters.

As USAID/Madagascar develops its new Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2020 to 2024, understanding the context of future programming against the backdrop of accelerating loss of the country’s forests and biodiversity is crucially important. Not only do the provisions of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act require that USAID take these matters into account, but there is increasing evidence that integrating conservation programs into all other sectors has mutually beneficial outcomes. This document describes some of the pitfalls of siloed programs and recommends strategies and approaches for designing robust programs that achieve co-benefits across linked sectors.

Implementing carefully designed programs that integrate programmatic sectors can be a challenge. But USAID/Madagascar has a history of successfully executing programs that cut across conservation, economic development, and health. Whether integration occurs at the project level or across projects is equally effective if there is coordination and a common approach to engagement with local partners – including government, civil society, and the private sector. There is good evidence of strong functional linkages between ecosystems such as forests and marine fisheries and people’s livelihoods, nutrition, and health. These linkages include not only the resources that nature provides but also the regulating effect healthy ecosystems have on water supply, flood control, and a host of other processes.

Given the high level of investment in conservation and development in Madagascar by other international donors, there is also significant value in coordinating these efforts with the GOM. The challenge is to ensure transparency and commitment on the part of GOM agencies as well as with local government and the private sector. The current political environment is not conducive to open, collaborative engagement. Indeed, many politicians and disreputable businesses – as well as foreign interests – are complicit in the current spate of illegal exploitation of the country’s natural resources including minerals and wildlife.

Madagascar’s journey to self-reliance will be a long haul. Currently, the country roadmap (https://selfreliance.usaid.gov/country/madagascar) shows 10 of 15 commitment and capacity indicators being below average for low and middle income countries – notably the poverty rate. Business environment and biodiversity protections are also well below average. The presidential elections in November 2018 may prove to be a tipping point for conservation efforts – potentially putting the country back on course after a period when rampant corruption together with public- and private-sector investment in short-sighted, unsustainable development initiatives have been the norm. The country’s path to sustainable development will have to include decreasing reliance on international donors for funding environment protection and conservation initiatives (currently most of the GOM agencies that support these sectors are funded primarily through foreign assistance). USAID/Madagascar is in a strong position to help the GOM develop and test strategies that will enable the country to stimulate responsible private sector investment in integrated conservation and development. USAID is a leader in showing governments how to improve revenue generation and thereby mobilize domestic resources rather than rely on foreign aid. In Madagascar, Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) for priority development programs can be built around better natural resource accounting, private sector partnerships, and payments for ecosystem services. By advancing this agenda, USAID/Madagascar can not only generate co-benefits across programs but also help the people of Madagascar become more self-reliant and resilient.

I. Introduction 1.1 Purpose The primary purpose of this document is to conduct an analysis of tropical forest and biodiversity in compliance with Sections 118 and 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and ADS guidelines. Section 118 deals with tropical forests and section 119 addresses biodiversity. The analysis will inform USAID/Madagascar in the development of the Mission’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). USAID’s approach to development requires that the Agency examine cross-sectoral linkages and opportunities to ensure a robust development hypothesis. The conservation of natural forests and biological diversity are important aspects of achieving sustainable development and should be considered in Mission strategic approaches to improve development outcomes. The analysis is therefore an opportunity for the Mission to better understand the strategic linkages between the conservation of a country’s tropical forest and biodiversity and development, so that it can structure a sound Results Framework to support future programming. Notably, the analysis will identify strategic linkages at the Results Framework level, highlighting opportunities to integrate tropical forest and biodiversity conservation into priority development sectors identified in the CDCS.

The analysis will identify new developments that should be taken into consideration at a programmatic level. In addition to having high rural population growth rates and deforestation rates, Madagascar is also considered to be significantly vulnerable to natural disasters such as droughts, floods, and other events. As the Mission’s future CDCS will continue to focus on ending extreme poverty, evidence-based programming decisions must include consideration of issues that include global climate change, food security, water, natural resources trafficking, governance, and global health, all of which will be informed by this analysis.

1.2 Brief Description of the USAID Program USAID/Madagascar’s previous environment program ended in 2009 when political turmoil threw the country into crisis. Many international donors curtailed development support and USAID withdrew funding for all programs other than humanitarian relief. In 2013, USAID’s position changed, and a new generation of programming was launched. USAID’s $2.25 million “Preserving Madagascar’s Natural Resources or Sustainable Conservation Approaches in Priority Ecosystems (SCAPES)” program was implemented between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2016. The main goal was to enhance the capabilities of the Malagasy people and civil society organizations to combat the illegal exploitation of Madagascar’s natural resources. USAID/Madagascar’s current portfolio includes global health, water, sanitation, hygiene, food security and disaster assistance, and environment and climate change. The USAID Mission has encouraged programmatic integration – notably across population, health, and environment. The two new environment projects – Mikajy and Hay Tao – will coordinate with USAID projects working in other sectors, especially those being implemented in the same geographical locations as Mikajy, which is a site-based initiative targeting two landscapes/seascapes: Makira/Masoala/Baie d’Antongil (MaMaBaie) in the northeast and the Menabe region in the west.

Opportunities and approaches for further programmatic integration will be outlined in the 118/119 Analysis.

1.3 Methodology The Scope of Work for the 118/119 Analysis (Annex 1) describes the approach and timeline.

USAID/Madagascar commissioned the Biodiversity Results and Integrated Development Gains Enhanced (BRIDGE) Project to conduct the analysis in close collaboration with mission staff. BRIDGE recruited a team of five consultants: Andrew Watson (team leader); Ndranto Razakamanarina (deputy team leader and forest specialist); Zoely Ramanase (livelihoods specialist); Jonah Ratsimbazafy (terrestrial biodiversity specialist); and Charlie Gardner (marine biodiversity and fisheries specialist).

The team conducted initial interviews with USAID staff, GOM agencies, and international NGOs in early July 2018 before embarking on two weeks of field visits designed to gather information from local implementers of conservation and development projects and the beneficiaries of these initiatives. The sites for these visits were selected based on criteria established by USAID/Madagascar and discussions with implementers. Since the Mikajy and Hay Tao project teams were launching their own initial engagement with partners in the MaMaBaie and Menabe land/seascapes, the 118/119 team did not visit these sites. Rather, the team shared interview guidelines and a brief questionnaire (see Annex 6) with the Mikajy and Hay Tao teams to facilitate collection of information using a standard format.

The 118/119 team visited sites in three regions: the Atsimo Andrefana region (southwest Madagascar around Toliara), the Atsimo Atsinanana region (around Farafangana and Ranomafana), and the Boeny region (around Mahajanga and Soalala). A detailed list of meetings and site visits is provided in Annex 3. Two USAID staff – Corinne Rafaell and Jean Patrice Randriamampionona – accompanied the 118/119 team to the Boeny region. Field interviews were semi-structured, following the guidance and outline provided in the referenced Annex. The conversations with individual informants or focus groups were framed around the central themes of existing assets (forests and biodiversity) and the threats to those assets in the specific locations. Detailed responses to the questions listed in the guidelines were not solicited during the interviews. Rather, the informants were asked if they would be willing to complete a brief questionnaire following the meeting and return it to the 118/119 team. In all, the questionnaire was sent to 48 individuals in addition to being shared with the Mikajy and Hay Tao teams conducting site-based assessments for MaMaBaie and Menabe. In all, the team received 15 completed responses.

The responses to the questionnaire were reviewed and analyzed, and the summary data are presented in Annex 6. The responses regarding perceived threats to biodiversity, forests, wetlands, and marine ecosystems were generally consistent across different parts of the country, though perceptions differed markedly between respondents from GOM agencies compared with those from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). People’s perceptions of the main drivers and root causes of the threats were also similar across different parts of the country and across terrestrial and marine ecosystems – though, again, compared with NGO and CSO respondents, GOM respondents 4 generally reported that corruption and lack of political will for conservation were less significant. Given the small sample size, we cannot draw significant conclusions from these data though they do reflect the broad conclusions we drew from 75 interviews with representatives of conservation agencies and organizations in Antananarivo and at the field sites that the 118/119 team visited.

II. Country Context 2.1 Location and Country Context Madagascar is an island nation in the Indian Ocean, located 600 km off the coast of Africa, east of Mozambique. With an area of 587,295 km² spread over a length of 1,600 km from north to south and 570 km from east to west, Madagascar is sometimes considered an island continent. It is the fourth largest island in the world after Greenland, New Guinea, and Borneo. The island is home to a population estimated to be more than 25.6 million people distributed across 5 provinces and 22 regions.

The first people to populate the island are thought to be of Austronesian origin and are estimated to have arrived around 2,000 BCE; there is evidence that humans may have arrived about 10,500 years ago (Hansford et al., 2018) while others have argued that most settlement occurred much later, perhaps less than 2,000 years ago. Madagascar became a trading hub for the Indian Ocean, including during the slave trade, and experienced several episodes of migration or temporary settlement of different civilizations such as Javanese, Persian, Arab, or Bantu peoples. Subsequently, the island was a landing spot for expeditions led by Europeans sailing to the East Indies before being successively colonized for more than a century by British and French interests. Despite having 18 different native ethnic or tribal groups, the population of Madagascar shares a common language and a deep and common cultural base rooted in respect and veneration of ancestors.

Traditionally, the Malagasy economy has been based on the cultivation of rice, coffee, vanilla, and cloves. Within in the last 20 years, extractive industries, tourism, and fisheries have also contributed significantly to the national economy. Despite a wealth of natural resources, the country remains heavily dependent on foreign aid. In 2017, the World Bank estimated that nearly 80 percent of the Malagasy population live below the poverty line, with accessible income of less than $1.90 per day per person. While Madagascar is one of the poorest countries in the world (ranked 158th out of 188) it is one of the few low-income countries that has not experienced armed strife since independence. Just under 30 percent of the population is illiterate (UNESCO, 2018); access to electricity is 22.9 percent (20161) despite having hydropower potential of 7,800 megawatts; and access to basic potable water is less than 37 percent (25 percent in rural areas – UNICEF, 2017).

Since gaining independence from France in 1960, Madagascar has experienced repeated political instability, including coups, civil unrest, and disputed elections. Despite a return to constitutional order in 2014, the country has not yet recovered from the lingering consequences of the 2009 coup and the five-year crisis that followed. Insecurity, corruption, lack of vision, and lack of decentralization still dominate a political landscape that remains very fragile. There are currently 195 political parties in Madagascar, most of which have no genuine presence or stated social agenda and do not participate in civic education or elections. Presently, the three main parties are the TIM of the deposed President Marc Ravalomanana (2002-2009), the MAPAR led by the putschist and Transition President Andry Rajoelina (2009-2013), and the HVM led by

1 In 2013, Madagascar was ranked 186th of 195 countries (World Bank, 2013b).

6 incumbent President Hery Rajaonarimampianina (2014-2018) who was also a former Minister of Finances during the transition.

2.2 Biophysical Framework Located between the 12th and 25th parallels of the southern hemisphere, Madagascar has a varied climate, ranging from very humid in the east, to hot and dry in the west, to arid in the south, and to semi-temperate at higher elevations in the center of the landmass. This diversity of climate is mainly the result of the large size of the island, its geographical location, and its characteristic geological history and relief. From the northeast, in summer the island receives air laden with moisture carried by monsoons, and in winter drier air carried by the trade winds comes from the southeast. The highlands that extend the length of the island from north to south have an altitude ranging from 800 to 1,800 m, presenting an orographic barrier that results in condensation and precipitation on windward slopes and escarpments. Eastern regions thus benefit from most of the island’s rainfall, with peaks of up to 4,000 mm/year on the northeast coast, starkly contrasting with average rainfall of 1,400 mm/year in the highlands and minima down to 300 mm/year in the south. The variation in climate around the coast is largely determined by the different amounts of precipitation since temperatures are relatively similar. The highlands, however, are very different from other parts of the country because temperatures are lower at the higher elevations – averaging 10 °C lower, sometimes more in the winter months (June to September). The highest mountains – Tsaratanana in northern Madagascar (2,876 m), Tsiafajavona Ankaratra in the central highlands (2,650 m), and Andringitra in southern Madagascar (2,660 m) – have distinct climatic conditions owing to their high altitudes.

Geologically, Madagascar comprises a massif, a largely igneous structure of Precambrian crystalline rocks. To the west, a thick pile of sedimentary strata dating from the Carboniferous to the present is interrupted locally by volcanic deposits and associated intrusions of various ages (Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary). Madagascar is known as the “red island” owing to its characteristic soils – mainly deep lateritic soils that developed on the ancient Gondwanan landscape prior to the break-up of the super-continent (see below). Ferrasols predominate in the east and central plateau, soils with a high iron content that gives them a deep red color. The soils are developed on deeply weathered rocks (saprolite) and when the protective cover of natural vegetation is removed, the soils and underlying saprolite are readily eroded by rainfall and running water. Many of Madagascar’s streams and rivers are the color of tomato soup when they flow at flood stage.

The diversity of Madagascar’s physical environment (climate, geology, soils, topography, and hydrology) is an important factor in the incredible biodiversity of the island – particularly the wealth of species and the exceptional rates of endemism. The island’s geological history also plays a significant role. Six hundred million years ago, Madagascar was part of the supercontinent of Gondwanaland. One hundred eighty million years ago, a fragment of Gondwana broke away from the part that is now Africa. That fragment comprised what are today Madagascar, India, Australia, and Antarctica. It subsequently split into the different landmasses that then drifted slowly to their current locations: Australia first, then Antarctica and

7 finally India broke away, leaving Madagascar isolated from other landmasses for the past 80 million years.

The long period of isolation plus the size and physical diversity of the island explain its rich biodiversity and high degree of speciation. The diversity of the ecosystems and their changing characteristics over the past millennia have allowed the ancestors of present-day species to evolve and speciate as they competed and adapted to new ecological niches. The ancestral species were either the original inhabitants of the landmass or arrived on the island following its isolation. Many of the original colonizers are thought to have arrived on floating rafts of vegetation, though endemic bird species probably arrived from Africa and India by flying across the sea from island to island. Each habitat on the island has been colonized by plants and animals that have evolved and speciated giving rise to new genotypes and phenotypes.

The diversity of species in Madagascar is estimated to be about 1.7 million across all classes. However, this may represent only 5 percent of the actual species richness of the island, with many more species yet to be identified and described. There are about 14,000 species of plant including more than 1,000 species of orchids and 194 species of palms. For the higher animals, there are 154 freshwater fish species, 350 amphibian species, more than 400 reptile species, 292 bird species, 46 bat species, and 112 lemur species (which represents 20 percent of all primate species on earth; 95 percent of lemur species are currently on the IUCN Red List of threatened species). Endemicity rates, or species that are found nowhere else on earth, are just as remarkable as the species richness: 90 percent of plants, 72 percent of freshwater fish, 99 percent of amphibians, 92 percent of reptiles, and 100 percent of lemurs are endemic to Madagascar (Annex 4 summarizes these data).

Combining a unique array of biological resources in terms of species richness and endemicity with high extinction rates owing to diverse anthropogenic threats, Madagascar is ranked among the world’s most important biodiversity hotspots. The island, which represents only 0.4 percent of earth’s land area, is home to more than 5 percent of the world’s biological diversity. Madagascar is undoubtedly a global priority for the conservation of biodiversity.

III. Status of the Country’s Biodiversity and Forests 3.1 Major Ecosystem Types and Status Madagascar’s large area, altitudinal and latitudinal range, and geological diversity have given rise to a range of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystem types, as well as a diversity of novel ecosystems generated by anthropogenic habitat change. Prior to human colonization, terrestrial areas were largely forested, with the types of forest varying regionally based on climate and altitude. Numerous vegetation classifications have been proposed, but the basic forest types include humid forest (rainforest) in eastern and northern areas, dry deciduous forest in the west and far north, and spiny forest in the sub-arid south, with patches of sub-humid forest in the southwest and areas of ericoid thicket at high elevation (Goodman and Raherilalao, 2013; Moat and Smith, 2007). The extent of remaining forest cover following centuries of deforestation and degradation is methodologically complex to estimate (McConnell and Kull, 2014), but most sources suggest native forests cover less than 10 percent of the island (Harper et al., 2007; ONE et al., 2013), with remaining areas comprising species-poor savannahs, scrubland, and timber plantations of virtually no value to endemic biodiversity (see Figure 1).

Freshwater diversity includes a variety of river, marsh and lake systems within each forest biome. These systems harbor species endemism rates as high as those of forests (Benstead et al., 2003; Sparks and Stiassny, 2003) and are perhaps equally as threatened. Vast areas of marshland and lake have been converted to rice cultivation over past centuries, and most rivers are highly degraded by sedimentation associated with deforestation (Bamford et al., 2017). Twenty wetland sites covering over 2 million ha are inscribed in the Ramsar convention (Ramsar, 2017).

Madagascar’s approximately 6,500 km of coastline spans 14° of latitude and is divided into four marine ecoregions based on the biogeography of reef-building corals (Obura, 2012). The 1,023,000 km2 of ocean within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone includes a range of marine and coastal habitats such as deep-water habitats, islands, coral reefs (fringing, patch, and barrier), seagrass beds, and mangroves. Reef, seagrass, and mangrove habitats are primarily distributed along the west coast where there is a gently sloping continental shelf. Coral reefs harbor regionally and globally important aggregations of biodiversity (Allnutt et al., 2012; McKenna and Allen, 2005) and include the world’s fourth largest barrier reef system, the Grand Récif de Tuléar. The reef systems of northern Madagascar are, globally, second only to the Coral Triangle in terms of the richness of shallow marine species (Obura et al., 2012). Mangroves total 213,000 ha, the fourth largest extent in Africa and approximately 2 percent of global mangrove area (Jones et al., 2016). Three areas – north and northwest Madagascar, southern Madagascar, and Antongil Bay – have been identified as potential marine sites of outstanding universal value for inscription in the World Heritage Convention (Obura et al., 2012).

Figure 1: Map of natural forests in Madagascar (green) showing deforestation in the period 1973-2000 (orange and red). Insets show the major forest biomes of Madagascar and forest cover in 1950. Reproduced from Harper et al. (2007).

3.2 Species Diversity and Status Madagascar is one of the world’s top biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000) and megadiversity countries (Mittermeier et al., 1997), making it probably the most important global conservation priority on earth (Brooks et al., 2006). Because of its geographic location in the tropics and subtropics, varied topography and long isolation, Madagascar has a very high level of species diversity and unparalleled rates of endemism – over 80 percent of Madagascar’s species occur nowhere else on the planet. Endemism rates are particularly striking at higher taxonomic levels, with over 480 genera and at least 26 families entirely restricted to the island (Mittermeier et al., 2013). The next richest hotspot for endemic families – New Zealand – has only eight.

Available estimates of species richness and endemism are presented by taxonomic group or biome below. Note, however, that new species are continually being described in all groups, and summary data thus rapidly become out of date. For example, more than 600 new species (385 plants, 69 amphibians, 61 reptiles, 41 mammals, 17 fish, and 42 invertebrates) were described in the decade to 2010 (WWF, 2011). Note also that the contemporary fauna also included, until about 500 years ago, a suite of additional, usually much larger, species that became extinct after human colonization. These include at least 23 species of giant lemur (some as large as a male gorilla), 8 species of elephant bird – including the largest bird that ever lived – giant tortoises, and a pygmy hippopotamus, amongst others. These animals were the contemporaries of living species, not their ancestors (Goodman and Jungers, 2014) and would have greatly influenced the environment through grazing and seed dispersal, interactions that are now lost.

Annex 4 summarizes the available information on species diversity in Madagascar, providing details of levels of endemism and threat for different species across the major ecoregions of the country.

3.2.1 Plants Madagascar’s flora includes at least 11,220 species of vascular plant, divided within 1,730 genera in 243 families (Callmander et al., 2011). However, an estimated 2,500 further species remain to be described (CEPF, 2014). About 84 percent of indigenous species are endemic, as are 310 genera and 5 families (Buerki et al., 2013). With 3,234 recorded tree species, Madagascar is the tenth richest country in the world. Moreover, it is second only to Brazil in terms of the number of endemic tree species – 2,991 (Beech et al., 2017). Madagascar is particularly rich in several charismatic plant groups, including orchids (about 1,000 species, more than mainland Africa), palms (almost 200 endemic species), and baobabs (6 of the world’s 8 species are endemic).

Most endemic plants are forest species and thus threatened by deforestation, however no systematic threat assessment has been carried out for plants. Among assessed groups, threat levels are very high. For example, 83 percent of palm species are threatened (Rakotoarinivo et al., 2014).

3.2.2 Amphibians At the time of writing, Madagascar has at least 350 amphibian species, all frogs, (AmphibiaWeb, 2018), though hundreds of additional species have been collected and await formal description (Vieites et al., 2009). Thus, it is one of the richest countries for amphibians on earth (Andreone et al., 2008). All but one native species are endemic and only two species have been introduced, including the highly invasive, toxic Asian common toad Duttaphrynus melanostichus, which was recently introduced to Toamasina and is rapidly spreading (Marshall et al., 2018). About 25 percent of the 220 assessed species are thought to be threatened with extinction (Andreone et al., 2008).

3.2.3 Reptiles Madagascar is home to more than 400 species of reptiles (The Reptile Database, 2018), including snakes, tortoises and turtles, the Nile crocodile, and lizards including chameleons, geckos, skinks, and iguanids. All but marine species (turtles and sea snakes), the Nile crocodile and several widespread or introduced geckos are endemic, for a total endemism rate of over 90 percent. In addition, 36 of the 64 reptile genera are also found nowhere else. The country is ranked tenth in the world for reptile diversity, even so new species are regularly being described. Almost 40 percent of species are considered threatened, including 54 percent of chameleons, 37 percent of geckos, and 100 percent of tortoises and endemic freshwater turtles (all of which are Critically Endangered) (Jenkins et al., 2014).

3.2.4 Birds Madagascar has 292 recorded species of birds – a relatively low number for such a large land mass in the tropics – but 108 (37 percent) are endemic. Endemism is particularly striking at higher taxonomic levels, with 42 genera, 6 families, and even 2 entire orders (the Mesitornithiformes (mesites) and Leptosomiformes (cuckoo-roller) entirely restricted to Madagascar and the neighboring Comoros archipelago) (Safford and Hawkins, 2013). The vast majority of endemic species are restricted to forests or wetlands, and wetland species are particularly threatened: of the 32 endemic species listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List, 15 are wetland species (IUCN, 2018). The Madagascar fish eagle (Haliaeetus vociferoides) and the recently rediscovered Madagascar pochard (Aythya innotata) are the only two critically endangered species.

3.2.5 Mammals There are more than 220 native, terrestrial mammal species surviving in Madagascar, of which there are 112 lemurs, 46 bats, 27 rodents, 31 tenrecs, and 10 carnivores in the endemic family Eupleridae. The lemurs are 100 percent endemic and comprise 5 endemic families and 15 genera, making up about 20 percent of global primate species and genera, and 31 percent of global primate families (Mittermeier et al., 2013). Madagascar is thus a high global priority for primate conservation. The number of recognized lemur species has grown rapidly, from only 32 species in 1994 to 112 species as of writing, primarily due to use of novel species concepts that are not widely used in other taxonomic groups. The validity of many recently described species is therefore contested (e.g. Tattersall, 2007).

The lemurs have been described as the most threatened mammal group on earth, with 94 percent of species threatened with extinction (Schwitzer et al., 2014). A 2018 re-evaluation of threat status found 105 out of 111 species to be threatened, of which 38 are critically endangered, 44 endangered, and 23 vulnerable, however these findings have not yet been published. The number of critically endangered species increased from 24 to 38 between the 2012 and 2018 assessments, highlighting a worrying increase in threats.

3.2.6 Marine Species Known marine biodiversity is concentrated around coral reefs, which support the highest coral and invertebrate macrofauna richness in the western and central Indian Ocean (Cooke et al., 2003; McKenna and Allen, 2005). At least 318 scleractinian coral species are known, as well as 525 mollusc and 752 reef fish species (McKenna and Allen, 2005). Malagasy waters support five species of globally threatened turtle (green Chelonia mydas, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata, loggerhead Caretta caretta, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea, and leatherback Dermochelys coriacea) (Humber et al., 2017) and 27 marine mammal species (Kiszka et al., 2009; Rosenbaum, 2003), as well as charismatic fish including the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae), and largetooth sawfish (Pristis pristis).

Species diversity of other marine and coastal habitats is poorly known, though seagrass beds comprise at least eight seagrass species and mangroves contain nine true mangrove species (Giri and Mulhausen, 2008; Hantanirina and Benbow, 2013). Mangroves harbor communities of at least 60 fish species, of which at least 44 are commercially harvested (Laroche et al., 1997; Weis et al., 2009), and provide nurseries for commercialized shrimp species. Mangrove crabs and other crustaceans are important sources of food and are commercially harvested. Mangroves also provide habitat for terrestrial fauna: 23 lemur species and 99 bird species have been recorded in Madagascar’s mangroves (Gardner, 2016; Gardner et al., 2017a), and these ecosystems constitute the core habitat of several endangered or critically endangered endemic bird species including the Madagascar fish eagle (Haliaeetus vociferoides), Madagascar teal (Anas bernieri), Madagascar sacred ibis (Threskiornis bernieri), and Madagascar heron (Ardea humbloti).

While Madagascar’s marine environments are species rich, it should be noted that they contain few endemic species due to the pelagic nature of most marine groups. The seas therefore lack Madagascar’s single most outstanding feature as a global conservation priority, its unparalleled endemism rates.

3.3 Genetic Diversity Madagascar is known worldwide for its rich biodiversity. In recent years, the anti-leukemic property of Madagascar rose periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus) has been recognized. However, the country and its knowledge holders have not benefited from the genetic and intellectual property. The recent adoption of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Equitable Benefit-Sharing is an opportunity to avoid this form of biopiracy. Madagascar does not yet have a legal framework for implementing this treaty although the country has just ratified it.

Data for biological diversity was obtained from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). GBIF is an international government-initiated resource that provides open access to the most comprehensive quantitative data of species across time and space presently available. All data is submitted by participants who share biodiversity information.

GBIF presently records 25,619 species known to be present in Madagascar. This list is dominated by plants and animals, which account for over 25,000 species, as can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The number of species in Madagascar by kingdom using GBIF data (Oldham et al., 2013).

The top species in patent activity for Madagascar include the rose periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus), the agricultural biotechnology bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Aloe vera for use in cosmetics and other products, the tobacco plant (Nicotiana tabacum), the pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and yeast Candida albicans along with tea (Camellia sinensis) and Centella (Centella asiatica). As this brief list suggests, patent activity typically involves research and development that targets particular organisms (i.e. pathogens), important agricultural crops, or plants that are a source of approved pharmaceutical drugs or other medicines.

Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) legislation regarding these organizations is relatively complex. It requires the contribution of several disciplines, as well as capacity-building initiatives, particularly to negotiate mutually agreed terms and to add value to genetic resources, rather than serving as primary commodity suppliers. These limits should not, however, be a blockage.

3.4 Status and Management of Protected Areas and “Managed Forests” Madagascar has one of the oldest protected area (PA) systems in Africa, with the earliest sites dating to 1927. By 2003, the network had grown to include 46 sites classified as either Réserve Naturelle Intégrale (IUCN Category 1a), Parc National (Category II), or Réserve Spéciale (Category IV), totaling 1.7 million ha. The principal objective of these PAs was biodiversity conservation, alongside strictly controlled research and tourism, and all extractive use of natural resources within them was banned (Randrianandianina et al., 2003). The network was administered by the parastatal, ANGAP, now renamed Madagascar National Parks (MNP).

At the 2003 World Parks Congress, then-president Marc Ravalomanana announced his government’s intention to triple the coverage of the PA system, a major policy goal that became

14 known as the “Durban Vision.” Working groups established to advise on its implementation rapidly realized that: 1) most remaining high biodiversity areas contained sizeable human populations that depended on natural resources for subsistence and income; and 2) MNP did not have the capacity to carry out the expansion itself. Therefore, PA legislation was revised to expand the range of PA categories and management approaches permitted, and to permit non- state actors to establish and manage new PAs so long as they followed published procedures and guidelines. The government’s objectives for its PA system were also expanded to include the maintenance of Madagascar’s cultural heritage and the promotion of sustainable natural resource use for poverty alleviation and development.

Since the launch of the Durban Vision, a range of actors including international and national NGOs, community groups, universities, and even private sector operators have been working to help the government achieve its vision. Most new PAs are managed as multiple-use sites where a range of sustainable natural resource uses (e.g. grazing, timber, and non-timber forest product extraction) are permitted according to a zoning plan and are managed in shared governance arrangements involving a designated promoter (usually an NGO) and one or more associations representing local community members (Gardner et al., 2018). The management approaches of these sites tend to focus on community-based, livelihood-focused interventions rather than “traditional” PA enforcement strategies (Gardner et al., 2013, 2018; Virah-Sawmy et al., 2014).

The expanded PA system is known as the Système d’Aires Protégées de Madagascar (SAPM) and by 2016 had grown to include 122 sites covering 7.1 million ha (Figure 3). SAPM comprises two sub-networks: the original network of strict PAs managed by MNP, now including 50 sites and covering 2.66 million ha, and the network of new protected areas (NPAs) including 72 sites covering 4.43 million ha (Table 1). However, a number of these legally recognized PAs have no promoter and receive no active management (i.e. they are “paper parks” or “orphan parks”), and all face a range of management challenges (Gardner et al., 2018). Marine and coastal areas remain under-represented in the expanded PA system, with just three sites in the original MNP network (Nosy Hara, Sahamalaza/Iles Radama, and Masoala), and a small number of marine NPAs subsequently established. Seven of Madagascar’s national parks are recognized as natural sites of universal value under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: these are Tsingy de Bemaraha (inscribed 1990) and the Rainforests of the Antsinanana complex of six national parks (inscribed 2007): Andohahela. Andringitra, Marojejy, Masoala, Ranomafana, and Zahamena.

Many PAs have had limited effectiveness in reducing threats to their ecological integrity, and this may be related to the speed with which they were established, the inadequate resources available for management, and the challenge of applying rules (Gardner et al., 2018). At a system-wide level, PAs have reduced deforestation compared to unprotected areas (Desbureaux et al., 2016; Eklund et al., 2016, although see Waeber et al., 2016). However, the positive effects are small and patchy, and threats such as deforestation for small-scale agriculture (Allnutt et al., 2013; Grinand et al., 2013), illegal logging (Randriamalala and Liu, 2010), artisanal mining (Cook and Healy, 2012), and bushmeat hunting (Razafimanahaka et al., 2012) continue to be widespread in both MNP and non-MNP sites. Clearly, while protected

15 areas remain the principal tool in Madagascar’s conservation strategy, they require significant additional financial support if they are to successfully conserve the country’s biodiversity and support its sustainable development.

Annex 9 presents an analysis of changes in forest cover over the period 2010 to 2017. The data show that rates of deforestation are typically lower within Pas, and national-level data show that deforestation rates immediately adjacent to PAs (within 5 km) are much higher than within the PAs. However, in administrative regions where there is little forest cover (<10 percent forest cover), PAs contribute proportionally more to the regional rate of deforestation than in regions where there is more than 10 percent tree cover.

Figure 3: Madagascar Protected Area System (SAPM) in 2016. Dark green = PAs established pre-2003, Light green = PAs established since 2003, and Yellow = PAs partway through establishment. Source: Gardner et al., 2018 (using data from REBIOMA). A more detailed version of this map is presented in Annex 12.

Category All SAPM MNP network Non-MNP network No. sites Area (ha) No. sites Area (ha) No. sites Area (ha) I 1 228 1 228 II 28 2,617,847 27 2,245,377 1 372,470 III 2 4,807 2 4 807 IV 23(3) 408,231.9 22 407,461.9 1 770 (53,470) (3) (53,470) V 39 2,617,638.4 39 2,617,638.4 VI 17 865,549.5 17 865,549.5 No category 12 566,224 12 566,224 (10) (484,517) (10) (484,517) TOTAL 122 7,082,525.8 50 2,655,066.9 72 4,427,458.9 (13) (537,987) (3) (53,470) (10) (484,517)

Table 1: Number and area of protected areas in Madagascar in March 2017, by IUCN category. The Madagascar Protected Area System (SAPM) comprises sites managed by Madagascar National Parks (MNP) and the non-MNP network of new protected areas. Numbers in brackets refer to “paper parks” that currently lack active management. Source: Gardner et al., 2018.

3.5 Status and Management of Key Natural Resources Outside Protected Areas Outside of SAPM and private property, land and natural resources in the isolated rural areas where biodiversity is concentrated are managed under a form of “legal pluralism”: all land and resources are state property, but the government lacks the reach or resources to enforce its legal system on local resource users, who may instead recognize their own rules and institutions regulating resource access. These informal, local rules may include traditions and social norms, fady (often translated as taboo) and dina (locally recognized rules), and they may conflict with national law. For example, many rural communities recognize the norm that a person who clears forest for farmland becomes the owner of that land, even though such clearance for cultivation is illegal.

Partly to reconcile the formal and informal systems, the state has been progressively transferring responsibility for the management of natural resources from state agencies to rural resource users over the last two decades. This decentralization focused on community forest management in the 1990s and has expanded into fisheries management more recently.

Community forest management – known as Transferts de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles (TGRN) or management transfers – was established through two key pieces of legislation, the 1996 GELOSE law and subsequent, simplified Gestion Contractualisée des Forêts (GCF) policy in 2001. Both require the creation of a management association comprised of local resource users, which signs a time-bound, renewable contract with the relevant ministry to become the delegated manager of a designated forest area. More than 500 forest management transfers have been established, but the process has been criticized for imposing inappropriate governance structures on resources users, and management transfers have tended to be poorly planned and implemented (e.g. Bertrand et al., 2014; Pollini and Lassoie, 2011; Pollini et al., 2014). As a result, they have been quite ineffective – recent system-wide analyses show that management transfers have had no significant impacts on deforestation (Rasolofoson et al.,

2015) and no detectable impact on the economic wellbeing of the communities involved (Rasolofoson et al., 2017).

Outside of forests, the last decade has seen a parallel growth in community-based fisheries management initiatives known under the umbrella term locally managed marine areas (LMMAs). At least 65 LMMAs are now thought to exist in both offshore and mangrove areas, covering approximately 10 percent of Madagascar’s coastal shelf (MIHARI, unpublished data). Although some LMMAs have received official PA status within SAPM (e.g. Velondriake, Barren Isles), the majority currently lack formal recognition. Most LMMAs are supported by NGO partners, and are members of a growing LMMA network known as MIHARI (Madagascar Locally Managed Marine Area Network). The effectiveness of LMMAs has yet to be evaluated system-wide, though bioeconomic analysis of octopus fishery data from Velondriake, the country’s first LMMA, shows that fisheries management interventions have increased the economic returns from this resource (Oliver et al., 2015).

IV. Value and Economic Potential 4.1 Ecosystem Goods and Services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment categorizes ecosystem services – the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems – into four types: 1) provisioning services that are tangible products produced by natural ecosystems, such as wood, fish, and medicinal plants; 2) regulating services such as hydrological regulation, carbon storage and erosion prevention; 3) cultural services such as recreation and the maintenance of culture; and 4) supporting services that underpin all others, such as primary production (photosynthesis) and soil formation (MEA, 2005). Ecosystem services research is still in its infancy in Madagascar but suggests that the nation’s ecosystems generate significant economic value. Most of this value is never captured in economic statistics, since most provisioning services are harvested on a subsistence basis while regulating and cultural services are provided for free and are not marketed. However, these ecosystem services are critical to the survival of a significant proportion of Madagascar’s rural populations.

Annex 5 provides a summary of some of the types of ecosystem services that have been recognized in Madagascar.

4.1.1 Provisioning Services All of Madagascar’s natural ecosystems provide a range of provisioning services that underpin the livelihoods of the communities that live in and around them. For example, over 90 percent of households rely on fuelwood and charcoal for domestic fuel. In the drier regions, most of the fuel is obtained from natural forests (Bertrand et al., 2010). Forests and wetlands also produce wood and other fibers used for the construction of houses, boats, ox-carts, and tools throughout the country (Jasper and Gardner, 2013; Rasolofo, 1997).

Wild yams (Dioscorea spp.) provide an important dry season food source for communities throughout the west and south (Ackermann, 2003; Cheban et al., 2009), while many communities harvest wild fruit, freshwater fish, and a range of “bushmeat” including amphibians, bats, birds, lemurs, and tenrecs (Garcia and Goodman, 2003; Golden, 2009; Razafimanahaka et al., 2012). In western Madagascar, bushmeat may account for 10 percent of meat consumed (Randrianandrianina et al., 2010), and in the northeast, it is an important component of the diets of children who would otherwise be under-nourished (Golden et al., 2011a). Fish and other marine products sustain coastal populations throughout the country, particularly in the southwest, home of Vezo traditional fishers. In this region, fisheries resources provide the only protein source in 99 percent of meals (Barnes and Rawlinson, 2009; Barnes-Mauthe et al., 2013).

Finally, ecosystems provide an extraordinary range of biochemicals, including medicinal plants, which are widely used as the primary form of healthcare in both rural and urban areas (Lyon and Hardesty, 2005; Randriamiharisoa et al., 2015). Derivatives of some Malagasy species are widely commercialized, such as the Madagascar periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus), which is used to treat a range of cancers. A range of marine species such as algae and soft corals is also the subject of pharmaceutical research and has produced antimicrobial compounds (e.g.

Rahelivao et al., 2015, 2017). Efforts to protect these genetic resources and the related intellectual property (local knowledge) from biopiracy and unscrupulous exploitation include international legislation such as the Nagoya Protocol, but Madagascar’s own regulatory framework provides few protections (Rambinintsaotra, 2014).

4.1.2 Regulating Services Forests provide important hydrological regulating services, including water for 430,000 ha of irrigated agriculture and drinking water for 17 towns (Carret and Loyer, 2003), as well as helping to prevent floods (Kramer et al., 1997). In addition, forested watersheds underpin the hydroelectrical power generation, which provides two-thirds of the country’s electricity (ADER, 2008). Forests also help to prevent erosion and the subsequent siltation of wetlands and coral reefs; siltation has reduced the agricultural productivity of Lac Alaotra (Madagascar’s breadbasket) to 40 percent of previous levels (Bakoariniaina et al., 2006), while erosion of topsoil is thought to cost 2.5 percent of GDP every year (Carret et al., 2010).

Critically for the fight against global climate change, forests and other ecosystems such as mangroves and seagrass beds perform valuable carbon sequestration and storage services. For example, mangroves in western Madagascar store 454 tons of carbon per hectare (Benson et al., 2017) while those in the northwest store 593 ton/ha (Jones et al. 2014).2

4.1.3 Cultural Services Ecosystems and species play important roles in the cultural life of many Malagasy ethnicities and communities, as evidenced by the preponderance of fady (taboos), sacred forests (ala faly), and place names incorporating trees or other natural elements (Jasper and Gardner, 2015). Two groups are entirely dependent on natural ecosystems for their culture and sense of identity: the Mikea of southwest Madagascar are the only ethnicity living a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle and live only in the Mikea Forest (Yount et al., 2001); fishing is central to the identity and way of life of traditional Vezo fishers (Olesen et al., 2015).

Madagascar’s ecosystems also generate cultural ecosystem services for foreign nationals in the form of research, educational, aesthetic, and recreational opportunities. For example, the country is the focus of significant international research and ecotourism activity, the majority of which is centered on natural ecosystems such as forests and shallow seas.

4.1.3 Supporting Services Supporting services such as nutrient recycling and soil formation are often less tangible to rural communities, but these are essential for agriculture, especially tavy agriculture since it relies on nutrient-depleted soils being revitalized during long fallow periods when the land returns to natural forest. Finally, even the smallest forest patches in southern Madagascar provide pollination services required for agricultural production (Bodin et al., 2006).

2 Carbon storage is highly variable in terrestrial forests, being highest in humid sub-montane forests and lowest in spiny forest (among natural vegetation formations, Asner et al., 2012)

4.2 Value of Biodiversity Few of the vast range of provisioning ecosystem services provided by Madagascar’s forests, wetlands, and seas have been quantified or appear in official economic statistics, but they are clearly of immense importance to rural populations. For example, rural households living near forests or wetlands may have all their construction, cooking fuel, and protein needs met entirely from natural ecosystems, without having to spend any money in the formal economy. The few existing studies show that such subsistence uses may generate high values. For example, the value of wildlife provisioning (bushmeat) represented 57 percent of household cash income, on average, for communities around Makira National Park, with hunted areas generating an economic return of US$0.42/ha/year (Golden et al., 2014). Those same communities recognize 241 plant species as medicines, the use of which generates a value of $30-44/household/per year, or 43-63 percent of annual household income (Golden et al., 2011b).

Perhaps the most valuable provisioning services are provided by wood, which provides the majority of domestic fuelwood (the value of which has not been quantified), as well as construction wood and extremely high value timber. Indeed, the illegal felling and export of precious rosewood and ebony (Dalbergia spp. and Diospyros spp.) has been a major cause of forest degradation over the last decade as well as a driver of corruption and political scandal (Randriamalala and Liu, 2010; Waeber et al., 2018). Rosewood is in particularly high demand in China where it is a prized raw material in the traditional furniture industry (Ke and Zhi, 2017). In recent years, the economic boom and rising middle class incomes in China have stimulated the legal and illegal harvesting and trade of Malagasy timber. Today, it may fetch $17,000/tonne, ten times the value of other tropical hardwoods, and illegal shipments worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been made (Waeber et al., 2018). Illegal harvesting of precious hardwoods is threatening the survival of many species in the wild. In addition, several high value animal species are traded legally and illegally, including snake and crocodile skins as well as live radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiata) and ploughshare tortoise (A. yniphora), which are highly prized in the international pet trade. A single ploughshare tortoise is worth more than $10,000 (Castellano et al., 2013), and illegal shipments of both species are regularly seized at Ivato International Airport. The legal export of CITES-listed reptiles is worth $230,000/year, though the value of the illegal trade is likely to be significantly higher (Robinson et al., 2018).

Fisheries also provide provisioning services of high economic value, sustaining a range of traditional (i.e. non-motorized), artisanal, and industrial fisheries (see, for example, USAID, 2018). Industrial fleets consist primarily of tuna longliners (legal European and illegal Asian fleets) and shrimp trawlers (Le Manach et al., 2012), while traditional and artisanal fishers also target sharks, sea cucumbers, crabs, octopus, lobster, and other high value species for export (Cripps et al., 2015; Gardner et al., 2017b; Long, 2017; Oliver et al., 2015). Overall, marine and coastal areas are estimated to generate 50 percent of Madagascar’s national economic wealth (CEPF, 2014), and fisheries exports were valued at $130 million in 2000 (USAID, 2014). Inshore waters are fished by almost 120,000 small-scale and artisanal fishers (Le Manach et al., 2012), and further support the livelihoods of an unknown number of people in supporting services and downstream value chains, therefore playing a critical role in domestic food security.

About 40 percent of Madagascar’s total fisheries landings are thought to be unreported, but catch reconstructions show that domestic fisheries landed 130,000 tons/year in 2008 (of which 72 percent was by small-scale and artisanal subsistence fishers), and foreign fleets landed 80,000 tons (Le Manach et al., 2012). Coastal ecosystems additionally support rapidly growing mariculture industries for resources including seaweed, sea cucumbers, and shrimp. For example, the company AQUALMA produces some of the world’s highest quality farmed shrimp (certified “Label Rouge”), with an international retail value of $20-50 million/year (Didier Fourgon, pers. comm., July 26, 2018).

The value of carbon storage services provided by forests, mangroves, and seagrass beds has been poorly quantified, though several carbon-financed Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) projects have been implemented (Ferguson, 2009). Since 2000, Madagascar has lost 3.27 million ha of tree cover, equivalent to a 19 percent decrease, generating 344 million tons of CO₂ emissions (Global Forest Watch, 2018). At the current (October 29, 2018) European Union Emissions Trading System carbon market price of about €17/ton, this represents about $7 billion worth of emissions over the past 18 years. In 2008, it was estimated that REDD-type projects could generate $72-144 million/year for Madagascar (Hannah et al., 2008). More recent assessments based on the experience of conservation NGOs – including Conservation International, WWF, and WCS – have been more circumspect, pointing out that landscape-scale REDD+ initiatives in Madagascar face significant challenges including weak land use planning and inadequate forest governance (Weatherley-Singh and Gupta, 2017).

Finally, Madagascar’s natural ecosystems generate many millions of dollars annually through cultural services such as research, biodiversity conservation, and tourism. For example, Madagascar has received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and development support during the last three decades, much of it targeting conservation of biodiversity (Horning, 2008; Waeber et al., 2016). Tourism is the country’s second largest foreign exchange earner and was worth $430 million in 2008. About a quarter of tourists visit protected areas, generating $26-29 million/year (Wollenberg et al., 2011), while a significant proportion visit coastal areas, where small industries devoted to marine ecotourism are widespread (e.g. for whale sharks on Nosy Be (Diamant, 2018), humpback whales on Ile Sainte Marie, and coral reefs in many places).

V. Legal Framework Affecting Conservation and Forest Management 5.1 National Laws, Policies, and Strategies 5.1.1 The Constitution The Malagasy constitution was validated by referendum on November 17, 2010. It contains diverse provisions on environment and natural resources:

• In the preamble: “Convinced of the exceptional importance of the wealth of fauna, flora and mineral resources with high specificity with which nature has endowed Madagascar and the importance of preserving it for future generations” and “rational and equitable management of natural resources for development needs of the human being” • “The State guarantees the entrepreneurial freedom within the limits of respect for the general interest, the public order, morality and the environment” (Article 37) • Under Article 141 functions of the government including: “public security, civil defense, the administration, the territorial development, the economic development, the preservation of the environment and the amelioration of the framework of life” are devolved to regional or local authorities with the assistance of the state

Two articles from the 2007 constitution were excluded:

• The possibility for the fokon’olona (village community) to oppose acts that harm the environment (Article 35). • The obligation for anyone to respect the environment (Article 39): “Everyone has the duty to respect the environment. The State, with the participation of the regions, provides protection, conservation and enhancement of the environment through appropriate measures.”

5.1.2 The Environmental Charter The Malagasy Charter of the Environment and its amending texts described by the law N° 90- 033 of 21/12/90, N° 97-012 of June 6, 1997, which actually specified diverse provisions for the implementation of the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) (1990-2010), was revised by the law N°2015-003 of February 19, 2015 through more generic articles and with the inclusion of a specific title for sanctions and new terms and concepts such as sustainable development, climate change, governance, globalization, strategic environmental assessment, community- based organizations, and civil society organizations.

In articles 5 and 7, the revised charter fills the gap in the constitution that legally engages individuals, groups, and the public regarding the environment:

“The environment is a priority concern of the State. Environmental management, including protection, conservation, restoration, valuation and respect for the environment are of general interest. …. Taking into account its transversal, multicentric and multi-actor nature, its good management requires internalization of environmental issues at all levels and by all sectors.” 24

“Any physical or legal person has the right to access information that may have some influence on the environment. For this purpose, any physical or legal person shall have the right to participate in the procedures precedent to the taking of decisions likely to have adverse effects on the environment.”

5.1.3 The National Development Plan (NDP) The NDP covering 2015-2019 considers the environment one of the main issues of the Malagasy economy and society:

“Natural capital and inclusive growth: a wealth with dominant natural capital facing a beginning of exhaustion penalizing future generations”

Axis 5 of the NDP “Valuation of Natural Capital and Strengthening of Disaster Risk Resilience” is based on the observation that the country’s economic growth is highly dependent on the environmental and natural capital situation. Indeed, because of Madagascar’s unique role in global biodiversity conservation, the preservation and enhancement of its natural capital is a major development stake for Madagascar.

5.1.4 Laws/Regulations The Mise en Compatibilité des Investissements avec l’Environnement (MECIE) Decree No 99- 954 of December 15, 1999 and amended by the Decree No. 2004-167 of February 3, 2004 defined the regulations (environmental assessment and monitoring) related to the compatibility of investments to environment. The 1999 Decree asked the public and private investors to conduct environmental impact assessments when investments were likely to result in an environmental impact. The 2004 Decree clarified the types and procedures of environmental impact assessment depending on location and scale.

Law N° 2015-005 on protected area management (Code de Gestion des Aires Protégées or COAP) of February 26, 2015 aims to fulfill the commitments of the Durban Vision 2003 and to strengthen the commitments made by Malagasy authorities at the World Parks Congress in Sydney in November 2014 on the definitive protection of these PAs before May 15, 2015 as well as tripling of the number of marine protected areas and integrating them into a harmonious global environmental landscape. The revision of the 2001 law was necessary to address the principles developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to:

• Enable modern management of protected areas; • Ensure openness to new types of actors and modes of management; and • Enhance natural capital and promote the sustainable use of natural resources for poverty reduction.

The Mining Code N° 99-022 of August 20, 1999 modified by the law N° 2005-021 aims to improve the country’s revenues and the global environment of the sector. A project to overhaul the mining code has been launched since 2015. The report of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) for 2014 indicates that the extractive sector represented 4 percent of GDP with three large mining companies (QMM [QIT Madagascar Minerals], Ambatovy, and KRAOMA) in operation.

5.1.5 Other Laws and Decrees • Decree N° 2005-600 of September 27, 2005, setting the terms and conditions for the transfer of inland fisheries resources • Decree N° 2005-601 of September 27, 2005, fixing the conditions and the modalities of transfer of management of the pastoral resources • Law No 2005-018 of October 17, 2005, on the international trade of species of wild fauna and flora • Law N° 2005-019 of October 17, 2005, laying down the principles governing the status of the land • Decree N° 2010-137 of March 23, 2010, regulating the integrated management of coastal and marine areas • Decree N° 2010/141 of March 24, 2010, prohibiting the cutting, exploitation, and export of rosewood and ebony • Ordinance N° 2011-001 of August 8, 2011, on the regulation and repression of offenses relating to rosewood and ebony • Law No 2015-053 of February 3, 2016, on the Fisheries and Aquaculture Code • Law N° 2015-056 of February 3, 2016, on the creation of the special court on the prosecution of offenses relating to rosewood and ebony • Law N° 2016-021 of July 1, 2016, on the Pole Anti-Corruption (PAC) • Law No 2017-046 of December 12, 2017, on registration and titled land ownership

5.2 International Agreements Madagascar has ratified more than ten international conventions related to the use and conservation of biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was ratified on March 4, 1996 (Law 1995-013 and Decree 1995-695). The purpose of this convention is to conserve biological diversity through the sustainable use of its components and a fair distribution of benefits. It does not directly affect the exploitation or protection of species, but it provides a suitable framework in the National Strategy for Biodiversity Management. The Ramsar Convention, ratified in 1998, promotes the wise use of wetlands but does not provide information at the species level (Law 1998-003 and Decree 1998-261). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) deals exclusively with species threatened by international trade but does not control national farms for household consumption or other uses. It was ratified on August 16, 1975 (Order 1975-014). The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) was ratified on January 1, 2007; its aim is to protect migratory species throughout their territory. For species listed in Annex 1 of this Convention, the signatory parties endeavor to prohibit taking in the wild but may authorize collection for scientific purposes or traditional use for subsistence. The species listed in Annex 2 are threatened to some extent and their survival depends on international agreements for their conservation and management. Madagascar has signed the Agreement on Marine Turtles, Dugongs, and Birds of Prey and the Agreement on the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds of Africa – Eurasia.

The Nairobi Convention on the Protection, Management, and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the East African Region was signed in Nairobi in 1985 and ratified by

Madagascar in 1998 (Law 1998-004 and Decree 1998-260). Signatory parties undertake to protect the species listed the three appendices. The Algiers Convention (1968) was ratified by Madagascar in 1970 (Law 1970-004). It commits the parties to protect all species of Class A and allow hunting or collection of Class B species subject to authorization.

The Ramsar convention entered into force in Madagascar on January 25, 1999; Madagascar currently has 20 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites), with a surface area of 2,094,911 ha.

In addition:

• World Heritage Convention ratified on July 19, 1983 • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed on June 10, 1992 and ratified on June 2, 1999, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change signed on April 22, 2016 and ratified on September 21, 2016 • United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification signed on June 17, 1994 and ratified by the law N° 96-023 of September 4, 1996 and the Decree N° 97-772 of May 10, 1997 • Basel convention on Hazardous Wastes ratified on June 2, 1999 • Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer ratified on November 7, 1996

5.3 Government Agencies In April 2014, the GOM established the Ministry of Environment, Ecology, and Forests (MEEF) combining units that previously sat in different ministries and departments. The MEEF has decentralized units in each of the 22 regions of Madagascar led by regional directors of environment, ecology, and forests (Directions Régionales – Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Ecologie, et Forêts – DREEF). These units are further subdivided based upon function. Additionally, there are several parastatal agencies attached to the general secretary of MEEF.

The Ministry of Fisheries (Ministère des Ressources Halieutiques et de la Pêche – MRHP) is responsible for the management of marine ecosystems and resources but there is significant overlap with MEEF in some areas. For example, the conservation of mangroves straddles both ministries since MEEF is ostensibly responsible for the trees while MRHP is responsible for aquatic resources. Particualrly at the local level, there is considerable confusion regarding the respective roles of these agencies.

5.3.1 ONE (Office National de l’Environnement) The ONE was created in 1990 and is governed by decree N° 2008-600 of June 23, 2008. This is the one stop shop for environmental monitoring in Madagascar. The ONE’s mission is now focused mainly on environmental assessment (EA) and no longer includes population, health, and environment programs. Biodiversity offsets are an important aspect of the work. ONE does not undertake the EAs but reviews and approves the documentation that is prepared by the proponents of investments (including donors). Proponents pay 0.5 percent of the total capital investment to the ONE to cover the cost of the review. These revenues are essentially what is keeping ONE running. The payments were introduced as a provision of the MECIE legislation

27 that was developed under USAID’s Knowledge and Effective Policies for Environmental Management project in the mid-1990s. ONE wants to modify the MECIE to take ecosystem services into account (Heritiana Randriamiarana, pers. comm., July 10, 2018).

The tableau de bord (the environmental dashboard that summarizes the state of the environment across the country) is being updated, adding new information and deleting old or irrelevant information. The focus areas are biodiversity, forests/soil, climate change, marine resources, water resources, and urban environment.

5.3.2 Madagascar National Parks (MNP) MNP is the organization responsible for the management of Madagascar’s 50 national parks (2,655,067 ha) out of 122 protected areas (7 million ha). Founded in 1990, this private law association was recognized as a public utility by Decree N° 91-592 of December 4, 1991. Before this new name, the organization was called the National Association for the Management of Protected Areas. (ANGAP). Totally subsidized by donors at its origin, MNP revenues and operations are now funded: 30 percent from entrance fees, concessions, etc.; 30 percent from foundations such as the Fondation pour les Aires Protégées et la Biodiversité de Madagascar (FAPBM); and 40 percent from individual donors. The director general acknowledged that MNP needs a comprehensive business plan to be completely transparent regarding operations, budget, etc.

5.3.3 Other GOM Agencies • ANAE: National Association for Environmental Actions • FANALAMANGA: Parastatal company in charge of 60,000 ha of reforestation • SNGF: National Forest Seeds Storage • CNFEREF (Centre National de Formation, d’Etudes et de Recherche en Environnement et Forestier): Morondava Centre for Studies and Research on Environment/Forests • OLEP: Organe de Lutte contre les Evenements de Pollution (unit fighting marine oil pollution) • ONESF: Observatoire National de l’Envorpnnement Secteur Forestier (National Observatory for Environment and Forests) • CSP (Centre de Surveillance des Pêches) • SAGE: Service d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement

A government of consensus, led by the new prime minister, Christian Ntsay, was installed in June 2018 to mainly prepare and organize the upcoming presidential election. There are 31 ministries in the Government of Madagascar, and most have a unit with an environmental focus. The ministries most involved in environmental matters are:

• Ministry of Environment, Ecology, and Forests • Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock • Ministry of Mining and Oil • Ministry of National Defense, mainly the Gendarmerie State Secretary • Ministry of Land Development and Land Services (MATSF – Ministère d’Aménagement du Territoire et des Services Fonciers)

• Ministry of Justice • Ministry of Interior and Decentralization • Ministry of Energy • Ministry of Water • Ministry of Tourism

5.4 Conservation Initiatives Marc Ravalomanana, then-president of Madagascar made the following declaration, now called the Durban Vision, during the IUCN Park Congress in South Africa in 2003: “… I want to share with you our resolution to increase the Madagascar surface of protected areas from 1.7 million hectares to 6 million hectares in the next five years, with the new parks conforming to the IUCN categories of protected areas.”

A decade later, during the Sydney World Park Congress (WPC) in 2014, President Hery Rajaonarimampianina committed to triple the country’s marine protected areas and establish a legal framework to protect community management of fishing grounds, heralding the announcement of the country’s largest locally managed marine protected area, in the Barren Isles archipelago. This Sydney promise is still a work in progress and includes adding new terrestrial PAs as well as locally managed marine areas to the country’s network.

Madagascar is aiming to protect 17 percent of the country’s surface area (including marine areas). The area protected is currently about 12 percent (7.5 million ha), still more than the 10 percent promised by the Durban vision (Gerard Rambeloarisoa, FAPBM, pers. comm., July 12, 2018). Several international donor organizations are actively engaged in the process of identifying and gazetting new protected areas (marine as well as terrestrial) that will bring the total area under protection close to the target.

Management of marine and coastal resources is hampered by a lack of legislative clarity regarding ministerial jurisdictions. For example, although the country’s protected area network is administered by the Biodiversity Conservation/Protected Area System Directorate (DBC/SAP) within MEEF, marine PAs fall under the jurisdiction of the MRHP (Gardner et al., 2018), specifically the Direction de l’Environnement et de la Valorisation des Ressources Halieutiques (DEVRH). Similarly, mangroves are governed by a complex legal framework involving forestry, fisheries, land planning, and environmental laws (Jones et al., 2016).

The growth of community-based fisheries management is hampered by the lack of a specific legal framework for LMMAs. While some are recognized as protected areas under the COAP, and some mangroves areas have been legally transferred to local community user associations under community forest management legislation (GELOSE and GCF), most LMMAs lack formal legal recognition (although their associated rules, in the form of dina, may be ratified in a district court to attain recognition as bylaws (Andriamalala and Gardner, 2010). The MIHARI network and conservation NGOs have been working toward developing specific legislation for LMMAs for several years (Kitty Brayne, Blue Ventures, pers. comm., 2018).

Madagascar’s government is increasingly recognizing the value of marine resource management and seeking to enshrine this in policy. President Rajaonarimampianina’s

29 commitment to triple the coverage of marine protected areas (the “Sydney Vision”) has spurred the development of a legal framework for community-based fisheries management (Blue Ventures, 2014). Highlighting the tremendous progress made in the country’s local marine conservation movement over the past decade, Rajaonarimampianina noted: “We have positive models by which to chart our course. We look to successful examples of locally managed marine areas, of which Madagascar is proud to be a pioneer in the Western Indian Ocean region.” In July 2018, the MRHP pledged to establish an exclusive fishing zone for small-scale fishers around Madagascar’s coasts (MIHARI, 2018).

Two Malagasy funding entities – FAPBM and Tany Meva – are devoted to supporting conservation efforts throughout the country. FABM focusses exclusively on supporting PAs whereas Tany Meva works mainly outside the PA system. There is little coordination across the two organizations.

Created in 2005, the mission of FAPBM is to contribute to sustainable human development through the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. And to carry out this mission, the foundation invests its capital in financial markets and uses the revenues generated to finance protected areas. In 2017, FAPBM funded 36 protected areas covering 3,275,348 ha. These sites, which cover one-third of the surface of the protected areas system of Madagascar, are managed by Madagascar National Parks, Asity, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Peregrine Fund, Missouri Botanical Garden (MBG), Biodiversity Conservation Madagascar (BCM), Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur les Primates de Madagascar (GERP), Fanamby, SAGE, and MEEF. They would like to start financing LMMAs but these are not currently covered by the organization’s mandate. For now, FAPBM is focused on terrestrial PAs, though there are a few marine areas involved. FAPBM is also managing the Plan de Sauvegarde Sociale et Environnementale (PSSE – a social safeguards plan) funds from the World Bank for Conservation International (CI), WCS, and MNP. The new approach is to fund through PA managers (in permanent contact with communities even after projects) rather than through promoters who simply deliver and leave.

Created in 1996 with assistance from USAID, the Tany Meva Foundation (Tany Meva) is the first Malagasy environmental foundation recognized as being a public asset. With capitalization of $3.6 million, Tany Meva is a sustainable financing institution for environmental projects. Since its creation, it has supported about 2,000 projects with financing of MGA 22 billion ($6,875,000) distributed across Madagascar’s 22 regions. As a community environmental foundation, Tany Meva works to improve the wellbeing of households and to protect the country’s exceptional natural and cultural heritage. It supports the sound management of ecosystem goods and services through locally targetted financing programs.

VI. Threats to Biodiversity and Forests 6.1 Direct Threats to Biodiversity (Terrestrial, Aquatic, and Marine) and Forests Madagascar faces significant environmental challenges such as deforestation, drainage and degradation of wetlands, soil and coastal erosion, depletion of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, biodiversity loss, and climate change. In addition to the loss of heritage value of the world’s natural legacy, these threats have a very strong impact on the economic and social development of the country.

Threats to the forest and biodiversity vary considerably from one region to another and sometimes from one community to another. Additionally, levels of pressure alternate and succeed each other, depending on political and economic crises and the dynamics of natural resources markets. Understanding the threat situation is therefore critical to developing effective mitigation measures. Each type of threat will be analyzed regarding the two main environmental components targeted: forests and biodiversity (terrestrial, wetlands and marine). Forest degradation and fragmentation has a detrimental effect on biodiversity even if portions of formerly forested landscapes remain intact. Schüßler et al. (2018) found that lemur species diversity and population density decrease with the size of forests and their degree of disturbance.

6.1.1 Forests and Terrestrial Biodiversity Conversion to agriculture. Deforestation is the principal threat to biodiversity because the majority of Madagascar’s endemic species are strictly dependent on forests (or wetlands) and cannot survive in degraded environments (Irwin et al., 2010). Shifting cultivation (tavy or hatsake) is practiced widely, though the objectives may differ region to region. In the east, tavy is used primarily for the cultivation of rainfed rice on hillsides, while in the west and south, the main crop is maize. These traditional practices may have been sustainable in the past when population densities were low and fallow periods in between cultivation sufficient to allow forest recovery, but they have been the principal cause of deforestation in recent decades (Scales, 2014). Deforestation has averaged 1 percent per year since the 1950s. The rate has increased since the coup of 2009 (Petersen et al., 2015) and reached its peak in 2017 when 510,000 ha of tree cover were lost (Global Forest Watch, 2018). The eastern rainforest has been the most affected over the longer term, but in recent years the west and southwest have suffered the highest deforestation rates (Harper et al., 2007; ONE et al., 2013) (see Table 2).

Provinces Forest Area (ha) Area Lost (ha) Percentage Lost Antsiranana (north) 4,385,678 379,038 8.60 Toamasina (northeast) 7,124,764 895,228 12.56 Fianarantsoa (east and southeast) 10,078,523 349,987 3.47 Mahajanga (west and northwest) 15,167,263 321,020 2.12 Toliara (southwest and south) 16,403,093 385,280 2.34 Table 2: Loss of tree cover (30 percent canopy density) between 2001 and 2015 (Global Forest Watch, 2018)

Fuel wood and charcoal: The domestic fuelwood market is a major pressure on forests since 95 percent of Madagascar’s population relies on wood or charcoal for cooking. Annual consumption of wood was about 22 million m3 in the early 2000s, including 17.6 million m3 for wood energy (Meyers et al., 2004). Colonial-era plantations of fast-growing, non-native species such as eucalyptus and pines were established in some regions, but native forests still supply about 90 percent of Madagascar’s fuelwood needs. The deficit in “sustainable” wood products will reach 3.9 million m3 in 2025; to fill it, a total of 250,000 ha of new plantations will be needed. Reforestation efforts and fuel-efficient stove projects have been widely implemented but few have achieved the scale needed to stem the demand for cheap energy. Madagascar imports more than $400 million of fuel oil annually, while only a fraction (150 MW) of the country’s 7,800 MW hydroelectric potential, or limitless solar potential, have been developed.

Timber and precious wood: Wood is the most common raw material for construction and the manufacture of furniture and other products (boats, carts, etc.). Local communities not only need wood to cover their basic needs, but timber is also an important source of income. Madagascar needs about 4.1 million m3 of wood for lumber, furniture, and services, yet the 2 million ha of natural forests outside protected areas and the 270,000 ha of pine and eucalyptus plantations are insufficient in the face of growing demand (Meyers et al., 2004). There is currently a moratorium on commercial exports of all timber other than pine but known stockpiles of cut wood are enormous – including an estimated 500,000 tonnes of rosewood in 2011 (Waeber et al., 2018) – and native forests are still being exploited. The Masoala and Marojejy National Parks are on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger specifically because of this phenomenon. One thousand five hundred containers of rosewood logs were illegally exported in 2010 and 2011 with the complicity of the government. The trade has been suspended by CITES until further notice, but loopholes remain owing to the difficulty identifying the species (many are still not formally described)3 and the ever-changing supply chains.

Fire: Fire is traditionally widely used to clear land for planting crops, or to spur the growth of new grazing in savannah areas prior to the rainy season. Uncontrolled burning of grasslands and woodlands can be extremely destructive (Bigot et al., 2018), as it prevents forest regeneration and may penetrate the forest edge. They also exacerbate soil erosion and as much as 400 tonnes/ha/year of topsoil can be lost. This in turn leads to silting of rice paddies and storage dams and has a detrimental impact on mangroves and coral reefs. Annual losses from fires are estimated at $450 million.

Mining: Madagascar is extremely mineral rich but there is great overlap between remaining forests and areas of mining interest. While many large mining operations (for example, QMM Rio Tinto [mining ilmenite in Fort-Dauphin], Ambatovy [cobalt and nickel near Moramanga], and KRAOMA [mining chromite west of Lac Alaotra]) have legal permits and follow accepted environmental and social best practice, these practices are not as common with many other companies that obtained their operating licenses during the 2009-2013 political transition. These include TREM (Tantalus Rare Earth Madagascar in Ampasindava), Wuhan Iron & Steel

3 The GOM has proposed to pay off alleged owners of illegal wood so that the government has access to the stockpiles for audit and disposition. The “Stockpile Verification Mechanism and Business Plan” was presented by Madagascar to the Standing Committee of the CITES at its 70th meeting, and subsequently rejected (October 2018).

Company (WISCO – iron ore in Soalala), Mainland Mining (ilmenite along the east coast), Toliara Sands (ilmenite in the southwest), and Chinese companies mining gold (near Soamahamanina, Betsiaka, and Manampatrana). Many of these locations have become hotbeds of tension with the local population and Malagasy civil society organizations that support local rights and fight government corruption. The mining sector is heavily dominated by informal smallholders. The latter, which are beyond all control, “divert” revenues of about $700 million for 500,000 families according to estimates of civil society. At the same time, the rush to small mines is causing considerable damage to the environment. The ONE – which provides environmental permits across all sectors – does not have the resources to monitor compliance with the requirements of approved environmental assessments.

There is also a major illegal, unregulated, or artisanal mining sector that damages the environment, flaunts worker health and safety, and evades fiscal requirements. Artisanal mining is marked by major rushes and often involves stripping an area of natural vegetation cover as well as topsoil, and installing workers who use the natural resources of the surrounding forest to provide for their needs (construction materials, fuel, food, etc.) (Cook & Healey, 2012). The permanent incursion into the protected area of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor (CAZ) is a glaring example. Lack of a comprehensive vision, poor governance, and the uncontrolled or illegal expansion of mines have made the extractive sector a real threat to biodiversity and forests in Madagascar.

Poaching and trafficking in bushmeat and wildlife: Poverty and hunger lead many rural Malagasy to exploit bushmeat for subsistence or to generate income (see e.g. Golden, 2009; Razafimanahaka et al., 2012; Reuter et al., 2016). This has led to the disappearance of lemurs and other large species from many remaining forests. In some parts of the country such as the vicinity of Andasibe, there are organized networks that source bushmeat for wealthy buyers in towns and cities. The upsurge in precious wood trafficking since 2009 has highlighted the impunity of all those that are implicated and has emboldened corruption and trafficking in other wildlife species. The trafficking of endemic tortoises and turtles from Madagascar to Asia has increased significantly (Gerety, 2018). In Madagascar, live radiated tortoises (Astrochelys radiata) sell for as much as $250 each and ploughshare tortoises (A. yniphora) for more than $600. Both are critically endangered and have undergone recent catastrophic population declines (Castellano et al., 2013).

The collection of non-woody plants: In addition to exploiting woody species, local communities also traditionally use various plants for their domestic needs including food, fiber, medicine, and crafts. The level of threat depends on the demand for the resources and capacity of the forest ecosystems to regenerate what is harvested. Some species are specifically targeted for commercial purposes: for example, tree ferns of the genus Cyathea that are used for making flower pots that are particularly suited for orchids.

6.1.2 Biodiversity of Wetlands Conversion to agriculture: Rice is the staple food in Madagascar and its cultivation has very high water requirements, so wetlands are prime areas for conversion to agriculture. Valley bottoms, marshes, and shallow lakes are cleared of vegetation and drainage systems are put in place to

33 manage seasonal water requirements. As a result, most of Madagascar’s wetlands have been converted, and few pristine areas remain. It has been estimated (Bamford et al., 2017), that 80 percent of Madagascar’s wetlands have been negatively affected by development activities.

Chemical pollution: The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture is still not widespread in Madagascar outside of large, commercial farms. However, other chemicals used in the mining industry and even domestic products are significant pollutants of some waterways. For example, some streams and rivers have very high phosphorus levels caused by detergents, and mining operations can lead to poisoning of aquatic species downstream of locations where cyanide and mercury are used to treat gold ores.

High sediment loads: Soil erosion resulting from land clearance for agriculture or mining operations can lead to high levels of turbidity in streams and rivers, which has a devastating impact on aquatic fauna and flora (Benstead et al. 2003). The sediment eventually settles on and smothers coral reefs when the rivers arrive at the coast, greatly reducing their productivity (Maina et al., 2012; Sheridan et al., 2015).

Overfishing: Overfishing is encountered in all of Madagascar’s major lakes. Endemic species were once the basis of important fisheries, but all of these are now commercially extinct due to overfishing, and inland fisheries are now based on introduced species (Benstead et al., 2003). Fishing regulations are very rarely respected: illegal gear catches even the smallest of fish, and seasonal fishing restrictions or no-take zones are not respected.

Invasive species: Wetlands are particularly sensitive to disturbance by non-native organisms that can quickly become invasive when native species are “naïve” to them. Many invasions are underway and are becoming increasingly difficult to control: water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Lammers et al., 2015), non-endemic crayfish (Procambarus spp.) (Jones et al., 2009), the Asian common toad (Duttaphrynus melanostictus), and fungal infections of amphibians (chytridiomycosis) (Bletz et al., 2015) are serious threats to the native fauna and flora found in the wetlands of Madagascar.

6.1.3 Marine Biodiversity Overfishing and destructive fishing: Overfishing and the use of destructive fishing techniques probably affect all marine fisheries, though few data are available. Total reported landings of wild-caught shrimp decreased by 40 percent between 2003 and 2008 (Le Manach et al., 2012), for example, and populations of sharks and sea cucumbers have declined precipitously in most areas of the west coast in the last two decades (Cripps et al., 2015; Cripps and Gardner, 2016). The use of destructive methods such as shrimp trawling, gleaning (which damages reefs through trampling), poison fishing, and beach seining damage habitats and thus undermine the productivity of associated fisheries (Andrefouet et al., 2013; Andriamalala and Gardner, 2010). Mangrove ecosystems are threatened primarily by timber harvesting and charcoal production, as well as conversion to agriculture and aquaculture (Jones et al., 2014; Scales et al., 2017).

The globalization of seafood markets and opening of lucrative Asian and European markets for products such as sea cucumbers, shark fin, and octopus has transformed coastal economies from subsistence-based to trade-based over the last three decades and has stimulated

34 overfishing of resources not previously targeted (Cripps and Gardner, 2016; Iida, 2005; Muttenzer, 2015; USAID, 2016a). Itinerant traders frequent most communities all along the coasts of Madagascar and will buy any products that have a market, including wild-caught sea cucumber, sea horses, and black coral, as well as farmed sea cucumber and algae. In addition, the number of fishers in coastal areas is increasing rapidly, driven primarily by demographic growth resulting from extremely high fertility rates (Harris et al., 2012) and migration to the coasts due to climate-related agricultural failure and insecurity in inland areas (Bruggemann et al., 2012; Chaboud, 2006).

The effects of climate and environmental change: Coral reefs are threatened by coral bleaching associated with sea temperature anomalies (McClanahan et al., 2009; Popova et al., 2016); for example, bleaching triggered by high temperatures in the Mozambique Channel caused 30 percent of coral to die following the 1998 El Nino Southern Oscillation. Ocean acidification is a further threat to many marine species that depend on building calcareous skeletal structures and shells and is also caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Less than 25 percent of the Toliara/Ranobe coral reef in southwest Madagascar remains intact – this was the fourth largest coral reef system on earth. In addition, sedimentation caused by deforestation of inland watersheds (Maina et al., 2012; Sheridan et al., 2015) is compromising coastal ecosystems. Rising sea levels and more intense rainfall events exacerbate inland flooding, erosion, and sedimentation that in turn lead to environmental changes that harm coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangroves – all of which are important ecosystems for marine species.

6.2 Threat Factors (Drivers) Threats to Madagascar’s forests and biodiversity are legion but many are driven by underlying factors that may not be immediately evident. To reduce or mitigate these threats, it is essential to identify the root causes. Many are of political, economic, or societal origin; others stem from climate change. In most cases, however, they are transversal to all these categories. Some are common to most least-developed countries, but others are specific to Madagascar. Conservation initiatives that tackle the threats themselves without addressing the drivers are unlikely to be effective in the medium to long term.

6.2.1 Demography With a population growth rate of 2.68 percent and a population doubling time of about 20 years, Madagascar has the 21st fastest growing population in the world (World Factbook, 2018). This stems in part from the inadequate availability of family planning services in rural areas. Population growth has a direct effect on the exploitation of natural resources, as each additional mouth to feed increases the pressure on natural resources when technical progress fails to deliver improved agricultural productivity or economic alternatives. Moreover, Malagasy society has a strongly cultural link to the land and to agriculture, and tradition requires that all heads of household must be landowners. Each new household needs to be invested in land and often the only option is to convert forests to farmland.

6.2.2 High Dependence on Natural Resources Rural and urban populations are highly dependent on natural resources for cooking fuel, construction materials, food, and medicines. Dependence on harvesting low-value natural

35 resources for commerce can form a poverty trap because incomes are not sufficient to lift users out of poverty and is usually also unsustainable. However, a lack of education, infrastructure, and employment opportunities mean that populations in rural areas often have few livelihood options other than using natural resources. Climate change is likely to increase dependence on natural resources in the future, as these are a “safety net” in case of crop failure or another emergency (Gardner et al., 2015).

Case Study 4 in Annex 8 describes how overfishing and natural resource depletion are compriomising traditional livelihoods along the south-west coast of Madagascar.

6.2.3 Lack of Education and Awareness With a youth literacy rate of about 65 percent (during the period from 2008 to 2012) and a net rate secondary school enrollment of about 24 percent (2008 to 2012) (UNICEF, 2018), Madagascar lags in delivering adequate education. This has direct and indirect impacts on the environment: lack of awareness of the economic value of ecosystem services and biodiversity, an absence of the values needed to conserve natural assets, and a paucity of knowledge and skills required to wean people off natural resource dependence. Most Malagasy are focused on meeting their immediate needs without considering the state or civil society’s longer-term responsibilities to future generations and to people that are disadvantaged or vulnerable. Changing people’s appreciation of the role that the natural environment plays in sustaining economic development requires a basic understanding of the natural sciences. Education on the likely impact of changing climate and weather conditions is also needed to provide people with a better understanding on potential adaptation strategies and better coping strategies that reduce the current over-reliance on finite natural resources.

6.2.4 Migration Especially in the south and southwest of Madagascar, the population is very mobile because it is historically accustomed to respond to changing environmental conditions or to cope with local shortages of resources through migration (Cripps and Gardner, 2016; Jones et al., 2018). In recent years, drought-related food crises have driven major migratory movements of farmers from the south, southeast, and southwest of the country to the Menabe and Boeny regions (OIM, 2018). From 2013 to 2015, it is estimated that as many as 200,000 migrants arrived in the Menabe region each year (IOM, 2018). Some of the movements are temporary – addressing immediate needs for food or employment – but others are longer-term patterns of resettlement in areas where land is available for agriculture (Mimi Gaudreau, pers. comm., July 25, 2018). Migrants typically head to resource frontiers, such as the forest or coast, because land and resources there are freely available. However, this places their livelihoods in frequent conflict with conservation goals, and migrants are widely seen as causing greater environmental problems (through shifting cultivation, artisanal mining, and destructive fishing) than resident populations (Cripps and Gardner, 2016; Jones et al., 2018).

6.2.5 Weak Governance and Lack of a Clear Spatial Vision and Support for Decentralization Despite the “valuation of natural capital” mentioned in Axis 5 of the NDP (National Development Plan), strengthening and empowering the GOM institutions responsible for protecting the

36 environment and natural resources has never been a priority for the nation. For example, the ONE and MNP have never been allocated adequate domestic resources, and the funding for the agencies responsible for forests (MEEF) and fisheries (MRHP) has never exceeded 2 percent of the national budget. Between 1999 and 2011, the GOM’s budget allocations for the environment sector saw a progressive decline from about 0.9 percent of GDP to about 0.1 percent (World Bank, 2013a).

The law on decentralization was promulgated in 1994 and strengthened in 2014, but the authorities and resources allocated to the 1,695 communes and 22 regions have never been adequate. The amount allocated to the decentralized communities has never exceeded 5 percent of the national budget. This asymmetry perpetuates regional inequalities – particularly access to basic social services – which, in turn, leads to social and economic stagnation as well as widespread frustration (Morisset, 2010). Despite a policy of decentralization affirmed by law, deconcentrated technical service agencies and decentralized local authorities often lack the means to effectively apply rules relating to natural resource use or participate actively in conservation efforts and the management of natural resources. To be effective, actions must be built on the will and support of civil society and the organizations that represent civil society. Rural communities grouped together under the administrative jurisdiction of the fokontany (village) cannot meet their responsibilities under environmental protection laws when they must first ensure the survival of their own families. Often, they do not have the organizational capacity and resources necessary to conserve biodiversity and the other natural resources upon which they depend.

Developing a common vision for sustainable development and sound management of natural resources must begin with a strategic assessment of the role the environment plays in the social and economic wellbeing of each region and the whole country. Some regions have made significant investments in developing their SRAT (Schéma Régional d’Aménagement du Territoire – Regional Land Use Plans) but these cannot be operationalized without comprehensive, multisectoral, and multi-stakeholder engagement as well as political will at the national level to facilitate the process.

6.2.6 Weak Law Enforcement One of the most disastrous manifestations of these weaknesses and absence of genuine decentralization lies at the judicial level. The gendarmerie and judiciary do not have the means to apply the laws that protect the environment and natural resources. Corruption is rampant. Impunity and weak law enforcement dominate the management of natural resources at all levels, throughout the country. Gore et al. (2013) found that many people in Madagascar – poor and rich alike – do not regard breaking environmental rules as “true” crimes. Political elites and high-ranking military officers impose their will in their local fiefdoms (as in Menabe, Sava, MaMaBaie, Fort-Dauphin, Soalala, Toliara, etc.). The informal sector dominates the economy, and natural resources are sold off by powerful elites. Environmental or human-right activists have been prosecuted and DREEF offices have been burnt by people frustrated with government officials’ attempts to enforce the law.

Case Study 3 in Annex 8 describes some of the challenges enforcement of wildlife trafficking laws in the face of strong international demand for rare species. The high prices that traffickers are willing to pay for species such as the endemic radiated and ploughshare tortoises emboldens poachers even when penalties are severe.

6.2.7 Corruption and Lack of Trust in Institutions In recent years – particularly the past decade – corruption has poisoned institutions at all levels and is driving many of the threats to biodiversity and sound management of natural resources. Several international donors are now funding civil society organizations directly rather than risking financial mismanagement by government agencies. One of the outcomes has been disengagement of the state from the environmental sector – presumably because the “easy money” has become less available. In the medium term, however, there is a genuine threat that government will highjack revenues that are being generated through improved management of environmental assets – for example, national parks, payment for ecosystem services (PES) initiatives (including REDD+) and private sector investment in tourism.

6.2.8 Corruption and “Debt-Trap Diplomacy” Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for 2017 ranks Madagascar among the most corrupt countries in the world (155th out of 180 countries reporting). This ranking is worse than that during the period of political crisis (2009-2013) and closely parallels acceleration in the rate of deforestation and anecdotal evidence of accelerating rates of poaching and wildlife trafficking. Corruption at all levels means that environmental laws are rarely, if ever, fully applied against powerful foresters, fishers, miners, or loggers operating illegally. A lack of confidence in judicial process and authorities often leads to people taking the law into their own hands.

Owing to the very high levels of corruption, the government is unable to generate enough revenue to make investments that will improve the country’s economic and social prospects: investments in infrastructure, education, employment, etc. Tribal difference and family nepotism combine to politicize all aspects of public administration, leading to rent-seeking, a lack of law enforcement, and short-sighted development initiatives that are often ill-conceived. Communities are split by political allegiances and no longer trust local and regional authorities. Purported cases of foreign interests holding GOM officials for ransom – providing government- to-government financing in exchange for access to land or mineral resources – are common.4

6.2.9 Political Instability and Divisiveness Since the country’s independence, Madagascar has never seen a civil war. Nevertheless, the country has experienced frequent political turmoil (1971-1972, 1975, 1982, 1991, 2001, 2009)

4 Ambassador Mark Green (USAID Administrator) –July 30, 2018: “It is impossible to talk about the future of the Indo-Pacific region, and America’s role there, without acknowledging the proverbial elephant in the room. Other powers – and other interests – are reaching out as well, and not just China and not just in Asia. While we strive to promote independence and self- reliance, they offer a very different bargain. One that is very often more enticing in the short-term, but one that we both know will exact a heavy price in the years ahead. Let’s be clear: non-capitalist powers are looking to buy influence and lock up access to strategic resources. They offer easy money to countries, cash up front, but these funds come often with disturbing strings attached: unsustainable debt, decreased transparency, restrictions on market economics, and the loss of control of the natural resources. In essence, they offer a mortgaged future. America’s Indo-Pacific strategy offers our partners an enterprise-driven future – and private enterprise is after all the greatest known to man for lifting lives and building communities.”

38 that has progressively impoverished the population, and undermined systems of government oversight, management, and planning, destroying much of the nation’s natural heritage. In 2009, a coup plunged Madagascar into a five-year period of instability. During periods of crisis, political continuity is broken, and the trust of international donors is lost, implying a period of being cut-off from foreign aid. It is during these periods of political instability that illegal exploitation of natural resources accelerates, and export permits are issued with impunity.

6.2.10 – The Foreign Aid Policy As with many least developed countries, Madagascar is dependent on the policies put in place by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Grants and loans are provided to the government on the condition that reforms are enacted. The reforms are zealously respected by the Republic of Madagascar, which has some of the most comprehensive and binding environmental legislation in the world. The loans are disbursed but the new policies, laws, and regulations are rarely implemented. The state is caught in the debt trap: required to repay the previous loans with interest and forced to take on new debt supported by international institutions that offer guarantees to banks for fear of seeing reversals to any progress that has been made.

The donor community’s efforts to conserve Madagascar’s natural heritage and biodiversity have been the subject of several detailed assessments and reviews (for example, Freudenberger, 2010; Corson, 2016; Waeber et al., 2016; Wilmé and Waeber, 2017). The authors have blamed the apparent failings of international efforts on diverse factors: the disconnect between conservation efforts and local development needs; siloed programming that can do more harm than good; the lack of Malagasy political will to enforce laws or tackle corruption; and an inability to find solutions to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss that are not dependent on continuous financial support from the international community. Successive governments have been quick to accept foreign aid and loans from multilateral banks with little heed paid to the implications of donor dependence and debt.

6.2.11 Climate Change The current and future effects of climate change are difficult to measure and evaluate, but they are already widely felt. Climate change will certainly exacerbate some of the threats and drivers described above: changes in temperature and rainfall will alter habitats and force some species to relocate to more suitable areas (if they exist); changes in seawater temperatures and sea level rise will have negative impacts on some species but may benefit others; and changes in hydrological process will affect aquatic species that are already threatened by other factors (Hannah et al., 2008; Busch et al., 2012). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2018) concludes that with warming of 1.5°C, marine species will migrate to higher latitudes and the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture at lower latitudes will decline. Coral reefs will be especially badly hit: declining by 70-90 percent at 1.5°C of warming with close to total loss if global temperatures rise further. Critically, high exposure and sensitivity to climate change will also affect the human population, through coastal flooding, drought, and other natural disasters, health crises, changing weather patterns that disrupt the agricultural calendar, and so on. This will likely reduce the viability of existing livelihoods and thereby accelerate the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, which people will turn to as a safety net.

The adaptive capacity of many rural households and farming and fishing communities in Madagascar is very low (Westerman et al., 2012; Harvey et al., 2014). A recent survey of two fishing communities in the southwest of the country revealed that about 45 percent of people had no idea how they will adapt to the environmental changes that are already occurring – many respondents acknowledging that these changes are tangible and driven by factors beyond their control (Reef Doctor, 2018).

VII. Actions Necessary to Conserve Biodiversity and Forests 7.1 Integrated Programming – Avoiding the Risks Associated with Siloed Programming While integrated programming can present a challenge for international development organizations owing to the need to track how different funding streams are used, implementing stand-alone, sectoral programs can have negative consequences. There are several examples of the unintended consequences of narrow programming in Madagascar:

• The World Bank’s cotton scheme in the southwest in the 1980s led to clearance of forested areas as people “invested” in opening new agricultural land.5 • In the past, the World Food Program’s agricultural development efforts reportedly led to forest clearance in the southwest to open new agricultural areas following seed distribution initiatives. • Health projects throughout Madagascar have distributed mosquito nets that have been repurposed as fishing nets. The fine mesh size leads to removal of juvenile fish and depletion of the fisheries. Moreover, pyrethrum-treated bed-nets pose a potential health hazard when they are used inappropriately.6

Similarly, failings are occurring when GOM agencies do not coordinate policy and implementation activities with other actors including local government and private sector investors:

• Some new IUCN Category V and VI protected areas have “trapped” communities in places where they have no legal access to new farmland or natural resources. • Private sector demand for maize – notably in the southwest and Menabe – is leading to land clearance for agriculture regardless of the protected status of areas being deforested.7 • Lack of coordinated land use allocations such as mining concessions in PAs is driving conflict, insecurity, and deforestation. • The Ministry of Agriculture’s policy of focusing resources in areas of large-scale, commercial agricultural development is disadvantaging smallholders in remote areas – the very people that are often driven to clearing forests and wetlands to meet their needs.

5 The project completion report noted that “while cotton production progressed rapidly in the first three project years from 23,000 tons to over 40,000 tons, it was not immediately realized that this increase resulted almost exclusively from an extension of cotton cultivation in rainfed areas, often on marginal lands, while yields actually declined” (World Bank, 1992). 6 Many bed-nets are treated with insecticides, so repurposing can have health impacts, though evidence suggests that the anti- malarial benefits outweigh the risks (Lu et al., 2015). 7 Market demand for maize is often cited as a driver of deforestation in the southwest and west of Madagascar. The demand from Reunion – mainly for animal feed – has collapsed recently as maize imported from Argentina is cheaper than maize grown in Madagascar. The World Food Program’s recent seed distribution initiatives under the agriculture support program have also been implicated in expansion of the area under agricultural in the southwest.

• Regional development plans (the Schémas Régionaux d’Aménagement du Territoire) and local plans (the Schémas d’Amenagement Communales) are not being considered when central government makes land use decisions.

Greater coordination among GOM agencies (including regional authorities), among donors, and with the private sector are essential to avoid such missteps and the irreversible damage to Madagascar’s natural assets and human wellbeing that they cause. Annex 11 provides a list of some of the donor-funded projects and programs in Madagascar that have potential for cross- sectoral integration. These include programs that support agricultural development; water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); and health as well as more traditional biodiversity conservation and fisheries initiatives. Many of these are funded by multi-lateral and bilateral development organizations but they also include partnerships with NGOs and, in some cases, the private sector, who contribute other resources that are essential for successful integration of conservation and development.

7.2 Opportunities to Link Sectors To be successful and sustainable, conservation efforts in Madagascar must be systematically linked with economic development initiatives and must also be accompanied by awareness- raising activities. Comprehensive stakeholder engagement is essential, especially with local communities that are affected by conservation projects, and this must take the form of genuine participation rather than token consultation or informing. Ecosystem services can provide a tangible link between healthy, functioning forests, wetlands and marine systems, and improved livelihoods. Far too often, the approach in Madagascar and elsewhere has been to “compensate” the communities and families affected by conservation initiatives by providing them with development initiatives: health clinics, schools, agriculture projects, and so on. These can certainly be important and valued community assets, but they are provided only because the recipients have agreed to participate in conservation efforts. The linkage between conservation and development is not grounded in any tangible manner that acknowledges the value of natural assets. The idea that biodiversity conservation helps protect the essential ecosystem services that underpin sustainable development is not widely evident to many people, including rural communities and state authorities. Efforts to implement this approach in Madagascar must build upon local successes that have had concrete results.

7.2.1 Water for Agriculture Rice farming is a way of life for many rural people in Madagascar, even in the dry regions of the island where rice growing is confined to river valleys and wetlands. Water for irrigation is the key element for improving yields in these areas. In the western and southern parts of the country, small irrigation projects have been supported by development organizations such as Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and by conservation organizations such as World Wildlife Fund. Such initiatives are most effective when irrigation activities are coupled with conservation efforts targeting forest ecosystems or wetlands that help sustain the water supply. By providing people with a better understanding of the functional linkages between conservation and development that ecosystems services provide, initiatives such as these reinforce people’s commitment to sound stewardship of the natural environment.

7.2.2 Water for Drinking and Other Household Uses As in the case of irrigated rice farming, access to clean drinking water and water for improved household hygiene and sanitation is a valued asset for most households. USAID/Madagascar’s RANO WASH project (Rural Access to New Opportunities in Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) and its predecessors have had significant impact in rural areas across the country. The current project targets 600,000 people, improving their health through the supply of safe drinking water and improved sanitation, accompanied by awareness-raising on basic hygiene practices. Communities are made aware of the ecological functions of forests and wetlands in sustaining the provision of clean water for drinking and other uses. The project highlights the need to conserve the environment to maintain the quality of the water. Case Study 5 in Annex 8 describes a rural WASH program in Madagascar that established linkages to watershed management and conservation activites.

7.2.3 Forests: Livelihoods and Nutrition Traditionally, the forest is considered a nurturing mother by the people of Madagascar, especially in the humid forests of the east. Nevertheless, rural communities are unaware that the forests are a finite resource, as evidenced by the Malagasy saying “na ho foana aza ny ala atsinanana” (the forests of the east will never disappear). Conservation efforts to improve the management of natural forests have had only limited success. Rasolofoson et al. (2015) found that community forest management initiatives launched under the GELOSE (Gestion Locale Sécurisée) program in the early 2000s have seen mixed results. When the management contracts (transfert de gestion) allowed communities to extract timber, the forests were degraded. When timber harvesting was not allowed, the forests fared better but the people perceived little overall benefit, though non-economic values were not generally considered. The benefits accruing to people living around protected areas are often less than expected and can outweigh the additional burdens on the local population (Neudert et al., 2016). The ecosystem services provided by forests can be realized through agricultural development initiatives (irrigation and hydropower); these include soil conservation that protects downstream irrigation schemes, biological control of invasive species, water purification; food and medicinal plants from the forest, and so on. Managed forests can benefit agriculture by harboring pollinator species or even providing canopy cover for agroforestry crops such as coffee, cacao, vanilla, and khat (in northern Madagascar).

7.2.4 Marine and Wetland Resources: Livelihoods and Nutrition As in the case of communities living adjacent to forests, marine ecosystems are an important source of food, particularly protein, for coastal populations. Coastal resources are being depleted rapidly all around the island. Several marine aquaculture projects are being implemented to compensate for the overharvesting of resources: seaweed cultivation, sea cucumber farming initiated by Indian Ocean Trepang, shrimp farming in estuarine systems, and tilapia farming in coastal wetlands with fresh or brackish water. The more the ecosystems around the farms and ponds are preserved, the better the yields and quality of the produce. Hence, the need to associate aquaculture with conservation activities for marine ecosystems, especially mangroves, seagrass beds, and coral reefs.

Wetlands are important ecosystems for water supply (for irrigation, livestock, and household use), flood control, and fisheries, as well as being habitats for endemic fish, amphibians, and birds (even lemurs in the case of the Alaotran Gentle Lemur or bandro - Hapalemur alaotrensis). Wetlands provide reeds that are used for thatching, weaving, and handicrafts. Wetland conservation must be prioritized to maintain a wide array of ecosystem services. Wetlands include mangrove ecosystems that are spawning and nursery areas for as many as 75 percent of commercial fish species and support important crab fisheries.

7.2.5 Disaster Resilience While direct causal linkages between climate change and changing weather patterns are currently unclear, incidents of drought and cyclonic events are widely perceived to be intensifying in Madagascar (see, for example, USAID, 2016b; Kossin, 2018). Heavy rainfall events cause flooding, landslides, and severe erosion that in turn lead to crop destruction and catastrophic sedimentation in low-lying rice-growing areas. Even under normal conditions, Madagascar is highly susceptible to erosion owing to the intensity of rainfall, topography, and soil conditions (Panagos et al., 2017). Cyclones also cause coastal flooding. Reefs, wetlands, forests, and mangroves are all natural buffers that dampen the effect of these weather-related phenomena, but climate change threatens to compromise these and other ecosystem services (Conservation International and WWF, 2008).

Integrated conservation and development initiatives should highlight the ecosystem services upon which people depend for their health, safety, and economic wellbeing. Communicating the evidence for such linkages will enhance people’s willingness to maintain ecosystem services through the conservation of the environment, though building community resilience in the face of climate change and other disasters also requires investments in infrastructure, response mechanisms, and financial safety nets.

7.2.6 Healthy Ecosystems and Healthy People Recent analyses (summarized by Fisher, 20188) have demonstrated strong linkages between human health and wellbeing tied to people’s proximity to protected areas and forests. The studies show that incidents of diarrheal disease are lower the closer people live to forests (where stream water originates). The studies also show that access to forest resources leads to 25 percent greater dietary diversity for children; households with access to capital can increase the impact of forest-related interventions on nutrition; and access to forest resources increases children’s consumption of vitamin A (11 percent increase) or iron-rich food (16 percent increase). Other research has shown that even farming families rely on wild-harvested forest foods to supplement their nutrition. For example, as much as 25 percent of household income and 50 percent of family nutrition is obtained from forests in parts of Laos where people are principally rice farmers (ICEM, 2014). In Madagascar, such detailed studies have yet to be published, though it should be noted that in the more remote parts of the country, poor access to health services may more than offset the beneficial aspects of proximity to clean water and food from the forest.

8 See also Herrera et al. (2017).

7.2.7 Marine Resources and Reproductive Health The population-health-environment (PHE) approach seeks to implement integrated programming to address healthcare and environmental management simultaneously, with a focus on reproductive health. In southwest Madagascar, Blue Ventures have provided family planning services through their Safidy program, which has served to meet previously unmet demand and greatly increased the prevalence of contraception use. By helping reduce family sizes to women’s preferred levels, the program increases the per capita availability of resources (e.g. protein, money for education) for children, leading to healthier, better-educated families and reduced dependence on natural resources. Importantly, by providing women with services that they want, the program helps generate “buy in” for associated resource management activities (Harris et al., 2012; Mohan and Shellard, 2014). Madagascar’s growing PHE network now has more than 40 member organizations (https://phemadagascar.org/).

7.3 Emphasize Scalable Interventions Conservation is everyone’s business. If GOM decision-makers, including local authorities and community members living near protected areas, are not convinced that conservation of forests, fisheries, and biodiversity are important for people’s livelihoods and wellbeing, Madagascar’s natural heritage and assets will continue to be wasted until species and habitats are lost forever. Changing people’s attitudes will require that they receive tangible economic benefits that make a difference to their lives. This must occur in an equitable manner and at scale, so that disadvantaged people are not left behind. Implementers need to move away from small-scale projects that benefit only a few households and are not replicable at scale. Taking initiatives to scale can occur in different ways: 1) vertical scaling-up – institutionalization through policy, political, legal, and budgetary support; 2) horizontal scaling through geographical expansion and replication of innovations; 3) diversification; and 4) spontaneous scaling-up through peer adoption of new practices or technologies (facilitated by peer-to-peer exchange visits). In Madagascar, scaling of conservation initiatives is most likely to follow the vertical or horizontal paths, though the viral replication of locally managed marine areas has also been stimulated by fisheries learning exchanges hosted by NGOs.

The challenge facing vertical scaling is that political instability and weak continuity continuously thwart efforts to build on past successes. Every newly elected politician or political appointee wants to do away with what was done before and start anew. Though solid legal frameworks exist, enforcement of laws and regulations is weak and hinders the replication of best practices or innovation. The GOM’s perpetual lack of funding for conservation and rural development is a constant challenge for Madagascar.

Horizontal scaling or replication of innovations is also challenging because Madagascar is culturally and socially diverse, and regional specificity requires different approaches to suit each local context. Going forward, the following five principles should guide all aspects of analysis, planning, and decision-making:

• Adopt a systemic approach: be cognizant that the expansion and institutionalization of innovations occurs in a complex landscape of interactions and influences that need to be considered. Maintaining a balance among the different political, social, economic, and

biophysical elements is a major task when designing and implementing a scaling-up strategy. For example, while there are important synergies between apiculture (beekeeping) and other forest-dependent livelihood activities, each product has a different market with different supply chain dynamics. Conflating the market systems will create inefficiencies that will hinder competitiveness. • Focus on sustainability: scaling up must address policy and program development including attention to institutionalizing the innovation in policies, program guidelines, budgets, and other dimensions of the conservation actions. Innovations must be disseminated across regions and landscapes, not just specific PAs and the adjacent communities. • Enhance scalability: assessing and catalyzing scalability is an essential aspect of strategic planning. Scalability refers to the ease or difficulty of scaling up an innovation, based on the attributes (or determinants) of success that have been identified through analysis of previous experiences with innovation – especially those driven by private sector support (see below). • Respect human rights, equity, and gender perspectives: scaling up must respect people’s rights and should be guided by participatory and inclusive approaches. It should ensure attention to human dignity, the needs and rights of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and gender perspectives, as well as promote equitable access for all to quality services. • Encourage private investment: Incentivize and facilitate responsible private investment (ecotourism, agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, REDD+, mining offsets, and so on) that accelerate going to scale. The private sector can facilitate policy reform, access to inputs and finance, the transfer of skills, and improved access to markets. The private sector is increasingly supportive of adopting – and even championing – responsible investment in land for agriculture, in fair trade, and in establishing socially equitable partnerships with local producers. There are certainly disreputable private-sector actors, but many international companies and their shareholders are well-aware of the reputational risk of not doing the right thing and of how public perceptions can affect competitiveness. Investments made by environmentally and socially responsible firms around the world are already outstripping traditional aid provided by bilateral and multilateral donors. The GOM must adopt policies and laws that encourage such investment by creating an enabling environment that will, ultimately, transition the country away from donor dependence.

7.4 Strengthen Environmental Governance 7.4.1 Enhance Environmental Justice Despite Madagascar’s high level of corruption, especially in the judiciary and security forces, recent experience has shown that civil society has the will and a voice to demand action to address wildlife trafficking and public-sector corruption. There is a strong commitment to integrity and to mobilizing the people who are ready to tackle the issues – especially among youth, faith-based organizations, and many media outlets. There are honest civil servants, but they need to be encouraged. By creating alliances that bring together responsible actors from

46 the public and private sectors and civil society, Madagascar can begin to imagine innovative solutions that motivate committed people:

• Vote for new, responsible leaders. • Establish resource centers that support capacity building, information sharing, access to rights, and public participation. • Create anti-corruption units. • Celebrate activists.9 • Mobilize civil society to demand better law enforcement, sanctions, and legal accountability. • Encourage independent monitoring systems and communication networks.

Case Study 1 in Annex 8 describes how civil society groups have had a significant impact on combatting wildlife trafficking in Madagascar. CSO networks have made concerted efforts to support local law enforcement initiatives while at the same time advocating for policy and legislative reform to address legal loopholes that enable corrupt practices.

7.4.2 Fight Corruption The GOM has already appealed to civil society platforms that are addressing governance issues (AVG, MIHARI, Tafo Mihaavo, the ROHY Movement [Rindran’ny Olompirenena Hiarovana ny Iaraha-manana], Multi-Sector Information Service [MSIS], etc.) to support the fight against corruption. Initiatives include the development of the Stratégie Nationale de Lutte Contre la Corruption (SNLCC – National Strategy to Fight Corruption); the implementation of the Programme de Réformes pour l’Efficacité de l’Administration (PREA - Program of Reforms for the Efficiency of the Administration); and the BIANCO Rapid Return Initiative. Notwithstanding these efforts, success will be fleeting if the following three conditions are not met:

• Appropriate resources allocated for anti-corruption institutions • Strong political will and determined leadership from the highest authorities • Exemplary sanctions imposed on offenders

In addition to the key areas of justice, the security forces, and decentralization of government, specific initiatives will focus on cleaning up other sectors including environmental protection, fisheries, customs, mining, agriculture, and land use planning to address corruption in the management of natural resources and the environment.

Malagasy civil society must be strengthened to help independent organizations raise awareness within the public sector and exhort civil servants not to bend to the provocations coming from some political interests. These are often driven by malicious individuals hiding under so-called political affiliations or ethnic pretexts, promoting lawlessness and violence to take advantage of the country’s precarious situation.

9 Recently, as many as ten wildlife activists have been arrested and tried in Madagascar. One – Raleva – was imprisoned until his case was appealed in 2017 and the sentence reduced to two years suspended imprisonment. Christopher Magnejika was found guilty and fined in August 2018 (see https://news.mongabay.com/2018/06/madagascar-yet-another-anti-trafficking-activist- convicted/).

7.4.3 Improve Transparency and Decentralization After voluntarily submitting itself to the international budget transparency assessment mechanism called the Open Budget Index (IBO) over the last three years, the Malagasy Ministry of Finance, in collaboration with CSOs such as MSIS, has reached a crucial point in the implementation of good governance. This initiative should be supported and further encouraged at other levels.

Advocacy based on rigorous evidence is needed to convince decision-makers to improve and enforce regulations as well as to provide adequate funding for environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, and improved management of natural resources (MEEF, MRHP, MMP [Ministère des Mines et du Pétrole], ONE, and MNP) in alignment with the National Development Program and other GOM commitments (the Durban Vision, the Sydney promise, the MECIE decree, the Mining Code, EITI, etc.). Accurate and transparent valuation and budget allocations in the mining, tourism (droits d’entrée dans les aires protégées – DEAP), fisheries, and forestry sectors will help build capacity and enhance sustainable development at all levels.

Open and frank coordination and regular communication between sectors and with field agents will facilitate decentralization (local investment) and will help institutions deliver services even in isolated areas. These efforts should be accompanied by action plans (Strategic Environmental Assessment [SEA], Schéma National d’Aménagement du Territoire [SNAT], SRAT, Schémas d’Aménagement Communaux [SAC], etc.) that are developed collaboratively involving the MATSF teams and the decentralized authorities.

7.4.4 Facilitate Broad-Based Collaboration The current and future GOM administrations must engage with government and parastatal actors that are working to improve environmental management and the conservation of Madagascar’s natural heritage (MEEF, MinAgri, MMP, MRHP, MNP, ONE, and MATSF). A multi-stakeholder forum and channels for regular information exchange at all levels would be enormously beneficial.

At the same time, it must be acknowledged that open lines of communication and information sharing will have little impact on public sector corruption and mismanagement unless there is greater accountability. The GOM must be willing to respond to CSO advocacy and listen to other non-state actors. The PRA (Plateforme des Réseaux d’Acteurs) initiative launched by BIANCO at the regional level provides an opportunity to broaden the types of issues that are brought to the attention of government and civil society, but the PRA needs to be strengthened. Civil society groups have also embraced the GPS principle (Gouvernement – Privé – Société Civile) that espouses inclusive governance while respecting the designated roles and responsibilities of the collaborating parties. Technical and financial partners as well as academia are also key participants that have important roles to play.

CSOs in Madagascar have been vocal in advocating for a new approach to governance and GOM engagement with the public. Advocacy messages include the following:

• “Intersectoral collaboration coupled with the involvement of the public and true civil society, is the key to establishing good governance of natural resources at the regional

level. Investing in programs of public participation, access to information and access to the grievance mechanism will significantly reduce social and environmental conflicts at all levels” (AVG). • “Madagascar is likely to bear the brunt of the resource curse because the country and the main actors involved are not yet ready to deal with intensive exploitation of the country’s natural resources” (AVG).

Case Study 2 in Annex 8 describes the impact of CSO advocacy iniatiatives in Madagascar. These efforts have helped strengthen ties between grassroot organizations and government actors that can bring about change.

7.5 Other Actions Discussions with Ministry of Agriculture officials and others demonstrated, pointedly, that perceptions of the importance of conserving natural resources and ecosystems services are very different within the GOM:

• “People won’t care about conservation, if they don’t see the potential benefits – direct or indirect.” • “Kibo noana tsy manantsofina” – (“can’t hear with an empty stomach”). • “Since decision makers don’t care, there’s no political will to pay for conservation.” • “Conservation remains a donor responsibility.”

It is generally acknowledged that the concept of “ecosystem services” is useful when promoting forest conservation to farmers or mangrove conservation to fishers.10 The World Bank’s Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) initiative explored several opportunities to promote ecosystem services but was hampered by a lack of accurate data. However, the immediate need to address food shortages often outweighs the desire to conserve ecosystem services in the longer term. This is understandable, but the logic that poor people have no choice is oversimplifying the situation. Farmers at Mahaleotse – a community adjacent to the Amoroni-Onilahy Protected Area – are aware of the importance of forest conservation for ensuring year-round water supply for their rice fields. The same is true in many parts of the country where springs and streams are essential for household drinking water and for irrigation but, as noted above, there is far less appreciation of the value of biodiversity and forest resources other than timber and fuelwood.

Communicating the importance of sound natural resource management and biodiversity conservation is an activity that will underpin changes in attitudes and behaviors from the household level to the national level. CSO networks such as AVG and MIHARI are already making important inroads into changing hearts and minds through school campaigns, raising the awareness of the media, and working closely with leaders in government and industry.

10 Bekessya et al (2018). The authors argue that the concept of ecosystem services runs the risk of undermining conservation efforts because it places too much emphasis on the economic value of nature. If these values are not realized, people may be inclined to reject the whole notion of conservation being a worthwhile endeavor.

USAID/Madagascar can support these efforts across all program areas by linking conservation messaging to other sectors’ behavior change efforts and broader communications initiatives. Framing outreach around themes such as resilience and human wellbeing will reinforce the linkages.

VIII. Extent to Which the Mission Meets the Identified Actions Needed One of the reasons for the limited impact of Madagascar’s NEAP (a 15-year, $400+ million investment that ran from about 1993 to 2008) was that there was very little programmatic integration – sectoral interests always prevailed, especially at the policy level (Waeber et al., 2016). Other criticisms have been raised including weak linkages between environmental management efforts and improving people’s livelihoods (Wilmé and Waeber, 2017) as well as insufficient attention to capacity building of Malagasy institutions and lack of investment in higher education. USAID/Madagascar has an opportunity to reassess the current development model that has neither delivered tangible results nor offered any alternative to donor-driven conservation programs. To achieve this, USAID can draw upon a strong body of evidence that demonstrates what has worked and what hasn’t:

• Build on the lessons learned through past programs: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs, which often focused too narrowly rather than at the scale of landscapes/seascapes); the Alliance Ecorégional approach that targeted conservation, economic growth, and health projects in the same geographical areas; and the “Nature, Health, Wealth, Power” model that articulated the importance of integrated programs. • Select priority regions where programs/projects can coordinate on implementation activities.11 • Design/award projects that have established sound, evidence-based approaches for programmatic integration at the community level. Zoning landscapes or seascapes into conservation areas and development zones runs the risk of de-linking the two objectives and creating a patchwork of communities that are either winners and losers. Multi-use landscapes do not necessarily lead to conservation and development activities that are integrated and harmonious. What is often missing is the functional integration of economic activities (livelihoods) with sound conservation practices and effective governance. The vision should not be one of a patchwork quilt but rather a woven cloth whose weft and warp are conservation and sustainable development and whose strength is provided by the tightly woven fabric. By bringing together conservation, development, and good governance, programs can help rural communities enhance their resilience to natural and human-made shocks and thereby improve the wellbeing of the households that most often suffer when their day-to-day livelihoods are undermined. • Explore coordination with other donor-funded and GOM programs, especially the national development plans for agriculture, forestry, etc. Some examples include IUCN’s Shared Resources Joint Solutions initiative, GIZ’s Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement (PAGE) initiative, UNDP’s Network of Managed Resources Protected

11 USAID’s ecoregional approach (2004-2009) encountered some challenges when acquisition mechanisms (contracts such as BAMEX and the ERI project) were expected to coordinate with assistance mechanisms implemented by non-profits such as ADRA and CRS. Fundamental differences in approach – one grounded in private sector-led economic development and the other in humanitarian assistance – created uncomfortable situations at the local level when some communities were accustomed to food-for-work or cash-for-work programs rather than self-help initiatives.

Areas (MRPA) project (that ended in March 2018), and the World Bank’s new PADAP (Projet Agriculture Durable par une Approche Paysage) initiative. USAID is in a strong position to convene partners that can build a community of practice to draw upon the many years of experience in Madagascar, share the lessons learned, and curate the knowledge that will help inform future conservation and development initiatives.

USAID/Madagascar’s current programming spans environment (including tropical forest and biodiversity conservation as well as WASH, health, food security, and disaster assistance). While discrete economic growth and governance programming are not part of the portfolio, these are important cross-cutting themes along with gender and youth, building resilience, and supporting the GOM’s journey to self-reliance – which itself includes strengthening crisis prevention and response; integrating food security and resilience; aligning policy, resources, and performance; and embracing innovation and field-driven solutions.

USAID/Madagascar has existing geospatial resources for supporting integrated programs. Sound geospatial data and strong analytical skills are essential for program design and for monitoring outcomes that inform adaptive management and support learning. Inadequate and inaccurate data on environmental and socio-economic conditions hamper rigorous assessments of project results, but implementers can increasingly draw upon low cost, high resolution data acquired by satellites for real-time updates on changes in the environment. Similarly, mobile phone networks, technology, and ownership are providing rapid, low-cost access to household information that was previously accessible only through costly field surveys. Combining these types of data will enable USAID projects to measure results and gauge impact on an almost continuous basis and thereby adjust quickly to address shortcomings or scale-up successes.

One of the goals of integrated programming is to enhance outcomes and impact through the catalyzing effect of linking sectors to achieve mutually supportive benefits. Beyond identifying those opportunities for achieving co-benefits, the greater challenge is to measure the additive benefit of the linked programming. For example, if the goals of a linked conservation and development project are to reduce trafficking of tortoises and to increase household incomes in communities adjacent to PAs harboring tortoises, how can we measure the contribution of tortoise conservation on household income and vice versa? USAID’s Office of Forestry and Biodiversity (FAB) has several projects that are supporting this effort (including BRIDGE and Measuring Impact). These and future mechanisms can provide USAID missions with the necessary tools and technical support to identify opportunities to enhance outcomes and impact.

Future USAID programming in Madagascar that contributes to forest and biodiversity conservation will have to address several topics that have long been all but ignored by international donors: building a constituency for conservation and environmental protection within the GOM and across civil society; linking conservation and natural resource management to job creation (particularly through vocational training); supporting women’s economic empowerment in the natural resource sectors (aquaculture is demonstrating considerable

52 potential); and reinforcing the linkages between sound environmental management and resilience at the community and household level.12 IX. Recommendations 9.1 Recommendations Based on Actions Necessary to Conserve Biodiversity and Forests 9.1.1 Private Sector Engagement The presence of a strong, responsible private sector will improve access to markets and support local enterprises that create jobs that improve livelihoods. People living close to protected areas need not be disadvantaged by conservation efforts. What is needed are innovative approaches to providing economic alternatives based on sound management of natural resources that improve living conditions in local communities. Opportunities for small- and medium-sized enterprises to attract private sector investment and support through Entrepreneurship Capacity Building Centers are already being tested successfully.

Case Study 4 in Annex 8 describes how fishing communities in southwest Madagascar have established partnerships with private business to harvest octopus and farm seaweed and sea cucumbers destined for international markets. These iniataitives are providing lucrative economic alternatives at a time when overfishing has led to the collapse of traditional livelihoods.

9.1.2 Market-Based Interventions Madagascar and many other developing countries that have received international support for natural resource management initiatives that emphasize the importance of creating economic incentives for conservation are littered with community-based projects that failed to generate financial returns. These include a multitude of projects designed to commercialize non-timber forest projects (such as honey, tree resins, wild-harvested fruits, essential oils, and many more) or build local ecotourism businesses. Many have failed, and most have not lived up to the expectations of local communities. In many cases, such initiatives have focused on identifying local resources and production potential rather than on the market demand and competitiveness of the product or services. Even when grounded in value chain analysis, issues such as production capacity, quality, and supply chain dynamics can render opportunities impractical or unprofitable. When initiatives do succeed, other factors such as poor management or governance, local corruption, or changing markets (or competition) can quickly lead to reversals of fortune.

Overcoming these challenges requires close engagement with the private sector – the entrepreneurs and companies that source products and services and take them to market – because the NGO and state sectors tend not to have the necessary expertise. Responsible

12 Rural households are often cognizant of the importance of the natural environment in sustaining their livelihoods – not just through provisioning (forest resources, fisheries, etc.) but also regulating environmental change (the role of forests and wetlands on access to water and protection from flooding and soil/beach erosion). Nevertheless, many people do not appreciate that these resources are finite, and people’s inability to adapt to changing conditions results in food insecurity, malnutrition, and migration that compromises other communities further afield.

53 sourcing, fair trade, product innovation, and constant market assessment are essential and require a level of expertise and investment that is not available to local producers or even the NGOs or development organizations that are on the ground.

In Madagascar, there are several models that can be emulated, including those for sea cucumber farming, seaweed farming, and octopus fisheries as well as some agricultural crops, non-timber forest products, and ecotourism initiatives. However, the challenges should not be underestimated: disease has severely compromised shrimp aquaculture and seaweed farming; traders are undercutting companies that have invested in local sea cucumber production; smallholder vanilla producers must compete with cartels that control the market; and middlemen – including some NGOs – have become key players in the supply chains, increasing cost and compromising competitiveness.

Ultimately, the patterns of destructive use of natural resources will change only if the incentives for conservation benefit many households in the communities that are dependent on fisheries, forests or wildlife. Reaching the bottom of the pyramid in poor, isolated communities takes more than facilitating market access. It requires that people have access not only to land or fisheries, but also seeds, tools/gear, etc. and these often entail improved access to finance.13 Again, responsible engagement of the private sector can help broaden local participation that spreads the benefits and reduces animosity.

9.1.3 Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Though the GOM has limited ability to provide financial support to the government agencies that are responsible for protecting the country’s environment and natural capital, development initiatives should strive to move the GOM away from an excessive reliance on donors for funding conservation and environmental management. Currently (2018), the GOM allocates about 0.89 percent of the national budget to the MRHP, yet fisheries exports alone contribute about 1.6 percent to GDP. More government investment is needed to manage and protect the country’s natural resources. These resources are assets upon which the GOM can build a foundation for sustainable growth, but government investments are uneven. MEEF’s projected budget allocation for 2018 is about 1.17 percent of the national budget (it was 1.67 percent in 2007), yet tourism alone contributes 16.6 percent to GDP. Moreover, the MEEF budget for 2018 is about $25.72 million but the projected contribution of international donors to the environment sector was $23.65 million. In other words, the GOM is abrogating responsibility for protecting the country’s natural assets to the international donor community. Today, the ONE and MNP are severely underfunded – the ONE survives on the fees paid by investors submitting environmental impacts assessments for review and approvals as prescribed by the MECIE (World Bank, 2013a).

DRM is the “Holy Grail” for developing countries to transition to greater self-reliance. If the GOM invests in the natural resource sectors and in sustaining ecosystem services, the long-term

13 For example, in the south of Madagascar, everyone grows the same crops and sells them at the same time, so increased supply leads to low prices. Most households use the earnings to buy zebu cattle – so, prices are high because of the demand. Six months later, with no more cash or food supplies, everyone sells their zebu at the same time to buy food. Now the zebu prices are low because supply is high, but food prices are high because demand is high. Access to finance – especially savings-and-loans schemes – would allow the farmers to break this cycle.

54 benefits will more than justify the expenditures. The challenge is to provide unequivocal evidence of the value of conservation to government decision-makers. In El Salvador, for example, USAID’s public-sector reform project has been able to do this for the forest sector. In Madagascar, the Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) initiative has not been so successful, struggling to develop accurate assessments of available water resources, for example, across a country that comprises more than 500 watersheds and has woefully inadequate networks for collecting meteorological and hydrological data.

In addition to appropriate allocation of government funding, successful DRM requires an equitable tax regime and efficient collection of revenues. Madagascar’s value added tax rate is the highest in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region, but collection rates are some of the lowest (IMF, 2017). Taxes contribute only 12.2 percent to GDP – a figure that is on par with Indonesia and Nigeria but low compared to most SADC countries, for example.

Other sources of financing include potentially large loans and concessional payments from the Green Climate Fund and grants from the Global Environmental Facility. Along with instruments such as Impact Bonds and Green Bonds, these are heavily reliant on donor funding under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or other mechanisms. New approaches to conservation financing that leverage private sector investment rather than donor funds hold considerable potential but are largely untested in Madagascar. USAID’s INVEST program is one mechanism that Missions can use to explore innovative financing opportunities that can be catalyzed or de-risked using foreign aid but are largely driven by provide investment.

9.1.4 Strengthen Systems of Governance by Working with and through Malagasy Organizations and Networks DRM is not just about funding, it also requires capacity building of public sector institutions and organizations that support government (including universities, think-tanks, and others). Recognizing the importance of biodiversity and natural resources to the wellbeing of the population and the development of the country should enhance the mobilization of resources (technical as well as budgetary) that are needed to sustain the country’s natural assets.

However, the most critical factor for improving the wellbeing of the population and for sustaining equitable economic growth is the political will of the country’s leaders to instill better governance by fighting corruption, strengthening law enforcement, and promoting a clear, long-term vision of the importance of natural resource management. Efforts to identify, arrest, and prosecute wildlife traffickers have already been successfully tested with civil society organizations (AVG, GERP, WWF, DWCT, and others) and with the regional BIANCO stakeholder platforms. The implementation of the PAC (Pole Anti-Corruption) is leading to the imposition of severe sanctions on corrupt officials and should be expanded to include other criminal activities, especially in other government sectors including the judiciary and security forces. Innovative approaches to incentivizing and motivating honest officials and government staff would be widely welcomed within and outside the public sector.

All these measures should be accompanied by building the capacity of Malagasy civil society and regular and sincere collaboration and communication across the four areas of society – government, civil society, the private sector, and universities – at all levels. Resource centers 55 and other services that provide free, public access to accurate, useful information on people’s rights and access justice and facilitate public participation in government should be supported across all 22 regions. USAID/Madagascar must identify those areas of investment that will be most effective in helping Madagascar on its journey to self-reliance. In the environment sector, other donors such as the World Bank and UNDP are heavily vested in supporting the central government – especially building the capacity of the public sector. In contrast, USAID’s experience in Madagascar working with regional partners (including local government) and collaborating with the private sector and civil society groups provides an important balance to the priorities of other donors.

Case Studies 1 and 2 in Annex 8 describe how CSO networks in Madagascar are making significant inroads into combatting wildlife trafficking and corruption by building partnerships with like-minded politicians and government officials.

9.2 Other Opportunities – Conservation Financing Traditional approaches to financing conservation efforts in Madagascar and in other developing countries are likely to remain the cornerstone of most efforts to conserve biodiversity in low- income countries. In the longer term, DRM for environmental management and the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services will be essential, but until that is feasible, there are several other opportunities to catalyze investment in conservation. Financing provided by the Tany Meva Foundation is sustainable since it is managed as an endowment (preserving the capital investment). FAPBM has attracted capitalization from non-government sources, so there is potential for long-term viability. In both cases, however, the volume of capital flows is small in comparison to multi-lateral and bilateral funding.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) provides a new source of funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and also a new model for how those funds are allocated. While the GCF’s capitalization comes from the governments of developing countries, it is disbursed mainly as loans though some concessional grants are also awarded. Several recipients of GCF funding are multi-lateral banks (the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the African Development Bank, and the Asian Development Bank) as well as development finance organizations such as the Netherlands Development Finance Agency. These organizations provide loans to NGOs and private sector entities to finance adaptation and mitigation initiatives including conservation activities. GCF has approved $4.5 billion in funding to date and aims to have an annual budget of $100 billion within the next few years. Several projects in Madagascar have already been approved and there is considerable potential for more to be funded.

Private sector engagement in conservation is a growing trend that holds considerable promise. While returns on investment in development or conservation impact bonds are largely derived from public sector contributions (and, therefore, not genuinely sustainable), there are new models being developed that are more firmly grounded in generating returns from financial flows that can be sustained. These include several initiatives that are generating revenues through payments for ecosystem services such as water provision, hydro-power, and carbon

56 sequestration. Bundling small PES projects into larger, bankable investment opportunities is stimulating demand and creating new opportunities for blended public-private finance.

Annex 1: FAA 118/119 Analysis Team Members Andrew Watson – Team Leader Dr. Watson is a senior DAI staff member and has more than 30 years of experience in natural resource management (NRM), climate change adaptation, environmental policy and institutional capacity building, environmental impact assessment, and the use of remote sensing technology for environmental mapping. From 1994 to 1996, he helped Madagascar’s Office National de l’Environnement develop the country’s environmental protection legislation. From 1999 to 2003, he was based in Malawi, where he managed USAID’s Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management (COMPASS) activity, which supported community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in the forestry, fisheries, and wildlife sectors. The activity included facilitating policy reform and advocacy, building capacity through training and information services, improving coordination among CBNRM implementing agencies, and providing small grants to CBNRM practitioners. From 2010 to 2013, he managed USAID’s Morocco Economic Competitiveness program – helping improve smallholder farmers’ access to improve irrigation technologies and, thereby, enabling them to conserve water resources and reduce their vulnerability to climate change. The program also improved farmers’ access to markets, strengthened regional business climate, and helped women and youth find better jobs. Dr. Watson has also led two global initiatives: USAID’s Prosperity, Livelihoods, and Conserving Ecosystems (PLACE and REPLACE) and USAID’s knowledge management initiative for NRM – Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities (CK2C) – which included management of the FRAME website connecting NRM practitioners worldwide. Dr Watson holds a D. Phil. in geomorphology and a Master of Arts in geography.

Ndranto Razakamanarina – Deputy Team Leader and Forest Specialist After completing his university studies at the High School of Agronomy (Forestry Option) in Antananarivo, Madagascar in 1986 and diverse short-term trainings, Razakamanarina consolidated 30 years of research/action in the field and at strategic levels on forestry, environment, and community development through various positions, programs, and institutions in Madagascar: SAF/FJKM (1988-2001), USAID (2002-2009), Presidency of the Republic (2007- 2008), and WWF (2010- 2012). Starting in October 2012, he embraced freelance consulting on environmental governance, advocacy, and civil society issues. Two experiences, in particular, were instrumental in shaping Razakamanarina’s career: five years in the field as the head of development of ICDP Andasibe-Mantadia (1993-1997), which served to heighten his understanding of the complex social and cultural aspects to development work; and the founding of Alliance Voahary Gasy (AVG), the first platform of Malagasy Environmental CSOs (2009) in reaction to the upsurge of rosewood trafficking. Through his work, he looks to demonstrate that with better governance of its key natural resources and the effective mobilization of community-based and civil society organizations (including clear collaboration of a responsible private sector and a visionary administration), Madagascar can make a significant leap toward self-reliance.

Jonah Ratsimbazafy – Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Professor Ratsimbazafy is president of the Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur les Primates de Madagascar (GERP). He is a pioneer of lemur conservation in Madagascar. His efforts in environmental protection and conservation in Madagascar are internationally recognized, and he has been presented with many international awards such as the Disney Conservation Hero Award in 2015. Furthermore, in parallel to his position as the president of GERP, an organization that advocates for the protection of Malagasy lemur species, he is also a professor in the Anthropology & Sustainable Development Department of the University of Antananarivo and has been a mentor for many young Malagasy anthropologists. He is a very active researcher and has produced numerous scientific publications. He also has been a member of different national and international conservation organizations. He is, for example, the current vice-chair of Primate Specialist Group – Madagascar section of the IUCN/SCC, and he is also a current member of the editorial board of the International Journal of Primatology as well as the Madagascar Conservation and Development journal. Professor Ratsimbazafy holds a Master’s Degree from the Anthropology Department of the University of Antananarivo and a Ph.D. in anthropology (focus in primatology) from Stony Brook University, New York.

Charlie Gardner – Marine Biodiversity and Fisheries Specialist Dr. Charlie Gardner is an interdisciplinary conservationist and conservation scientist with 15 years’ experience of conservation and natural resource management in Madagascar, and is currently a lecturer in the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE) at the University of Kent. He lived in Madagascar from 2005 to 2015, where he worked with WWF, Blue Ventures, and other NGOs on the country’s ambitious “Durban Vision” to triple the extent of the protected area network. He has also worked in conservation in the UK, Mauritius and Kenya. His book Life Amongst the Thorns –Biodiversity and Conservation of Madagascar’s Spiny Forest (co-authored with his wife, the photographer Louise Jasper), was published in 2015. Having completed a BSc in zoology at the University of Leeds, Gardner studied for an MSc in conservation biology at DICE in 2002. He returned to DICE to carry out his doctoral research in 2009, submitting a thesis entitled “Reconciling conservation and development in Madagascar’s rapidly expanding protected area system” in 2014. He has published more than 60 peer- reviewed publications on the biodiversity of Madagascar and its conservation, and his recent work focuses on the community-based management of protected areas and small-scale fisheries.

Zoely Ramanase – Livelihoods Specialist Zoelimalala Ramanase is a program manager specializing in sustainable development, climate adaptation, rural livelihoods, and community-based conservation. She has worked in both terrestrial and marine areas and has more than 25 years of professional experience, primarily in Madagascar, including more than seven years experience implementing international donor- funded projects. Ramanase has supervised multi-disciplinary teams implementing complex U.S. Government-financed programs for USAID, Food for Peace, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. She has expertise in project design, sustainability strategies, and implementation, including setting up regional coordination mechanisms for integrated cross-sectoral technical packages (natural resources management/health/economic growth/good governance). Using

59 the “nature, wealth, and power” approach, she supported sustainable natural resources management, community wellbeing, climate resilience, and natural resources governance projects. She conceived the “Go Green” approach to promote integration and simplified monitoring tools in order to ensure environmental compliance as required by USAID for multi- year assistance programs. Her expertise extends to improving market access and financing for selected biodiversity-friendly products (ecotourism, natural products, and village savings-and- loans for improving natural resource management) and value chain development in selected crops: essential oils, spices, litchi, red rice, nuts, and climate-smart cotton. As the deputy chief of party and livelihoods coordinator for USAID/Madagascar’s $82 million Strengthening and Accessing Livelihood Opportunities for Household Impact (SALOHI) Program, Ramanase implemented integrated resilience-building activities across the technical areas of health and nutrition, agriculture and livelihoods, and community climate resilience as well as the cross- cutting thematic areas of gender, youth, and good governance. She has led Initial Environmental Examinations, climate change assessments, environmentally sustainable management, environmental monitoring and mitigation, and stakeholder climate change risk assessments in Malawi, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Uganda.

Annex 2: FAA 118/119 Scope of Work

Madagascar FAA 118 and 119

Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Analysis

Scope of Work

------

I. BACKGROUND

As part of the documentation for the 2019-2024 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), USAID/Madagascar is required by Sections 118 and 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), as amended, to prepare an analysis of tropical forests and biodiversity in Madagascar.

By mandating a FAA 118/119 analysis (hereafter referred to as the analysis), the U.S. Congress is recognizing the fundamental role that tropical forest and biodiversity play in sustainable development. Based on this analysis, USAID/Madagascar will define to what extent the CDCS will contribute to biodiversity conservation needs in Madagascar. The analysis will assist in strengthening the Mission’s role in biodiversity conservation by integrating biodiversity and tropical forest conservation in the CDCS.

1.1 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PARTS OF FAA SECTIONS 118 AND 119

FAA Sections 118 and 119, as amended, require that USAID Missions address the following:

1) FAA Sec 118 Tropical Forests

(e) COUNTRY ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. Each country development strategy, statement, or other country plan prepared by USAID shall include an analysis of:

1) the actions necessary in that country to achieve conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests, and

2) the extent to which the actions proposed for support by the Agency meet the needs thus identified.

2) FAA Sec 119 Endangered Species

(d) COUNTRY ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. Each country development strategy, statement, or other country plan prepared by USAID shall include an analysis of:

1) the actions necessary in that country to conserve biological diversity, and

2) the extent to which the actions proposed for support by the Agency meet the needs thus identified.

The FAA 118/119 analysis for USAID/Madagascar must adequately respond to the two questions for country strategies, also known as, “actions necessary” and “extent to which.”

1.2 PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this task is to conduct an analysis of tropical forest and biodiversity in compliance with Sections 118 and 119 of the FAA of 1961, as amended, and ADS guidelines. The analysis will inform USAID/Madagascar in the development of the Mission’s CDCS. USAID’s approach to development requires that the Agency examine cross-sectoral linkages and opportunities to ensure a robust development hypothesis. Biodiversity conservation is a critical approach for achieving sustainable development and should be considered in Mission strategic approaches to improve development outcomes. The analysis therefore is an opportunity for the Mission to better understand the strategic linkages between the conservation of a country’s tropical forest and biodiversity and development, so that it can structure a sound Results Framework to support future programming. Notably, the analysis will identify strategic linkages at the Results Framework level, highlighting opportunities to integrate tropical forest and biodiversity conservation into priority development sectors identified in the CDCS.

The analysis will identify new developments that should be taken into consideration at a programmatic level. This country, in addition to having high rural population growth rates and deforestation rates, is also considered to be significantly vulnerable to natural disaster (droughts, floods). As the Mission’s next generation CDCS will continue to focus on ending extreme poverty, evidence-based programming decisions must include consideration of issues that include global climate change, food security, water, natural resources trafficking, governance, and global health, all of which will be informed by this analysis.

Several relevant developments have occurred in the country that require further scrutiny, notably the expansion of oil drilling and overfishing activities. Demand for charcoal and fuelwood, encroachment of agriculture and human settlements onto forested and protected areas, and mining continue to degrade the country’s already dwindling forests. Moreover, the country’s rapid population growth and related needs to provide food, energy, income, and social services to its bulging youth demographic further strain the country’s natural resources and ecosystem services (terrestrial and marine).

The report will also serve as a vehicle for cooperation with and capacity building of institutions, such as local conservation non-governmental organizations, USAID implementing partners, and other technical and financial partners. As such, the contractor will work closely with these institutions and hold workshops for planning and validation in cooperation with stakeholders.

Climate change is a concern in Madagascar. As such, the analysis will evaluate the threat to the country’s tropical forest and biodiversity from climate change. Depending on the analysis team’s findings, climate change may be considered a direct threat or an indirect threat, or in

62 some cases, the analysis team may determine that biodiversity is not threatened by climate change.

In addition to evaluating the climate change threat to biodiversity and tropical forests, the analysis team should consider climate change as a cross-cutting theme and should analyze and incorporate climate change, as appropriate, throughout the report. Climate change vulnerabilities should also be considered when developing the report’s recommendations.

The analysis team should identify innovative, integrated strategic approaches that link tropical forest and biodiversity conservation to all USAID programming sectors, and to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The analysis team should use Mission reports on climate change in the analysis (climate change reference materials are available here)

1.3 MISSION PROGRAM

Madagascar is home to 5 percent of the earth’s plants and animals while comprising less than half a percent of the world’s landmass. There are more endemic species of plants and animals living in Madagascar than on the entire African continent and more than 80 percent of its species can be found nowhere else on earth.14 This exceptional species richness and endemism coupled with the magnitude of threats facing these ecologically, culturally, and economically valuable resources makes Madagascar one of the world’s highest priority countries for biodiversity conservation.

The marine ecosystems surrounding Madagascar also harbor some of the richest estuarine, mangrove, seagrass, coastal marsh, and coral reef ecosystems as well as some of the most productive fisheries in the western Indian Ocean, but these habitats face threats due to overfishing, destruction of coral reefs, intensive aquaculture, and charcoal production of mangroves, etc.

Madagascar’s rich and fragile biological heritage is home to one of the poorest human populations in the world, which is regularly devastated by destructive cyclones, droughts, locusts, food insecurity and stagnant economic growth linked to political instability. The country ranked 154 out of 188 countries in the 2015 Human Development Index and 175 out of 188 countries in terms of GDP per capita, with around 87.7 percent in 201515 of people living below the international poverty line. Per capita income is only $440/year.16

The national poverty rate climbs even higher in rural areas, where more than two-thirds of the population resides. Natural areas serve ecological functions and provide resources that are crucial to the well-being of many people. Notably, more than 25 percent of GDP in the country is based on agriculture, fishing, and forestry, and these activities employ more than 80 percent of

14 Nature Communications Article, Oct 2014 15 World Bank, 2015. 16 World Bank, 2014.

63 the population. Therefore, the natural resource base must be maintained for Madagascar to develop economically.

The absence of effective rule of law or government effectiveness and accountability in rural areas coupled with grinding poverty, high birth rates, and unsustainable natural resource management practices in farming, forestry, and fishing systems has placed enormous pressures on the country’s natural habitats. Because of the weak governance, there are actors responsible for the illicit trade in wildlife that plagues the country leading to illegal and unsustainable harvesting of precious woods, reptiles, and marine species.

At the same time, climate change is an emerging threat that will make biodiversity conservation and human development in Madagascar more challenging to achieve and maintain. The international risk analysis firm, Maplecroft, ranked Madagascar third highest in its level of climate risk, behind only Bangladesh and India in its 2011 report.17 Climate change is expected to render extreme events more unpredictable, frequent, and damaging. In addition, Madagascar is significantly affected by the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which intensifies drought in the south and flooding in other areas of the country.

Gender relations in Madagascar present unique challenges in ensuring that natural resource management becomes more equitable and empowering to women. Women have inequitable access to land and their role is minimized or marginalized in public discussions, community decision-making and governance, and control of household resources. Culture and tradition tend to favor the education of males over females, and as a result, more women are illiterate and impoverished.

Youth concerns are also an extremely important consideration in the country given that more than half the Malagasy population is under the age of 25. Across Madagascar, youth experience high rates of unemployment and underemployment. Most youth have also received poor social services historically, particularly during the coup period from 2009-2014. However, youth in rural areas where most of the country’s remaining biodiversity can be found usually suffer higher rates of unemployment, illiteracy, and poor health than their urban peers.

In the absence of a CDCS, the Mission’s official strategic planning document at this time is the Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) with the U.S. Government Mission to Madagascar. Under the ICS, environmental considerations figure prominently under Goal 3: “The Malagasy and Comorian people benefit from improved social, economic, and environmental wellbeing and build their resilience to climate change and natural disasters.” Specifically, biodiversity and natural resource management objectives are mentioned under Objective 3.1: “Conserve biodiversity and secure natural resources while promoting resilient livelihoods in Madagascar.”

The U.S. Mission in Madagascar, with USAID taking a strong role, crafted the ICS with the above-mentioned challenges explicitly considered and discussed. Given the fact that the country is emerging from an extended period of civil unrest and will take some time to re- establish effective rule of law in the country, the U.S. Mission will pursue a policy to promote

17 Climate Change Vulnerability Risk Index 2011, https://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html.

64 transparency and accountability, reduce corruption, and encourage the development of policies to ensure greater inclusion and civil engagement. Important leverage points that the U.S. Mission will use to foster positive change include building on Madagascar’s renewed participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and coordination with international partners to encourage the type of business climate and transparency that is conducive to trade and investment. U.S. investors have recently made contributions in the extractive industry, energy production, and fisheries sectors, and the U.S. Mission will work to encourage further the engagement of American companies operating in or wanting to establish a presence in Madagascar. In addition, support through U.S. military cooperation and USAID’s development assistance programs are rapidly increasing and may provide an additional impetus for change.

USAID has been working to help the Malagasy people accomplish their sustainable development goals and support the country to achieve conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests. The United States provides development assistance in the areas of health, food security, disaster assistance, democracy and governance, and the environment through non-governmental organizations, community associations, and other private groups with the following development objectives: 1) strengthen democratic engagement and respect for civil and political rights in the Malagasy population to increase the demand for government accountability and strengthen the GOM’s responsiveness; 2) improve sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity conservation while promoting resilient livelihoods; 3) improve health through increased use of targeted Malagasy health, nutrition, water, and sanitation services; 4) improve performance of the targeted agriculture value chains; and 5) increase Madagascar’s ability to plan for and recover from natural disasters.

II. STATEMENT OF WORK

This analysis will mainly involve synthesis and analysis of existing information, coupled with key stakeholder consultations and site visits to ground-truth information.

Under the direction of the team leader, the analysis team will evaluate the status of tropical forests and biodiversity in Madagascar. The focus of all activities undertaken will be two- fold:

A) Identify actions necessary to conserve tropical forests and biodiversity and the extent to which the Mission meets the actions necessary, and

B) Develop recommendations that will guide the Mission in updating the “extent to which” in the new country strategy.

To accomplish this task, the analysis team will perform the activities in Sections 2.1 and 2.2:

2.1 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Prior to in-country fieldwork, the analysis team will:1

1. Gather and begin to analyze existing information to identify tropical forest and biodiversity status, key biodiversity issues, stakeholders, policy and institutional frameworks, and gaps in the available information. Reports and other documentation to be reviewed include previous 118/119 analyses; current ICS and project documents; information available online (websites of government ministries and other actors) on biodiversity conservation (and tropical forest conservation); project reports and evaluations; the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP); and the National State of the Environment Report (NSOER). Preliminary list of resource materials are seen under the Appendix 1. Depending on timing of the award, some of these tasks may not begin until the full Analysis Team arrives in- country.

2. In coordination with the Mission, begin planning site visits based on the Mission’s recommendations and on the team’s preliminary review of key topics and information gaps.

Madagascar is a megadiverse country with numerous, often diffuse threats to biodiversity, making it difficult to set site visit priorities based on biological criteria. Further, many of the highest biodiversity areas have been well documented by international conservation NGOs in terms of biodiversity value and threat. Site selection will be based on the following criteria, in order of importance:

(1) Areas of acute threat, i.e. affected by industrial scale or unchecked artisanal resource exploitation (mining, fishing) and/or land conversion where written documentation and/or capital city expertise is lacking and a site visit can fill gaps in knowledge.

a. Eg. Central western coast (Menabe region with dry forests) and the Melaky regions with the issue of mangroves degradation and extensive fisheries.

b. Eg. Forest corridor of Ankeniheny Zahamena - Ambatondrazaka affected by artisanal mining activities

c. In view of planning initiative in combating wildlife trafficking, include an assessment related to trafficking of i) the ploughshare tortoise in the Baly Bay of northwestern Madagascar as this species is at an extremely high risk of extinction; and, ii) the radiated tortoises in the far south and southwestern Madagascar, which is also a critically endangered species. Other reptile species can be taken into consideration too.

(2) Areas of substantial current or expected mission programming in other sectors, especially those affecting land use and resource access (i.e. Food for Peace and drought relief activities).

a. E.g. The Menabe and Melaky regions where the Mission has integrated

community health programs including family planning and conservation activities (population, health, and environment programming).

b. E.g. south, southwest, central highlands, and east coast, which are vulnerable to recurrent shocks combined with high level of chronic food insecurity rate.

(3) Areas where Environment and Climate Change Office (ECCO) programs and other sector programs (supported by USAID, other donors, the private sector, or the government) will or will potentially overlap in terms of geography and/or key stakeholders.

a. E.g. The Boeny or Diana regions, which are GIZ intervention zones with its relevant examples of value chain promotion. The assessment team can also identify success stories (value chain and hydro-power system combined with watershed management) on the UNDP-funded Managed Resources Protected Areas (MRPA) within Diana region.

b. E.g. The Androy region, dry forests with issues of desertification, water scarcity, recurrent drought, and marine environmental problems.

(4) Areas of current biodiversity investment (by USAID or others) in which communities are primarily responsible for natural resource management and achieving conservation objectives.

Additional criteria include:

● Sites that illustrate emerging threats

● Protected areas and private (non-government managed) protected areas

● Ramsar sites (wetland site designated of international importance under the Ramsar Convention). E.g. In Menabe, one of the two lakes there – Sirave, 125 ha of lake and marsh – sometimes disappears completely during the dry season, which stretches from April to October

● Sites with globally significant biodiversity and/or sites where development, or other activities cooperate or conflict with conservation

● Non-biodiversity project sites with current or potential cross-sectoral linkages to biodiversity conservation (these could include fishing villages where insecticide-treated nets are used to catch fish; projects to increase agricultural productivity; entrepreneurial/job training for youth projects)

● Community conservation areas (where community management has resulted in biodiversity conservation successes or constraints to conservation), e.g. the community-managed sites such as Anja and

Anjozorobe including sustainable tourism activities in collaboration with private sector

● Infrastructure sites affecting biodiversity and forests

● Project sites where other donors, government, or non-USAID entities work

● Other relevant USAID geographically prioritized project areas.

3. Ten days after signing the contract, submit a draft Work Plan (Deliverable 1) to the mission. The draft Work Plan will include a schedule of tasks and milestones, proposed assessment tools, and a discussion of information gaps. In the work plan, identify the type of information to be obtained and the key people to engage throughout the analysis process, i.e., USAID/Washington; Mission staff, including the Program Office, technical staff, and the mission director; implementing partners; and biodiversity stakeholders, including host country government, international, national, local non-governmental organizations, and private sector. The final work plan will be based on Mission comments/suggestions and submitted after the in-briefing of the analysis team.

4. Hold an initial planning meeting with USAID/Madagascar through teleconference (see weekly activities/milestones) 5. Begin preparation of interview guides and a draft report outline based on the outline attached to the SOW (refer to Appendix 5: Analysis Report Annotated Outline).

6. Provide a list of recommended consultations/meetings to be held in Washington, D.C. Coordinate with the designated Washington technical expert on the proposed list of USAID/Washington technical staff, and other Washington, D.C.-based organizations (such as conservation non-governmental organizations, multilateral development banks, and others with active programs in the country) to meet and gather relevant information about their programs and input into the status of tropical forests and biodiversity.

After arrival in country, in coordination with the activity manager, the analysis team will:

7. Meet with the USAID Program Office at the mission, which is managing the 118/119 analysis with support from the Environment and Climate Change Office (ECCO), to gain an understanding of the status of the CDCS and its program goals and objectives.

8. Meet with the mission director and key USAID teams from the Program Office, Health Population & Nutrition Office, Food Security and Disaster Assistance Office, and Environment & Climate Change Office and other recommended teams in the Embassy – such as the Political/Economic Section – and present agencies to get Mission perspectives on the assignment and an understanding of specific Mission interests, organizations to be contacted and site visits, including advice and protocol on approaching USAID partners and host country organizations with respect to the

assignment. The Mission will brief the analysis team on any sensitivity related to the exercise (i.e., the potential for raising expectations, and the need to be clear about the purpose of the analysis) and relevant Mission guidance. Discussions should include the approach the analysis team will take to conduct the analysis, recommendations for potential biodiversity linkages with other sectors, and opportunities to influence national or regional development plans, and the best format and timing of recommendations to each sector.

9. Meet with organizations, government bodies, the private sector, and individuals who are knowledgeable about and/or implementing projects on environment, biodiversity, and tropical forest conservation, and other sectors relevant to tropical forest and biodiversity conservation, such as agriculture, economic growth, health, and governance.

10. Continue to obtain, review and analyze existing reports, online information, and other data including a geographic information system and updated maps that will be part of the deliverables.

11. Conduct site visits to supplement information gathered from consultations, literature review, and other second-hand sources. Site visit locations will be finalized in consultation with the Mission.

Best practices include:

● Site visits should involve the participation of USAID staff, and preferably the activity manager or COR/AOR when visiting a USAID activity.

● Site visits should contribute to and be referenced in the analysis.

● Use a case study approach: describe each site visit concisely and include key case studies in annexes and/or use them to brief team members not involved in the visit and Mission staff.

● Visuals: photos help make reports interesting, break up text, and can be used to illustrate threats to biodiversity and links between biodiversity and other sectors.

12. Prior to departure, host an exit briefing with the Mission, including Mission management, Program Office, and technical teams, to provide them with an overview of the analysis and preliminary recommendations and report findings (Deliverable 3).

2.2 PREPARATION OF THE FAA 118/119 ANALYSIS

1. The analysis team will analyze the information gathered and will prepare the analysis in accordance with the outline attached to the SOW (Appendix 4). The analysis team should also refer to the FAA 118/119 Best Practices Guide for useful information on producing the analysis, and Appendix 4, the Analysis Report Annotated Outline, which

provides details on the information required in each section of the report.

2. The analysis team shall prepare a draft report, of between 20-35 pages (excluding annexes), for review by USAID (Deliverable 4).

3. The analysis report will respond to the legislative requirements listed above and include recommendations on the extent to which the Mission can contribute to the actions necessary to conserve tropical forest and biodiversity.

4. The Mission review period for draft reports will be 10 working days. Following receipt of Mission comments on the draft report, the analysis team will prepare and submit a final analysis (Deliverable 5) that incorporates Mission comments, in accordance with the schedule of deliverables below. The analysis report should be sent to both the relevant Bureau in Washington for review and concurrence and the Mission. The Mission may review and provide comments on Deliverable 5 until the analysis is considered final and sufficient.

5. The FAA 118/119 analysis draft and final reports will follow the outline in Appendix 4 of the SOW, and should include the following maps and tables:

a) Map of main ecosystems in the country

b) Map of the forested areas and land uses

c) Map of protected areas, including forest reserves

d) Map of aquatic and marine resources

e) Protected area (PA) status table with:

● A list of all declared and proposed PAs (strict nature reserve, national/natural parks, special reserves, natural monument, protected landscape/seascape, and protected area with sustainable use of natural resources)

● Institution(s) responsible for the protection and management of each PA

● Area of coverage

● Ecosystems contained in each PA

● PA management plan status

f) Table of the status of natural resources outside protected areas with:

● Land cover and land-use type (e.g., wetlands/freshwater sources, major catchment areas, agricultural ecosystems, etc.)

● Institution(s) responsible for management

● An overview of the major threats and challenges to conserving biodiversity outside PAs

● Economic potential

g) Table of conservation initiatives including:

● A list of the main conservation initiatives implemented by government, donors, non-governmental organizations, private sector, and universities

● Brief evaluation of effectiveness

● Implementation dates

● Funding levels

III. SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS

The assignment will cover the period of on/about August 1, 2017 – February 1, 2018 from the date of contract signing to submission of the final deliverable. This includes approximately 3 weeks (18 working days) of work in-country; 3 weeks (18 working days) to produce the draft report following in-country work; 10 working days for USAID review of the draft report; and 10 days to submit the final report following receipt of comments on the draft.

The level of effort (LOE) requirements for this task are:

● A total of 21 days, 18 working days for expatriate staff in-country.

● A total of 45 days for expatriate staff working from home base.

● A total of 24-28 days for local staff.

Table 2: Weekly activities and milestones

Week Activity/Milestone Comments Week 1-2 Initial planning meeting with Clear understanding of USAID/Madagascar through USAID/Madagascar expectations teleconference Documents, contacts, and list of Submit work plan and interview sites to visit gathered and reviewed guide Preparatory tasks for in-country meetings, and site visit logistics completed Week 2 Pre-fielding document review by the Bibliography of consulted sources team Interviews summarized Consultations in person or by phone for the team leader with USAID/Washington and regional office Week 3 (In In-brief with mission director and Interviews summarized country) Mission team Maps collected Consultations/interviews with stakeholders Week 4 - 5 (In Site visits Interviews and data from field visits country) summarized Week 5 (In Compilation of findings and Preliminary report findings country) recommendations Exit briefing Week 6 - 9 Report writing and submit draft report Week 9 - 10 Review of draft report USAID/Washington & Madagascar provide comments Week 11 - 12 Incorporate comments and submit USAID/Washington & Madagascar final report review and approve

IV. DELIVERABLES

The following are the deliverables for this task:

Deliverable 1. Work Plan and schedule submitted within 10 days of start date. The Work Plan should include all tasks and a timetable, milestones, and deliverables and explain the following information:

● Plan for coordination and consultations with the Mission, USAID Washington, and relevant Washington-based implementing partners

● The analysis team’s expectations of the Mission (activity manager and others)

● A brief agenda for DO and Program Office meetings and for the in-briefing and exit briefing

● Proposed coordination with implementing partners and donors

● Coordination with the Mission to ensure the analysis team can respond to “extent to which”

● Plan for communicating the recommendations to all DO teams

Deliverable 2. Submit progress reports to the activity manager, which discuss progress, challenges and issues, and key findings to-date.

Deliverable 3. Submit preliminary recommendations and exit briefing presentation prior to the analysis team’s departure from the country.

Deliverable 4. Draft FAA 118/119 submitted 18 working days after the conclusion of in country work.

Deliverable 5. Following 10-working-day period for USAID review and comment, a revised final report, incorporating all comments, formatted and branded in accordance with USAID requirements, will be submitted within 10 working days of the receipt of comments on the draft.

V. ROLE OF THE USAID MISSION

The USAID Mission will provide the analysis team with:

● A list of key documents to review

● A list of key stakeholders to be contacted and will assist the team in making initial contact to arrange interviews

● Criteria and list of preliminary/suggested site visits

● A list of donor projects

● Review and feedback on the draft analysis report

The Mission activity manager will also assist with, and participate in, cross-sectoral mission meetings. To ensure continued coordination with the Mission over the course of the in-country work, the analysis team will submit (weekly - consistent with Section 4 Deliverable 2) progress reports to the activity manager, which discuss progress, challenges and issues, and key findings to-date.

VI. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS

The team leader will lead the analysis and should be a senior level biodiversity/natural resource management specialist with the following qualifications:

● Post-graduate qualifications (master’s level degree or higher) in biology, ecology, zoology, forestry, ecosystem conservation, or a closely related field

● Knowledge of USAID’s strategic planning process related to tropical forests and

biodiversity

● Expertise in assessing environmental threats

● Experience in the Africa region and preferably in Madagascar

● Experience coordinating analyses and leading teams

● Exceptional organizational, analytical, writing, and presentation skills

● Experience using geographical perspectives, spatial data analysis, and map-based communication to inform development programming

● Fluent in English

Analysis team will include the following members:

Deputy team leader, a senior forest and environmental governance specialist with the following qualifications:

● Expertise in the country’s environmental policy, institutional, and legal framework

● Expertise in the Malagasy forest, biodiversity, and protected areas

● Good contacts within the country’s government agencies, non-governmental organizations, international donors, and private sector

● Excellent analytical skills, particularly concerning forest management, and environment governance

● Experience using geographical perspectives, spatial data analysis and map-based communication to inform development programming

● Excellent verbal and written communication skills

● Fluent in English and French

Marine and coastal ecosystem specialist with the below qualifications:

● Expertise in the country’s marine and fisheries policy, institutional and legal framework

● Expertise in the country’s marine resources and fisheries management

● Good contacts within the country’s government agencies, non-governmental organizations, international donors, and private sector

● Excellent analytical skills, particularly concerning marine resources and fisheries management, and governance

● Excellent verbal and written communication skills

● Fluent in English and French

Economist and livelihood specialist with the below qualifications:

● Expertise in economic valuation of natural resources, payment of ecosystem services, environment-related business management, fundraising, value chain development, conservation enterprise, and climate change resilience and market opportunities

● Expertise in policies and regulations governing environmental management of concerned sectors (tourism, water, forest, energy, etc.) and climate changes in addition to legislation/trade policy

● Extensive experience on sustainable development and agriculture projects, natural resource, and agribusiness development

● Expertise on the assessment of the importance of private sector in the revitalization of the private sector investments while drawing key sectors to be prioritized with consideration of the environmental dimension

● Excellent analytical skills, particularly concerning the economic consequences of sector activities on biodiversity conservation and tropical forest

● Excellent verbal and written communication skills

● Fluent in English and French

Logistics/administrative assistant with the following qualifications:

● Good organizational skills

● Good contacts with actors working in environment and development to help identity and schedule sector for meetings

● Expertise in travel/logistic arrangements

● Expertise in interpretation and translation

● Excellent verbal and written communication skills

● Fluent in French and potentially English

Annex 3: List of Meetings with Contact Details

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting Government of Madagascar Entities 1 July 10, MEEF (Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Eau Liva Hariniana [email protected] 2018 et des Forêts) Ramiandrarivo – Tél: 034 05 620 48 Secretary General 2 Rue Toto Radola Ranto Rakotoaridera [email protected] Antsahavola - Antananarivo (101) – DSAP Tél: 034 05 621 45 3 July 10, MNP (Madagascar National Parks) Guy Suzon [email protected] 2018 Ambatobe, PO Box 1424, Antananarivo (101) Ramangason – [email protected] Director General Tél: 032 05 047 17

4 July 24, Jocelyn Bezara [email protected] 2018 5 July 10, ONE (Office National de l’Environnement) Jean Roger [email protected] 2018 Avenue Rainilaiarivony, Rue Ratsimilaho, PO Rakotoarijaona Tél: 032 07 822 10 6 Box 822, Antananarivo (101) Heritiana [email protected] Randriamiarana Tél: 032 07 822 20 7 July 12, CITES (Convention on International Trade in Tendro Radanielina – [email protected] 2018 Endangered Species CITES Flora Tél: 034 43 401 33 Faculté de Sciences, Département Ecologie Information Manager Végétale, Université Antananarivo, Ankatso, Antananarivo (101) 8 July 12, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Elevage Tovondriaka [email protected] 2018 Rakotobe – Secretary Tél: 034 05 623 39 General 9 July 16, DREEF (Direction Régional de Mr. Mara [email protected] 2018 l’Environnement, de l’Eau et des Forêts) Tsirahonanarivo – Tél: 034 19 823 47 Atsimo Andrefana Chef du Service Ankilisoafilira, Tulear (601) Régional des Forêts 10 Soary Tél: 034 03 623 09 Randrianjafizanaka – Directeur Régional de l’Environnement, de l’Eau et des Forêts

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting 11 July 18, Mayor of Mahaboboka (Sakaraha) Rakotondravelo Tél: 033 01 965 49 2018 Emile 12 July 23, Mayor of Soalala (Boeny Region) Habiro Herimany Tél: 032 70 546 55 2018 Abdallah Or 034 61 192 02 Maire de la Commune Urbaine de Soalala 13 July 23, Région Atsimo Atsinanana Mampody Ramanana [email protected] 2018 Bureau Région Atsimo Atsinanana, Fenoarivo, – Tél: 034 38 955 08 Farafangana (309) Secretary General Région Atsimo Atsinanana 14 July 24, DRAE (Direction Régionale de l’Agriculture et Edoaurd Jean – [email protected] 2018 de l’Elevage) Atsimo Atsinanana Directeur Régional de Tél: 034 05 124 20 l’Agriculture et de Fenoarivo, Farafangana (309) l’Elevage 15 Rija Rabarijaona – Chef SRAFV/DRAE Atsimo Atsinanana 16 July 24, DREN (Direction Régionale de l’Education Aingafaniry [email protected] 2018 Nationale) Atsimo Atsinanana Razafimahatratra – Tél: 034 61 473 12 Chef de Service de Amboanio - route de Vangaindrano l’Enseignement Farafangana (309) Secondaire et de l’Education de Base 17 Rafalimanana Ruffin [email protected] Angelo – Tél: 034 18 480 44 Chef du Service Administratif et Financier (SAF) 18 July 24, Groupement de la Gendarmerie Nationale – Lieutenant-Colonel Tél: 034 14 005 88 2018 Atsimo Atsinanana Derbas – Commandant du Mahafasa Andrefana, Farafangana (309) Groupement de la Gendarmerie Nationale de la Région Atsimo Atsinanana

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting 19 July 26, DREEF (Direction Régionale de Miarantsoa [email protected] 2018 l’Environnement, de l’Eau et des Forêts) – Rakotondrabe – Chef Tél: 034 69 983 31 Atsimo Atsinanana du Service Régional de Cantonnement, Fenoarivo Atsimo, Farafangana (309) SRC - DREEF Atsimo Atsinanana 20 July 26, Compagnie de la Gendarmerie Nationale – Jean José [email protected] 2018 Atsimo Atsinanana Ravelomanana Tél: 034 89 374 00 Mafahasa Andrefana, Farafangana (309) 21 July 26, Direction Régionale de la Communication Roulier [email protected] 2018 Atsimo Atsinanana Fahaenimanana – Farafangana (309) Directeur Régional de la Communication Atsimo Atsinanana International NGOs and Affiliates 1 July 11, MBG (Missouri Botanical Garden) Camara Christian – [email protected] 2018 Lot VP3 Ankadibevava-Anjohy, Antananarivo Country Director 2 (101) Jeannie [email protected] Raharimampionona – Tél: 034 11 324 82 Conservation Officer 3 July 23, MBG Atsimo Atsinanana Ludovic Reza – MBG [email protected] 2018 Commune Rurale Mahabo Mananivo (Route Atsimo Atsinanana Tél: 034 05 324 86 vers Vangaindrano), Regional Coordinator Farafangana (309) 4 July 12, CI (Conservation International) Rajoelina Sahondra – [email protected] 2018 Village des Jeux Ankorondrano, Antananarivo Country Director Tél: 034 05 161 54 5 (101) Zo Lalaina Rakotobe [email protected] – CDP/SLIEM 6 Bruno Rajaspera [email protected] 7 July 12, WWF (Antananarivo) Nanie [email protected] 2018 Lot près II M85 Ter Antsakaviro, Antananarivo Ratsifandrihamanana (101) – Country Director 8 Tiana Ramahaleo Tél: 034 49 802 78 July 13, Blue Ventures Manitra Arimalala [email protected] 2018 Villa Hugutte Lot II U 86 Cité Planton, Tél: 034 74 213 34 Ampahibe, Antananarivo (101) Tél: 032 11 279 62 9 Nicholas Reed-Krase [email protected]

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting Tél: 034 45 532 81 10 Adrian Levrel – [email protected] National Fisheries Tél: 032 07 340 03; 034 20 340 03 Program Leader 11 Kitty Brayne [email protected] 12 July 17, Blue Ventures – Atsimo Andrefana Liz Day [email protected] 2018 Tél: 032 11 931 60 13 July 18, Blue Ventures – Atsimo Andrefana Garth Cripps [email protected] 2018 Tél: 034 20 339 97 14 July 18, Reef Doctor Emma Gibbons – [email protected] 2018 Ifaty, Tulear (602) Director 15 July 22, Durrell Wildlife Trust (Boeny Region) Hasina [email protected] 2018 Randriamanampisoa Tél: 032 07 357 41 – Regional Director 16 July 24, Henri Rakotosalama [email protected] 2018 – Durrell Wildlife Trust Technical Staff 17 Ernest Bekarany – [email protected] Director of the Tél: 033 74 767 37 Chelonian Captive Breeding Centre, Ampijoroa 18 August WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) Ravaka Ranaivoson [email protected] 1, 2018 Villa Ifanomezantsoa, Soavimbahoaka, P.O. – Marine Specialist Tél: +261 20 22 597 89 19 Box 8500, Lanto [email protected] Antananarivo (101) Andriamampianina Tél: 033 11 879 92 Deputy Country Director Terrestrial 20 August WRI (World Resources Institute) Lucienne Wilmé – [email protected] 4, 2018 National Coordinator Tél: 032 84 221 16 for Madagascar Program Malagasy NGOs and CSOs 1 July 12, FAPBM (Fondation pour les Aires Protégées Gérard [email protected] 2018 de Madagascar) Rambeloarisoa – Tél: 034 11 850 54 Lot II K 44 Ankadivato, Antananarivo (101) Executive Director

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting 2 July 13, MIHARI Network Rakotondrazafy [email protected] 2018 Villa Hugutte Lot II U 86 Cité Planton, Vatosoa – Executive Tél: 034 20 3240 23 Ampahibe, Antananarivo (101) Director 3 July 16, Tany Meva Foundation Hanitra Rakotoarisoa [email protected] 2018 Antenne Toliara, en face Spirnam, – Gestionnaire des Tél: 034 06 551 85 Andranomena, Toliara (602) Projets 4 July 18, Holy Tél: 034 02 067 84 2018 Razafindratandra – Gestionnaire des Projets 5 July 21, VALBIO Center Ranomafana Pascal Rabeson – [email protected] 2018 Valbio Center Tél: 034 12 353 62 Director 6 July 27, Valbio Conservation 2018 Club in Ranomafana 7 July 31, SIF (Solidarité des Intervenants du Foncier) Raparison Eric – [email protected] 2018 Lot 67/2 Cité Tanambao Andavamamba, Executive Director Tél: 034 16 534 63; Antananarivo (101) Office Phone: +261 20 24 748 01 Donors and Projects 1 July 13, GIZ/PAGE Monique [email protected] 2018 Lot II K68 - Lotissement Bonnet Ivandry Andriamananoro – Tél: 032 05 425 11 Antananarivo (101) Forestry Expert 2 July 16, GIZ/PAGE (Toliara) Edmond [email protected] 2018 En face Mosquée Aga Khan (salle de prière), Randrianarivony/ Tél: 034 60 725 76 PO Box 80, Toliara (601) Tulear PAGE Regional Coordinator 3 July 18, PAGE ECO – Toliara Nirina Salomé Tél: 034 51 701 11 2018 Raharimalala – (GIZ PAGE ECO 4 Sites Ranoarison Herizo – [email protected] visit) PAGE ECO Tél: 032 05 425 50 5 Thierry Mahasoa – [email protected] PAGE GIZ Tél: 032 11 426 09 6 July 19, Lenja Guenther [email protected] 2018 Tél: 032 11 426 54 7 July 24, GIZ PRADA – Atsimo Atsinanana Ludovic [email protected] 2018 Solofohariniaina – Tél: 032 11 426 00

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting c/o Enceinte Mosquée Ambalakininina, Chef d’Antenne Farafangana (309) Atsimo Atsinanana 8 Alexandre [email protected] Razanabahny – Tél: 034 59 076 89 Assistant Composante 2 (Developpement Chaînes de Valeurs) 9 July 26, WFP Regional Office in Atsimo Atsinanana Raharijaona [email protected] 2018 Farafangana (309) Théodore – WFP Tél: 033 40 01632 Atsimo Atsinanana Regional Coordinator 10 July 31, UNDP Verosoa Raharivelo – [email protected] 2018 Maison commune des Nations Unies, Environmental and Tél: 032 11 007 36 Enceinte Galaxy Plaza, Rue Dr Raseta, Water Officer Andraharo, B.P. 1348 Antananarivo (101) Tél: (261-20) 23-300-92 et 23-300-95 Fax: (261-20) 23-300-42 Courrier: [email protected] Communication: [email protected] 11 August The World Bank Erik Winter-Reed Tél: 020 22 560 00 (WB Office) 6, 2018 1 Rue Andriamifidy, Anosy, BP 4140 Antananarivo (101) Private Initiatives 1 July 25, Former USAID Chief of Party Mimi Gaudreau [email protected] 2018 Entrepreneur Tél: 032 04 714 72 manufacturing low- cost agricultural equipment, Mahajanga 2 July 26, AQUALMA Didier Fourgon [email protected] 2018 44, Rue Galliéni, PO Box 93, Mahajanga (401) Environment Officer Tél: 034 49 257 19 3 July 19, Paubert Mahatante Paubert [email protected] 2018 Toliara (601) Mahatante/IHSM Tél: 034 02 415 15 University of Toliara Development and Food Security Projects

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting 1 July 09, CRS Madagascar Joshua Poole – [email protected] 2018 Lot II W 27 D, Route de l’Université Ankatso & Country Tél: 034 05 156 80 Rue François Vittori, PO Box 6073, Representative 2 Antananarivo (101) Jim Hazen – COP [email protected] Tél: 03405 159 05 3 July 16, CRS-CDD (Tulear) Hanta Eliane – CRS- [email protected] 2018 c/o Enceinte St Ambroise Didec, Tsianaloka, CDD Tulear, Tél: 034 15 708 03 Toliara (601) Coordonnateur de programme 4 July 17, Mirado Tél: 034 19 873 79 2018 Ramaromanana – Infrastructure Responsible 5 Olafson Grichard [email protected] Rakotonirina Tél: 034 20 913 41 GRN (Gestion des Ressources Naturelles) Responsible 6 July 24, ONN – Regional Office of Nutrition, Atsimo Gatien Anicet [email protected] 2018 Atsinanana Kitsanga – ONN Tél: 034 07241 05 Regional Villa MÖRATY, Fenoarivo Nord, Farafangana Coordinator, Atsimo (309) Atsinanana 7 Evariste – ONN Tél: 034 64 863 35 Agent 8 July 24, WHH (Welthungerhilfe) Rasoloherivelo [email protected] 2018 Andrianantenaina Tél: 034 48 273 16 Ambodifirapay, Farafangana (309) WHH Superviseur des Zones 9 Junnia Hanitriniaina – [email protected] WHH Responsable Tél: 034 69 304 48 Nutrition 10 August USAID-CRS Fararano Tanja Englberger – CRS Madagascar Office 6, 2018 Head of Tél: + 261 20 22 665 65 Programming

Date of Institutions – Location Name – Position Contact Details Meeting 11 Lot II W 27 D, Route de l’Université Ankatso Lanto and Rue François Vittori, PO Box 6073, Rafanomezantsoa – Antananarivo (101) DCOP (Fararano Project) Association 1 July 23, GERP Jonah Ratsimbazafy [email protected] 2018 Manombo, Route de Vangaindrano, – GERP President Tél: 033 12 338 83 Farafangana (309) Other 1 July 26, Plateforme des Organisations de la Société Morasata Alimana [email protected] 2018 Civile Marc Tél: 034 05 613 70 Tanambao, PO Box 174, Farafangana (309)

Annex 4: Biodiversity Data Tables Overall conservation status: Humid Forests – Endangered; Sub-humid Forests – Critical; Dry Deciduous Forests – Endangered; Ericoid Thickets – Endangered; Spiny Thickets – Endangered; Succulent Woodlands – Critical; Mangroves – Endangered (Burgess et al., 2004)

Madagascar Are Number Richnes Endemis Amphibian Birds Mammal Reptile Plants Invertebrate Ecoregion a of s Index m Index s s s s (000 species (R) (E) R E R E R E R E R E R E s 18 ha) Humid 112. 497 42 95 88 45 18 1 77 14 129 54 6,00 V VH VH Forests 4 0 6 0 H Sub-humid 199. 495 31 75 86 30 15 1 74 0 140 43 3,20 V H VH Forests 3 4 0 H Dry 152. 357 72 100 20 1 16 2 55 8 83 20 2,10 V H VH Deciduous 1 2 0 H Forests Ericoid 1.3 107 34 63 22 5 44 0 17 1 19 4 800 V L VH Thickets H Spiny 43.3 48 74 7 0 15 8 35 2 82 26 1,10 V M VH Thickets 1 0 H 260 Succulent 79.8 35 59 5 0 15 1 35 0 55 1 1,40 V H VH Woodlands 2 0 H 5.2 163 0 0 1 0 12 0 4 0 2 0 50 L L L Mangroves 5

18 Mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians

WWF WildFinder data on ecoregional endemics (mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) are as follows:

Ecoregion Number of ecoregional endemics19 Humid Forests 100 Sub-humid Forests 58 Dry Deciduous Forests 55 Ericoid Thickets 25 Spiny Thickets and Succulent Woodlands 32 Mangroves 12

Levels of threat (IUCN Red List, 2018; IUCN, 2018)

Classes Critically Endangered Vulnerable Near Endangered Threatened Lemurs 38 44 23 3 Mammals (excluding lemurs) - - 3 1 Birds 2 6 6 4 Reptiles 4 2 4 1 Amphibians 3 13 7 6 Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) 8 10 11 1 Liliopsida (monocotyledons) 49 39 5 4 Magnoliopsida (dicotyledons) 33 98 41 7

19 Mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians

Annex 5: Overview of Ecosystem Services Service Sub- Examples Type Provisioning Services Food In the northwest, wild yams (Dioscorea spp.) serve as important supplementary food source and “safety net” during times of rice scarcity (Ackermann, 2003). Seven endemic species of Dioscorea spp. are harvested in the Mikea region and constitute an important food supplement; yams may also be exchanged for fish at weekly markets, and their sale permits families to invest in livestock (Cheban et al., 2009). In Ranomafana, harvesting of wild crayfish contributes significantly to the local economy and may constitute an important protein source for children (Jones et al., 2006). A range of wild animal species are harvested for food throughout Madagascar, including amphibians (Jenkins et al., 2009), bats (Cardiff et al., 2009, Goodman, 2006), birds, lemurs, and lypotyphlans (Garcia and Goodman, 2003; Golden, 2009; Goodman and Raselimanana, 2003; Rakotondravony, 2006). Bushmeat accounted for 10 percent of meat consumed in a sample from western Madagascar (Randrianandrianina et al., 2010). The Vezo of southwest Madagascar depend almost entirely on wild marine products for subsistence and commerce (Astuti, 1995). A study in Anakao observed the harvest of 34 species of marine invertebrate, including holothurians (for commerce) and molluscs (for consumption) (Barnes and Rawlinson, 2009). For the Mikea of the southwest, the collection of wild food sources (bushmeat, yams (Dioscorea spp.), honey) constitutes an important component of diversified livelihood strategies (Stiles, 1991; Tucker, 2001). Fuelwood Over 90 percent of Madagascar’s domestic energy is derived from fuelwood and charcoal. In cities such as Toliara and Morondava, 100 percent of wood-fuel is derived from natural forests (Bertrand et al., 2010). Fiber (including In the west and northwest, fishing communities use wood collected from mangroves for making fish traps and construction canoes and the construction of houses and fences (Rasolofo, 1997). Masikoro communities in the southwest materials) use forest-derived wood for the construction of homes, fences, tools, coffins, and ox-carts (sarety); the tree Givotia madagascariensis (Euphorbiaceae) from the same forests is used for pirogue (lakana) construction by neighboring Vezo communities (Rejo-Fienena, 1995). Biochemicals Wild medicinal plants are used in healthcare by rural and urban populations throughout Madagascar (Lyon and Hardesty, 2005, Norscia and Borbognini-Tarli, 2006; Novy, 1997; Randrianarivelojosia et al., 2003). Regulating Services Water A sample of 20 MNP-protected areas provide hydrological regulation for 430,000 ha of irrigated agriculture and regulation drinking water for 17 towns (Carret and Loyer, 2003). More than two-thirds of Madagascar’s electricity is generated through hydropower, which depends on hydrological regulation services (ADER, 2008). Flood prevention through watershed protection contributes significantly to the national economy (Kramer et al., 1997).

Service Sub- Examples Type Pollination In the Androy region, loss of even the smallest forest patches results in loss of pollination services required for cultivation of food crops (Bodin et al., 2006). Erosion Following deforestation of the watershed, erosion and subsequent siltation had reduced Lac Alaotra to 20 prevention percent of its original size by 2000 and caused agricultural productivity to decline to 40 percent of its previous levels (Bakoariniaina et al., 2006). Erosion of agricultural soils is estimated to cost 2.5 percent of GDP per year (Carret et al., 2010). Cultural Services Spiritual and Forests play an important role in the cultural and spiritual lives of the Tandroy in southern Madagascar (Gardner religious et al., 2008) and are therefore maintained through informal prohibitions (fady); forest functions include sheltering ancestral tombs (burial forests, ala kibory) and spirits (kokolampo) (Tengö et al., 2007). Recreation and 55 percent of international visitors come to Madagascar for ecotourism (Christie and Crompton, 2003); the ecotourism financial value of ecotourism contributed an added value of $400 million to the national economy in 2008 (Carret et al., 2010). Cultural The Vezo culture revolves around the harvest of marine biodiversity (Astuti, 1995) and is therefore dependent heritage/sense on the functioning and productivity of marine ecosystems. The culture of the Mikea is also tightly linked to the of place existence of productive forests (Tucker, 2001), while Mahafale pastoralists maintain forests as an important component of their transhumant pastoralist culture (Kaufmann and Tsirahamba, 2006).

Annex 6: Analysis of FAA 118/119 Questionnaire Data Questionnaire Template

Questions/Topics for FAA 118/119 Meetings

Name Organization/Title Phone/Email Address

General 1. Status of ecosystem diversity: Which types of ecosystems are most threatened? What are the threats?

2. Status of species diversity: What species are most threatened? What are the threats?

3. Status of protected areas and PA management: What are the challenges in managing PAs? What are the needs of and opportunities in PAs? Do PAs adequately cover the important biodiversity? Do you have any information on the economic potential of the PA system, including productive assets, ecosystem services, and conservation enterprise opportunities?

4. Status of forested areas and forest area management: Is sustainable forest management being implemented? What are the opportunities for and challenges to implementing sustainable forest management? What are the main threats to forests?

5. Status of genetic diversity: Including agriculture/crops/crop relatives/wild species of economic or ecological importance.

6. Status of threatened/endangered species: Is the legislation adequate? Have critical habitats been identified and protected? Is CITES implemented? Do the governing institutions have capacity? Is there government will? Are there examples of successes/failures in ecosystem management (examples)? Are there endangered species of social, economic, scientific, or environmental importance?

7. Ecosystem services: What are the ecosystem services of importance? Are there examples of successes/failures in and opportunities for implementing payments for ecosystem services including REDD+, ecotourism, fisheries, water resources, etc.?

8. Status of freshwater diversity including wetlands: Are there plans to nominate Ramsar sites (to become a party to the Ramsar Convention)? What are the challenges for sustainable management of wetlands? What are the key threats to wetlands?

9. Status of marine biodiversity including coral reefs, seagrass beds, fisheries, etc. Are their marine protected areas? How are they managed? What are the challenges for sustainable management? What are the key threats?

10. Do you have information on biodiversity-natural resource valuation/forest products valuation?

11. Do national, regional, and local institutions have the organizational capacity and political support to fulfill their mandates for the purpose of improving forest management and biodiversity conservation?

12. How do the social, economic, and political context affect forest and biodiversity conservation?

Special interest areas: • Climate change threats to Madagascar’s biodiversity (including as an indirect threat/driver) • Industrial, other development including mining • Land and property rights • Agricultural expansion and food security • Health-related environmental issues and linkages: Population growth, medical waste disposal, industrial sites • Water resources/issues • Conflict and biodiversity conservation • Wildlife trafficking • Transboundary issues – including regional/local jurisdictions • Access and participation by special groups: youth, women and vulnerable/poor elderly, etc. • Security

Cite success stories and experiences inside or outside your organization on cross-cutting biodiversity/forests?

Direct Threats: How would you rank (from 1 to 5) these threats and their impact on biodiversity in Madagascar (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant)? Pollution of lakes, rivers, and wetlands 1 2 3 4 5 Overharvesting of timber, legal and illegal 1 2 3 4 5 Over-fishing 1 2 3 4 5 Hunting and poaching 1 2 3 4 5 Encroachment on protected areas (including wetlands 1 2 3 4 5 and forests) Introduction of alien invasive species 1 2 3 4 5 Industries, pollution 1 2 3 4 5 Infrastructure development 1 2 3 4 5 Agriculture practices 1 2 3 4 5 Mining, gravel extraction 1 2 3 4 5 Other direct threats? Please explain. 1 2 3 4 5

Root Causes: How would you rank (from 1 to 5) these drivers and their impact on biodiversity in Madagascar (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant)?

Lack of public awareness about forests 1 2 3 4 5 management and biodiversity conservation Lack of finances to conserve forests and 1 2 3 4 5 biodiversity Lack of coordination among agencies and 1 2 3 4 5 harmonization of laws related to forest management and biodiversity conservation Lack of data to effectively manage forests and 1 2 3 4 5 biodiversity Poverty, leading to excessive resource extraction 1 2 3 4 5 Corruption 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of government will to conserve forests and 1 2 3 4 5 biodiversity (other priorities take precedence) Lack of trained specialists in the 1 2 3 4 5 biodiversity/forestry fields Other drivers? Please explain. 1 2 3 4 5

Analysis and Results of Survey Data Ranking of direct threats to biodiversity from 15 interviews (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant) General ranking The following table shows the main direct threats ranking from all interviewed individuals and organizations Direct Threats Average score 1 Overharvesting of timber, legal and illegal 4.1 2 Over-fishing 3.4 3 Agriculture practices 3.4 4 Hunting and poaching 3.4 5 Encroachment on protected areas (including wetlands and forests) 3.0 6 Mining, gravel extraction 2.5 7 Introduction of alien invasive species 2.4 8 Infrastructure development 1.8 9 Pollution of lakes, rivers, and wetlands 1.7 10 Industries, pollution 1.4 11 Other direct threats? Please explain.

The following were identified as threats and were all ranked 4/5 (high): corruption of authorities, insecurity, and land tenure issues.

Ranking of threats by geographical area of the country The following table is based on the geographical location of the respondents or where they work.

Direct Threats SW SE NE W (MaMaBaie) Overharvesting of timber. legal and 4,5 3.0 3.5 illegal . Over-fishing 4.3 2.3 4.0 4.5 Agriculture practices 3.5 3.7 3.5 2.5 Hunting and poaching 4.0 3.7 3.5 1.0 Encroachment on protected areas 2.8 3.5 2.5 2.5 (including wetlands and forests) Mining, gravel extraction 3.0 2.8 2.0 1.0 Introduction of alien invasive species 2.0 2.8 1.0 3.0 Infrastructure development 2.5 1.7 1.5 1.0 Pollution of lakes, rivers, and wetlands 1.8 2.3 1.0 1.0 Industries, pollution 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.0

• Overharvesting of timber, legal and illegal, is relevant for all zones. • Over-fishing is reported as a high threat in the northeast, southwest, and west and is less relevant in southeast where there are fewer fisheries. • Agriculture practices are reported as threats in all zones, though it is seen to be less of a threat in the west. • Hunting and poaching are reported as threats in all zones, though it is seen to be less of a threat in the west. • Encroachment on protected areas (including wetlands and forests) is reported as a significant threat in the southeast, and moderate in the other zones. • Mining, gravel extraction is seen as less relevant in the west. • Introduction of alien invasive species is seen as less relevant in the northeast. • Infrastructure development is less relevant in all zones other than the southeast where it is seen as a moderately relevant threat. • Pollution of lakes, rivers, and wetlands is seen as less serious in all zones other than the southeast, where it is reported as moderately relevant.

Ranking of threats by type of organization The following rankings are based on the respondents’ type of organization (NGO, CSO, or government).

Direct Threats NGO CSO GOV Overharvesting of timber, legal and illegal 4.3 4.5 4.3 Over-fishing 3.9 4.5 2.7 Agriculture practices 4.0 1.5 3.0 Hunting and poaching 3.7 2.0 3.3

Direct Threats NGO CSO GOV Encroachment on protected areas (including wetlands 3.6 1.0 3.0 and forests) Mining, gravel extraction 2.4 2.5 2.7 Introduction of alien invasive species 2.7 3.5 2.0 Infrastructure development 2.0 1.5 1.3 Pollution of lakes, rivers, and wetlands 1.7 1.0 2.3 Industries, pollution 1.3 1.5 1.7

The opinions of CSO respondents differed from NGO and the GOM respondents regarding the severity of the various threats to biodiversity. The CSO members felt that agriculture practices and hunting/poaching were less relevant and that encroachment on protected areas (including wetlands and forests) was one of the least important threats.

In contrast, the government respondents ranked over-fishing as only moderately relevant whereas NGO and CSO respondents ranked it as a priority threat. Pollution of lakes, rivers, and wetlands are ranked of greater importance by government respondents compared with NGO and CSO respondents, who ranked this threat as less serious.

Ranking of root causes and drivers of threats to biodiversity from 15 interviews (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant) General ranking The following table shows the root cause ranking from all interviewed organizations. Drivers and their impact on biodiversity in Madagascar General (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant)? 1 Corruption 4.5 2 Poverty, leading to excessive resource extraction 4.0 3 Lack of coordination among agencies and harmonization of laws 3.9 related to forest management and biodiversity conservation 4 Lack of finances to conserve forests and biodiversity 3.7 5 Lack of government will to conserve forests and biodiversity 3.6 6 Lack of data to effectively manage forests and biodiversity 3.4 7 Lack of public awareness about forests management and biodiversity 3.1 conservation 8 Lack of trained specialists in the biodiversity/forestry fields 2.7 9 Other drivers? 1.0

The additional factors identified as threats were are all ranked 4/5 (high): remoteness that creates insecurity, lack of supervision of farmers in rural areas, and lack of infrastructure such as roads.

Ranking of drivers by geographical area of the country The following table is based on the geographical location of the respondents or where they work.

Threats drivers and their impact on biodiversity in SW W SE NE Madagascar (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant)? (MaMaBaie) 1 Corruption 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 2 Poverty, leading to excessive resource 4.8 5.0 3.3 3.5 extraction 3 Lack of coordination among agencies and 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 harmonization of laws related to forest management and biodiversity conservation 4 Lack of finances to conserve forests and 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.5 biodiversity 5 Lack of government will to conserve forests 3.3 5.0 3.3 4.0 and biodiversity 6 Lack of data to effectively manage forests and 3.5 3.0 3.7 3.0 biodiversity 7 Lack of public awareness about forests 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.0 management and biodiversity conservation 8 Lack of trained specialists in the 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 biodiversity/forestry fields

In general, the ranking level for each type of driver is similar across the country. The only significant exception is that the “lack of government will to conserve forests and biodiversity” is regarded as very important in the west.

Ranking of drivers by type of organization The following rankings are based on the respondents’ type of organization (NGO, CSO, or government).

Threats drivers and their impact on biodiversity in NGO CSO GOV Madagascar (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant)? 1 Corruption 5.2 5.0 3.7 2 Poverty, leading to excessive resource 4.8 5.0 2.7 extraction 3 Lack of coordination among agencies and 4.6 4.0 3.3 harmonization of laws related to forest management and biodiversity conservation 4 Lack of finances to conserve forests and 4.6 3.5 2.7 biodiversity 5 Lack of government will to conserve forests 4.4 4.5 2.3 and biodiversity (other priorities take precedence) 6 Lack of data to effectively manage forests and 4.0 3.5 3.0 biodiversity 7 Lack of public awareness about forests 3.8 3.0 2.3 management and biodiversity conservation

8 Lack of trained specialists in the 3.2 3.5 2.0 biodiversity/forestry fields

The opinions of government respondents differ from NGO and the CSO respondents regarding the relevance of the various drivers of biodiversity loss. The government respondents find corruption a moderately relevant driver of biodiversity loss in Madagascar. They also find poverty, lack of finances, and lack of government will to conserve forests and biodiversity the least relevant threats.

In contrast, the NGO and CSO respondents rank corruption, poverty, and lack of coordination among agencies and harmonization of laws related to forest management and biodiversity conservation as important drivers of threats to biodiversity.

These differing points of views need to be considered when designing behavior change campaigns and conducting advocacy initiatives.

Ranking of drivers based on respondents’ ecological focus (types of ecosystem under threat) The following table shows the average ranking of direct threats to biodiversity in Madagascar.

Threats drivers and their impact on biodiversity in Marine Terrestrial Madagascar (1 – not relevant, 5 – most relevant)? 1 Corruption 4.9 4.4 2 Poverty, leading to excessive resource extraction 4.4 3.7 3 Lack of coordination among agencies and 4.3 3.8 harmonization of laws related to forest management and biodiversity conservation 4 Lack of finances to conserve forests and biodiversity 3.7 3.8 5 Lack of government will to conserve forests and 3.7 3.8 biodiversity (other priorities take precedence) 6 Lack of data to effectively manage forests and 3.1 3.4 biodiversity 7 Lack of public awareness about forests 3.1 3.2 management and biodiversity conservation 8 Lack of trained specialists in the biodiversity/forestry 2.7 2.5 fields

The ranking of the different threats is very similar across marine and terrestrial ecosystems. However, poverty and lack of institutional coordination are reported as less-relevant drivers in the case of terrestrial ecosystems.

Questionnaire Responses Status of ecosystem diversity Which types of ecosystems are most threatened? Terrestrial habitats: All types of forests are being destroyed: The dense rainforest low and mid-altitude in the north and east. The southern and western dry forest, littoral forest (specifically in the east and southeast), wetland, gallery forest (in the high land), and bamboo gazetted forest. The gallery forest between the hillsides from Ankazobe to Mahatsinjo is severely threatened, but this is not on the radar of most conservation organizations. These forests have been cut (it looks like selective harvest of tree species) and have been increasingly burned by the local population.

Low and mid-altitude rainforest: • 12,800 ha (10,000 ha: classified forest; 2,800 ha: special reserve) of Manombo. Both lowland and littoral forests are threatened by slash and burn for agriculture and illegal logging. • Around Toliary, the deforestation rate of dry forests between 2010 and 2013 was 2.29 percent loss per year. The loss of spiny forests was 1.66 percent between 2010 and 2013. In Menabe region, the newly established protected area of Menabe Antimena has lost around 5,000 hectares annually due to peanut cultivation driven by the Asian market. • In MaMaBaie, forests are threatened by people’s demand for land; periodic passage of cyclones challenge the integrity of MaMaBaie’s intact forests and reefs.

Marine and mangrove habitats: Marine and mangrove, marine benthic, and coral reef ecosystems are most threatened. • The actual threat may not be greater than threats posed for terrestrial ecosystems, but historically there has been less funding and attention devoted to marine biodiversity in Madagascar. • Similarly, the economic threats from legal businesses and exporters, which means that marine resource threats have continued without much international outcry. In addition, limited small-scale fisher’s rights make it difficult for coastal communities to continue their livelihoods and compete with industrial fisherman. • Mangrove deforestation is 0.20 percent a year, largely driven by charcoal production for urban city centers (not necessarily for local village consumption), and lack of government interventions or innovations has allowed mangrove deforestation to continue without much interest or discussion. • Mangroves, wetlands, and coral reefs are threatened by human demands fishery, shrimp farming as well as the frequent/periodic passage of cyclones. Examples: Baboaka in southeast, around Morondava and Toliary, MaMaBaie.

What are the threats? Habitat destruction is mainly the result of the following:

• Burning, deforestation, illegal logging, charcoal and firewood, slash-and-burn agriculture, itinerant agricultural practices, unsustainable forest exploitation. • Poor forest management including timber extraction for furniture markets in large towns near protected areas such as Morondava, Diego, or Maroantsetra, canoe construction,

unsustainable extraction of various types of renewal resources, illegal and unsustainable hunting, and uncontrolled fire. • Illegal mining for precious stones and gold. • Indirect threats were identified that lead to these direct threats including mainly the needs of local communities in terms of subsistence, insufficient revenues and resources, low education, use of traditional agricultural and fishing techniques, weak law enforcement, and corruption. • Charcoal production. Around Toliary, 15,000 hectares of natural forests are cut every year to supply the city with charcoal. • Unsustainable and disorganized agricultural production: for example, peanut cultivation driven by Asian market in the southwest and Menabe. Status of species diversity What species are most threatened? All forest-dependent species are threatened (including lemurs, tenrecs, birds, land snails, many tree species such as precious hard woods (palissandre, Humbertia sp./Fantsinakoho) and other forest products such as wild ignames, because of slash-and-burn agriculture, selective logging for dugout canoes, firewood, construction), and invasive plant species (Cercropia peltata from South America).

Flora: • 60 species inside the New Proteceted Area of Agnalazaha (Farafangana), the highlights of the site are: Asteropeia micraster (Asteropeiaceae), Critically Endagered; Diospyros mahaboensis (Ebenceae), known as ebony of Mahabo, rare plants.

Fauna (priority species threatened by hunting): • Eulemur cinereiceps, Gray-headed lemur • Avahi ramantsoavanai, Woolly lemur • Chelonya midas, Green sea turtle • Astrochelys yniphora (CR), Ploughshare Tortoise • Erymnochelys madagascariensis (CR), Madagascar big-headed turtle • Eupleresgoudoti major (VU), Eastern falanouc • Pteropus rufus (VU), Madagascar flying fox • Phaner furcifer (VU), Fork-marked lemur • Furcifer angelii, Angel’s Chameleon • Cryptoprocta ferox (VU), Fossa • Tachybaptus pelzelnii (VU), Madagascar grebe • Daubentonia madagascariensis (VU), Aye-aye • Microcebus myoxinus (VU), Peter’s mouse lemur • Microcebus murinus, Gray mouse lemur • Cheirogaleus medius, Fat-tailed dwarf lemur • Propithecus verreauxi deckeni (VU), Decken’s sifaka • Hapalemur griseus occidentalis (VU), Bamboo lemur • Eulemur fulvus rufus (VU), Red lemur • Haliaeetus vociferoides (VU), Madagascar fish eagle • Threskiornis bernieri (En), Madagascar sacred ibis • Ardea humbloti (VU), Humblot’s heron

• Charadrius thoracicus (VU), Black-banded Plover • Anas bernieri (En), Madagascar teal • Mycteria ibis, Yellow-billed stork • Phalacrocorax africanus, Long-tailed cormorant • Anhinga rufa, African darter • Nycticorax nicticorax, Night heron • Ardeola ralloides, Squacco heron • Bubulcus ibis, Cattle egret • Egretta alba, Great egret • Ardea cinerea, Grey heron • Ardea purpurea, Purple heron • Perrierbambos madagascariensis (Endemic), Bamboo

Terrestrial tortoises: Recently more than 10,000 young Astrochelys radiata tortoises were found in captivity in Toliara. According to Turtle Survival Alliance, Madagascar is now the main illegal exporter of tortoises in the world. • Astrochelys radiata. Critically Endangered. Threats: poaching for illegal trade, consumption, habitat loss. • Pyxis arachnoides. Critically Endangered. Threats: poaching for illegal trade; habitat loss.

Other threatened species: Lemurs, rare birds (serpent eagles, red owls), fosa (Cryptoprocta ferox), rare palm trees, Madagascar pitcher plants, precious woods, humpback whales, dugong, and sharks. • Lemur catta. Threats: habitat loss. Emerging threat: collection of baby lemurs for tourism pet trade. • Propithecus verreauxi. Threat: habitat loss. • Haliaeetus vociferoides (Madagascar fish eagle). Critically Endangered. Threats: habitat loss and harvesting of juveniles.

Marine tortoises: Four species are observed in Madagascar’s waters (green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and leatherback) and three nest on Madagascar’s beaches. Eggs are collected and individuals hunted in many part of Madagascar.

Agricultural species: Madagascar has one of the most diverse collections of rice varieties in Africa, in large part owing to the varied micro-environments (natural and humanmade) and eco-agricultural systems (tavy, tanety, baiboho, etc.) in which rice is cultivated. In addition, at least one of the “local varieties,” kiriminy, can be traced to Madagascar via the early Malaysian/Indonesian settlers. Introducing new germplasm into Madagascar, particularly for use by High Plateau farmers has been difficult. The introductions (research lines) have been used as parental material for crosses with the local varieties. It is only at mid-altitudes and along the west coast that introduced lines/varieties have been able to be included as varieties in the catalogs without further breeding. The red rice varieties from the high plateau have been promoted as a niche export crop. The wild rice varieties have been used in the past in the breeding program for resistance/tolerance to diseases such as Rice Yellow Mottle Virus. The greatest threat to rice

97 biodiversity is the introduction and promotion of the NERICA varieties from West Africa to the exclusion of promoting a robust local breeding program.

The lima bean type from southwest Madagascar is highly valued and was an important economic crop in a region with limited agricultural potential without irrigation. In the past, the bean germplasm was exported to Myanmar (Burma) and other countries that have expanded their production while Madagascar has not maintained nor improved its genetic resources. The bean, known as kabaro in Malagasy, had a problem called mena maso (red eye) that reduced its economic importance. There has been some work to determine the exact nature of the problem (Fungus? Other disease? Environmental, cultural factors?) with limited success. But Madagascar has lost its competitive advantage in the production and exportation of this bean and lost significant biodiversity that could have been used to improve production for local farmers.

What are the threats? • Conversion of lowland area to rice field • Harvest of mahampy, an aquatic vegetation for making mats, hats, baskets, etc. • Uncontrolled fire • Bushfires • Firewood harvesting • Traditional agricultural practices (slash and burn) • Selective logging for construction • Poverty driven, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources • Deforestation • Illegal logging • Unsustainable fisheries

Status of Protected Areas and PA management What are the challenges in managing PAs?

Governance issues and illegal activities within protected areas: Fight against Angonoka trafficking, fight against poaching and selective cutting of trees, and fight against political influences, stopping illegal activities (illegal harvesting “You can’t talk about conservation in poor regions of wildlife, illegal production of charcoal, slash and as you don’t even need to conserve in developed burn) despite continued efforts on public sensitization, countries as nature grows by itself. So, if we need development of income generating activities. the same thing in Madagascar, all money that is meant for conservation should be turned into local Imminent poverty of local communities living development projects. Let’s talk about the deep around protected areas: south for example, what would you prioritize, the • People are threatening forest in PAs for cutting life of hundreds of thousands of people living on trees and sometimes for hunting as well. the exploitation of natural resources (e.g. forests) • There is not enough buffer zone for protected or the natural resources conservation?” areas, and most of the time the access to the core area is easy due to the lack of the buffer zone around protected areas. • Bushfire due to disrupted rainfall, recurrent drought, and generalized poverty (92 percent of communities around the protected area) are the main factors behind those challenges.

The literacy rate: The literacy rate is declining in Madagascar and as a result marine resource management is becoming more difficult. The new generation of fishers do not know how to read or write, and very few have any completed primary school.

Operationalizing the management structure: • Securing sufficient resources for the implementation of the management plan. • Community is still poorly organized. Strengthening the community’s capacity to conserve the park and developing alternative activities to pressure for the reduction of poverty of the park’s local communities.

Lack of understanding that these protected areas are rich and unmatched in the world: Of the 112 known species of lemur in Madagascar, 105 are critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable to extinction.

Lack of human resources and equipment: • MNP and Forest Services lack resources and equipment such as GPS etc. (eg. no permanent presence in Manombo. No equipment). • Lack of capacity for Forest Services. • No shortage of conservation partners in Madagascar in marine management, but the coordination is weak and needs to be improved.

Very few successful PA management initiatives in Madagascar: • We need to acknowledge that there are very few PA management efforts that are successful unless they are private (such as Berenty Reserve). Most of the time, money is thrown away on the administration work instead of helping the surrounding communities to live independently from natural resources usage. • It is a main challenge because there is limited interest or understanding from the government to support monitoring and enforcement to protect certain PAs.

Reducing the level of threat to zero by 2021: It is a challenge to ensure a zero-threat level according to MNP strategic plan 2017/2021.

Issues of sustainable financing for PAs and conservation activities. Development of new conservation approaches that include sustainable-use models in PAs is pivotal in the development of food security and for providing development opportunities for vulnerable people in the region. There is an urgent need to rethink how best to reconcile nature conservation with sustainable development and enhance communities’ resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change.

What are the needs of and opportunities in PAs? Do PAs adequately cover the important biodiversity?

Needs: • There needs to be more state-led services, laws, and policies that support LMMAs that are community-based and community-managed. Furthermore, without exclusive fishing rights, many small-scale fishers are unable to continue their livelihood and may begin using more destructive fishing gear.

• Needs to be more support for sustainable solutions that allow for sustainable resource use rather than exclusive protected areas/no-take zones. • Installation/maintenance of infrastructure. • Capacity building of staff for PA management. • Social safeguards such as basic and environmental education, food secure, market for handicraft, market organization and management for cash crops. • Staff performance. • The existence of PAGs for the two National Parks of Baly Bay and Tsingy de Namoroka. • The existence of COSAP and operational CLPs around parks for conservation and development. • The existence of a civil society platform within the Districts of Mitsinjo and Soalala (currently being created) to defend the environmental cause. • Ensure the functioning of network PAs. • Invest in ecotourism, REDD+, concessions, and PES to sustain the financing of the park.

Opportunities: • For marine and mangrove ecosystems, there is great economic potential to use these resources in a sustainable way and to have a considerable economic impact for rural communities (sea cucumber, seaweed, temporary closures, etc.). However, these efforts should be done by supporting the existing CSO efforts, rather than duplicating what already exists, and investing in formal education and adult literacy. • Ecotourism could be a potential opportunity for biodiversity and ecotourism attractions/for research. • Manombo has the highest number of land snail species in the country. It home also a rare fish species and plants. Manombo is among the few littoral eastern forests left. • Ecosystem services: springs and streams ensure the water supply to villages in the peripheral zones of PAs. The raffia use constitutes an essential source of income of the region. • Existence of partnerships. • Opportunities: the Amoron’I Onilahy River is the sole river in the Atsimo Andrefana region that is permanent. In the context of climate change, the river and its gallery forests constitute key refuges for people and for wildlife (mainly lemurs). The beauty of the landscape and richness of the nature of the area provides promising opportunities for tourism. • Protected areas affect the climate and temperature of the southeast region of Madagascar. The productive assets are huge. They were destroyed without being exploited in most cases. Conservation organizations are struggling to work. • Conservation agreements and PES are other opportunities that can be explored. Population, health, and environment is also a good driver for future conservation and management efforts as the holistic approach meets people’s health needs as well, which is not only vital for timing and spacing births so that women can engage in natural resource management and livelihood opportunities, but also because family planning can be used as an adaptation for climate change. • Opportunity: sources of income, such as ocean for lobster, shrimp, lakes and rivers for fish farming, savanna range for agroforestry (cash crop promotion), beekeeping because forest is available.

100

Adequacy of PAs that cover the important biodiversity? • Some PA coverage of important biodiversity. • But PAs do not cover all the important biodiversity. The critically endangered lemur, Eulemur cinereiceps and Aye-aye used to be found in the littoral forest, but they are no longer there because of the rapid disappearance of the forest.

Information on the economic potential of the PA system, including productive assets, ecosystem services, and conservation enterprise opportunities? • Economic potential. • Makira is also a functioning REDD+ project that sells emission reduction credits on the voluntary markets with revenues from sales used to finance park management and community development activities around the park. • Makira forests provide ecosystem services vital to surrounding population (electricity and water). • Simpona Ecolodge at the Antsahabe ecotourism site in Makira, open since 2016. • Several operational ecotourism sites all around Masoala and in Nosy Manga Be. • Information on the PA system economic potential (see SACs of Soalala and Ambohipaky communes). There will be a study on economic sectors and potentialities planned in 2019 as part of the CEPF financing. • Productive assets: see SACs for the two communes and the results of the study mentioned above.

Status of forested areas and forest area management Is sustainable forest management being implemented? • For mangroves, there should be consideration of sustainable mangrove harvesting, which might be able to curb illegal cutting of mangroves, which is commonly used for charcoal to be used in urban centers in Madagascar. Alternative energy solutions are also needed, as well as options to subsidize gas stoves. However, cutting mangroves is illegal in Madagascar. • Forest sustainable management is being implemented but it is not as successful as described in reports and as intended under the laws.

What are the opportunities for and challenges to implementing sustainable forest management? • The special reserve is already managed by MNP, the creation of new protected area for the classified forest has been discussed between the Service of Forest and GERP for a better management of the forest. • Currently, reforestation of the PA is conducted with the local community-based conservation. • Opportunity: people are already aware of status of conservation of forest and already involved as committee board for the conservation of the forest and for monitoring and evaluation of conservation for forest.

101

• There are some forests that have been left The system implemented is not sustainable, and that are transferable to communities which is proved by the decrease of the forest and exploitable in the area. coverage all along the year. It is linked to the • Presence of organizations working in the energy policy as more than 95 percent of the environmental field and support Malagasy households use fuel wood or organizations. charcoal. That means as long as the policy • Presence of forest service in the district. doesn’t include this reality, any forest • AP experiences in the region. management system will always fail. The lack of • Presence of some pioneering community jobs is also added into it. I talked to charcoal forestry groups Vondron’Olona Ifotony makers, they always say, it is not easy to cut (VOI) at district level. and cook woods to make charcoal as you fight • Existence of regional dina. Existence of with fire but when you have mouths to feed you ANVs in each fokontany. don’t have choice. We have lots of opportunities • The existence of a civil society platform such as the coal of Sakoa and gas, which are within the Districts of Mitsinjo and Soalala still unexploited. (currently being created) to defend the cause of the environment. • Implementation of reforestation and restoration of degraded habitats. • Watershed management. • Valorization of biodiversity through the development of ecotourism, REDD+, PSE, concession and collaboration with the private sectors. • Climate stability and a normal rainfall rate every year due to vegetation cover. • The opportunities are to keep increasing the protected areas in Madagascar under MNP management with the community-based association management as well. To conserve the forest, the management needs to improve the livelihood of the people living nearby the forest/protected areas means look at the socio-economy, health, and life in general of the villages or town near PAs. • The challenges are to maintain the equilibrium between conserving protected areas and the development of the area adjacent to these forests.

What are the main threats to forests? • Slash-and-burn and wildfires (loss of forest). • Firewood and wood consumption that lead to the degradation of forest. • Poles for farmland fences. • Natural cataclysm (cyclone, and floods). • Timber trafficking. • Degradation caused by immigrants. • Low capacity of community for managing transferred/transferable forests. • Agricultural expansion especially into lowlands and wetlands. • Poverty of people living next to PAs who are relying on the forest to survive. This includes unsustainable agriculture (slash and burn), hunting, illegal logging, gold mining, and exploitation of precious stones.

Status of genetic diversity, including agriculture/crops/crop relatives/wild species of economic or ecological importance Status of genetic diversity for agriculture/crops/crop relatives • Agriculture: low genetic diversity of crops, vegetables almost not available. Cash crops to be promoted: coffee, cloves, vanilla, black pepper.

102

• Genetic diversity, particularly in agriculture, has not been a priority of Madagascar nor of the conservation organizations working here. In the mid- to late-1990s, the IRRI Project worked to include sections on agricultural biodiversity in a World Bank document on biodiversity in Madagascar. • Malagasy farmers are facing increasing pressure to adapt to climate change; there will be a need to focus more genetic diversity of crops and on resilience. • In the past, donors promoted maize (which needs fertilizer to be more productive) in the southwest, also FOFIFA had a sorghum research program but I don’t know if there is any research effort on sorghum currently in the country. CRS has reintroduced sorghum, which is better adapted to the rainfall variability in the south. In terms of rice, FOFIFA had varieties that could resist flooding (up to three days) and others that could resist drought (short cycle). In the mid-west of the country, farmers have fewer cattle and therefore less manure available for cropping. • As soil fertility declines, there will be more and more fields abandoned because of Striga attacks. Farmers have identified varieties that are tolerant of Striga that could be promoted. • Farmers have traditionally kept a wide range of varieties knowing that each one has special characteristics and can be planted in certain soils and under certain management practices. It is unclear that this knowledge is being collected as well as the varieties needed to maintain a high level of agricultural genetic diversity.

Status of genetic diversity for wild species of economic or ecological importance • The viability of lemurs is threatened because of the loss of the forest. This means that there is a loss of genetic diversity owing to the risk of inbreeding for lemurs. Very few big trees left due to illegal harvesting. • Genetic diversity was not exploited/processed within MNP, purpose of reinforcement within the team. • Wild species diversity is remains relatively high in some areas (although diversity loss needs to be evaluated and addressed) agriculture crops remain mono-specific and have not changed in many years. • For conservation organizations, agricultural biodiversity was excluded.

Status of threatened/endangered species Is the legislation adequate?

Yes but: • Legislation is partly adequate (the texts sometimes exist but, their implementation is often absent). • Legislation is adequate but requires harmonization to avoid confusion of application.

Not adequate: • There is inadequate legislation to protect small-scale fisheries and locally managed marine areas. The communities have an interest, but the government has little will or investment in supporting coastal communities to protect their marine resources. • Legislation is not adequate as most of the texts are very old and need to be updated. However, some laws are tough, but the application is weak due to corruption or due to intervention from the top sphere.

103

• The legislation is not adequate because if it does exist, it is not enforced, which gives impressions that legislations do not exist. • The main law on species protection is the law on endangered wildlife trade (2005-018). A bylaw on the classification of Malagasy fauna exists (2006-400) but none exists on flora.

Have critical habitats been identified and protected? • Not all critical habitats have been identified because there are still fragmented forests hosting endangered species such as Prolemur simus, Hapalemur aureus, Varecia variegata, Indri indri, and more that are not protected. • With the Durban Vision, a process to protect 6 million of hectares of land (10 percent of Madagascar surface) and to protect critical habitats and ecosystems was launched in 2003 and is now achieved as more than 7 million hectares of high conservation-value areas are now under protection.

Is CITES implemented?

Yes but: • For lemurs (8 species) and other vertebrate species: yes, we have the list and IUCN status of endangered species. GERP is actively involved as IUCN Primate Specialist Group members. • Yes, but outside the park there is no control on the illegal exploitation of CITES species. • The protection of some species is not covered by the existing laws (e.g. black coral). That’s why CITES is partially implemented. Reptiles are the most threatened. • CITES is implemented, but not enough because more specialists are needed for training to know exactly the endangered species, so they can do the appropriate control. Fighting corruption is much needed for the control staff to be very strict to avoid illegal trade and smuggling. • CITES is implemented but much needs to be done to stop the smuggling of endangered or threatened species such as radiated tortoise, angonoka, and rosewood. The CITES management authority is within the Ministry of Environment, a weak ministry on front of powerful ones (defense, finance…).

Not implemented: • There is no control, no structure working on it, corruption of local institutions. • The texts exist only on paper and are poorly implemented.

Do the governing institutions have capacity? • Governing institution capacity is very low, and the government is corrupt. • Extreme corruption and poor governance. • Must be strengthened • The governing institutions do not have enough capacity since they rely on national and international NGOs to combat smuggling and illegal trade. The government needs to hire more young specialists in environment, ecology, forestry to be able to work on natural resources management. • The governing institutions do not have the necessary capacity. Strong/high dependence of government services on NGOs. • They are also understaffed when it comes to enforcement and monitoring.

104

Is there government will? • The government is currently too busy with political issues. The will is considered very weak. • Let’s say there is government will for combatting the illegal trade in tortoises, for example. It has been the case that people caught red-handed are sent directly to jail and wait for judgment. The penalty is very severe but, most times, it is not applied. • There is not enough will from the government because they do not really lead the fight against illegal exploitation of natural resources and, instead, there is corruption and collusion with smugglers. Most of the legislations and laws in forest management are not only reinforced if they exist, but also there is no new legislation or laws created or updated to confront with the new situations in natural resources management. There is not enough funding allocated to lead the fight against smuggling and illegal exploitation of natural resources. • The government has failed to enforce the law and to arrest the main traffickers (some are politically connected economic operators and their names have been published).

Are there examples of successes/failures in ecosystem management (examples)?

Successes: • Decrease of deforestation during the last three years. More involvement of the local community to conservation and livelihood activities. Women’s association well established. • Local structure established to manage forest, official permit for logging, hunting known to be forbidden, local farmer accepts to pay fine when caught. • The participation of the regional authorities (the Regional Prefect, the Regional Head in solving the conservation problem of Angonoka through the disposal of the elements (12) of the EMMOReg for the security of the enclosure in Beaboaly and the implementation of daily mixed patrols in the natural habitats of the species in the park. • Training on CITES species around protected areas and popularization of texts. • Some success when combatting illegal trade such as attempts to export endangered turtle species. Many offenders have been caught, showing improved controls. • As communities depend on these resources for their livelihoods, then local governance can be accomplished and effective. Examples include LMMAs and temporary closures supported by Blue Ventures.

Failures: • Lack of rigorous and regular monitoring of state institutions, i.e., no database available from them. • 1) building capacity of local institution because of high level of illiteracy, and high dependence of local people on the forest for firewood; 2) corruption of local institutions. • Failure in ecosystem management is demonstrated by the illegal trade in rosewood and other precious wood, expansion of gold mining and exploitation of precious stones in some protected areas.

Are there endangered species of social, economic, scientific, or environmental importance? The following is a partial list of endangered species in Madagascar.

105

Scientific Name English Name Family IUCN Status Easter Lesser Bamboo Hapalemur occidentaliss Lemuridae Vulnerable Lemur Indri indri Indri Indridae Critically Endangered Propithecus candidus Silky Sifaka Indridae Critically Endangered Varecia variegata White-belted Black-and- Lemuridae Critically Endangered subcincta white Ruffed Lemur Varecia rubra Red Ruffed Lemur Lemuridae Critically Endangered Eulemur fulvus Brown Lemur Lemuridae Near Threatened Eulemur rubriventeur Red Bellied lemur Lemuridae Vulnerable Eulemur albifrons White-fronted Brown Lemur Lemuridae Endangered Allocebus trichotis Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur Cheirogaleidae Vulnerable Avahi laniger Moore’s Woolly Lemur Indridae Vulnerable Cheirogaleus major Geater Dwarf Lemur Cheirogaleidae Data Deficient (DD) Cheirogaleus crossleyi Crossley’s Dwarf Lemur Cheirogaleidae Data Deficient (DD) Daubentonia Aye-Aye Daubentoniidae Endangered madagascariensis Lepilemur seali Scott’s Sportive Lemur Lepilemuridae Vulnerable Microcebus macarthurii Mac Arthurs Mouse Lemur Cheirogaleidae Endangered Microcebus mitermeieri Mittermeier’s Mausmaki Cheirogaleidae Endangered Phaner furcifer Eastern Fork-marked Lemur Cheirogaleidae Vulnerable Avahi mooreorum Moore’s Woolly Lemur Indridae Endangered Lepilemur scottorum Scott’s Sportive Lemur Lepilemuridae Endangered Cryptoprocta ferox Fossa Eupleridae Vulnerable Eupleres goudotii Eastern Falanouc Eupleridae Near Threatened Fossa fossana Malagasy Civet Eupleridae Near Threatened Broad-striped Malagasy Galidictis fasciata Galidiinae Near Threatened Mongoose Galidia elegans Ring-tailed Mongoose Galidiinae LC Solanoia concolor Brown-tailed Mongoose Galidiinae Vulnerable Accipiter Madagascar Sparrowhawk Accipitridae Near Threatened madagascariensis Alectroenas Madagascar Blue-pigeon Columbidae Vulnerable madagascariensis Ardeola idae Madagascar Pond-Heron Ardeidae Endangered Rufous-headed Ground- Atelornis crossleyi Brachypteraciidae Near Threatened roller Bernieria cinereiceps Grey crowned Greenbul Bernieridae Near Threatened Bernieria tenebrosus Dusky Greenbul Bernieridae Vulnerable Brachypteracias Short-legged Ground-roller Brachypteraciidae Vulnerable leptosomus Brachypteracias squamiger (Geobiastes Scaly Ground-roller Brachypteraciidae Vulnerable squamiger) Euryceros prevostii Helmet Vanga Vangidae Vulnerable Eutriorchis astur Madagascar Serpent-eagle Accipitridae Endangered

106

Scientific Name English Name Family IUCN Status Falco concolor Sooty Falcon Falconidae Near Threatened Glareola ocularis Madagascar Pratincole Glareolidae Vulnerable Hartertula flavoviridis Wedge-tailed Jery Timaliidae Near Threatened Leptosomus discolor Cuckoo Roller Leptosomatidae Near Threatened Lophotibis cristata Madagascar Crested Ibis Threskiornithidae Near Threatened Mesitornis unicolor Brown Mesite Mesitornithidae Vulnerable Monias benschi Subdesert Mesite Mesitornithidae Vulnerable Newtonia brunneicauda Common Newtonia Vangidae Vulnerable Oriolia bernieri Bernier’s Vanga Vangidae Vulnerable Ploceus nelicourvi Nelicourvi Weaver Ploceidae Near Threatened Rallus madagascariensis Madagascar Rail Rallidae Vulnerable Streptopelia picturata Malagasy Turtle Dove Columbidae Vulnerable Tachybaptus pelzelnii Madagascar Grebe Podicipedidae Vulnerable Tyto soumagnei Madagascar Red Owl Tytonidae Vulnerable Uratelornis chimaera Long-tailed Ground-roller Brachypteraciidae Vulnerable

Endangered species of economic, scientific, environmental importance • Asteropeia micraster (Asteropeiaceae), high economic and scientific value • Facherea lacinata (Sapotaceae), high social value • Dalbergia spp (Fabaceae), high economic and scientific value • Tina conjugate (Sapidanceae), high economic and scientific value • Leptolaena multiflota (Sarcolaenaceae), high economic and scientific value • Ocotea spp (Lauraceae), high economic and scientific value • Intsia bijuga (Fabaceae), high economic and scientific value • Eulemur cincereiceps (Lemuridae), high scientific and environmental value (seed dispersal and forest natural regeneration active agent) • Avahi ramantsoavanai, high scientific and environmental value (seed dispersal and forest natural regeneration active agent) • Other lemurs: Propithecus verreauxi deckeni, Hapalemurgriseus occidentalis, Eulemur fulvus rufus • Haliaetus vocciferoides, Threskiornisberneri, Mycteria ibis • Waterfowl: Ardea humbloti, Charadrius thoracicus, Anas bernieri, Tachybaptus pelzelnii, Ardea humbloti • Astrochelys yniphora • Erymnochelys madagascariensis • Marine mammals: Dugong dugong • Marine turtles: Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys olivaceae, Dermochelys coriacea, Caretta caretta

Ecosystem services What are the ecosystem services of importance? • Carbon sequestration. • Water reservoir, source of flood plain in Mahabo.

107

• Grass land for zebu herds, which are of cultural importance for the Sakalava ethnic group. • Existence of watersheds for the maintenance of water and source of income for the local population. • Fishery products as sources of income for fishers. • Great potential tourism (biodiversity, endemicity, karst landscape “tsingy,” seaside site, lake, etc.). • Mangroves and their ecological role.

Examples of successes/failures and opportunities for implementing payments for ecosystem services including REDD+, ecotourism, fisheries, water resources, etc.

Successes: • REDD+: ongoing (a regional workshop was conducted in Majunga by the National Committee on the REDD+ Financial Mechanism)/reforestation success to sequester carbon (Mahabo Mananivo)/More than 300 ha of agroforestry to protect soil and increasing biomass and capture carbon. • Crab fisheries, sea cucumber, seaweed, agricultural products such as peanuts, and also honey could be supported. • Water is essential for agriculture. • Water from the forest, oxygen, carbon sequestration, rain, ecotourism. • The growing market for carbon credits from tropical and sub-tropical forest-based activities offers Madagascar an important opportunity to address deforestation in the country while generating revenue for forest management and investment in sustainable economic development in surrounding rural areas. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), in its role as delegated manager of Makira Natural Park, is working in partnership with the Government of Madagascar to develop and promote the Makira Carbon Project. This project is in accordance with the strict and rigorous procedures of a recognized methodology. • By selling VCS and CCBA verified carbon credits generated through avoided deforestation, the Makira Carbon Project aims to align the emission reduction targets from deforestation and forest degradation with conservation efforts while supporting the development of the local population living around the project area. This approach ensures the project sustainability while guaranteeing the support of local communities to undertake actions to avoid deforestation.

Failures: • Payment from ecosystem services has always failed in Madagascar, and I think even REDD+ has failed as well in the rest of the world. Coral reef and forests ecosystem services are very important as there are many people that live on them. Payments shouldn’t rely only from tourism as this later is still very limited in Madagascar and threatened by the insecurity… You address the everyday issues of the community, then all ecosystem services are guaranteed. • Ecotourism hasn’t been very effective at improving incomes.

Status of freshwater diversity including wetlands Are there plans to nominate additional Ramsar sites? • Wetlands available (Menanivo River, Lake Agnambotaka, marshland of Ingilo), but there is no plan to nominate new Ramsar sites.

108

• The Anony Lake (lac Anony) in the Anosy Region, district of South Amboasary should be included in the Ramsar sites as it is in the dry area and has high economical and environmental value but is not well-known to the public. Another site is the Tambohofotsy lagoon at the mouth of the Menarandra River, in the Androy region, in the district of Beloha. The key threat to wetlands is drought that may be the result of climate change and upstream deforestation. • In 2017, WWF helped achieve the nomination of 10 new Ramsar sites, doubling the number of these iconic sites in Madagascar totaling 2 million hectares. The main key threats to wetlands are their conversion into rice fields (marsh lands) and siltation due to erosion upstream.

What are the challenges for sustainable management of wetlands? • Key threat: land conversion to rice fields. • Rice field management (drainage, building dams, bringing new techniques for rice farming, seed storage and diversity of rice varieties. • Environmental and basic education. • Farmers are opening more land and improving it (terracing, water control, and management) for increased rice production in response to population pressure. It is interesting to watch the evolution of rice fields over the years as one drives along RN4. Much of this land would not necessarily qualify for protected status but the land is being transformed from a natural environment to a manmade ecosystem.

What are the key threats to wetlands? • The challenges for the sustainable management of wetlands: application of the regulations stipulated in the specifications and reforestation of raffia to ensure the sustainability of the exploitation. Lake Sariaka promotion and development of ecotourism (camping sites, lodges). Community tourism (village lodges, eco-shop). Support for the rehabilitation Namahota school. Feasibility studies to include Lake Sariaka as a conservation target of Baly Bay National Park. • In the wetlands in the Belelanda area, harvesting of vondro (reed plant for housing construction) is an open-access resource dominated by women. Recent development strategies “payment-for-work” schemes have focused on the replanting of reed beds. However, this organized family groups to clear the reed beds and “allocate” reed wetlands for personal use, sectioning the wild reed area and clearing of non-reed species, eliminating diversity. • The threats are deforestation, drought, and the disappearance of the species that live there.

Status of marine biodiversity including coral reefs, seagrass beds, fisheries, etc. Are there marine protected areas? • There are more than 36 marine protected areas in Madagascar; managed as LMMAs or through temporary closures or Marine Protected Areas. • Marine Protected Areas: in Baly a GLPA (Locally Managed Fishing Area) and in Maroalika (undergoing formalization). • There are potential marine protected areas, coral reefs in Farafangana in Sandravinany without special management. Almost all these coral reefs are intact. • Northeast seascape in Antongil Bay is part of Makira Masoala Antongil Bay – MaMaBaie land and seascape. Antongil Bay is home to sharks, sea turtles, and marine

109

mammals during their migration trajectory. It comprises coral reef and seagrass beds as well as mangroves. • Of the 122 Malagasy PAs with full protection status, 10 are dedicated fully to marine ecosystems including small islands. An additional 17 PAs are mixed terrestrial and marine biodiversity areas, with the larger sections usually designated to protect terrestrial forests. Total coverage of marine and coastal habitats under full legal protection is 1.1 million ha.

How are they managed? • Sustainable management challenges and key threats are related to responses stated in previous questions. • No marine protected areas on the east coast. • Community management: A threatened species of mammal (Dugong dugong), five species of sea turtles (Cheloniamydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys olivaceae, Dermochelys coriacea, Caretta caretta) threatened. Humpback whales, which are an endangered species, is only passing through. • Progressive management approaches have been developed for the marine ecosystem in Ranobe… a) habitat-based enhancements targeting habitat bottlenecks; b) restoration of damaged habitat; c) complex habitat development through artificial reef structures to increase survival and primary productivity; and d) securing biodiversity to ensure natural systems have the productive capacity to satisfy the demands of rapidly expanding indigenous coastal communities. • WCS works in Antogil Bay to build a blue belt around the bay through the implementation and operationalizing of LMMAs. There are currently 26 LMMAs in the area, and 15 potential new ones will be implemented in the coming years. WCS is working on reinforcing the protection/conservation of the bay through the implementation of marine protected areas that will be complementary to the LMMAs, Masoala National Parks and Mananara Marine Biosphere managed by Madagascar National Parks. • The northwest seascape is covered Nosy Be, Ambanja, and Ambilobe Districts and comprises two MPAs: Ankivonjy and Ankarea – two IUCN category V MPAs. WCS co- managed these two MPAs with local communities. The northwest seascape is part of the marine biodiversity center of the North Channel Mozambique – Western Indian Ocean. Its coral ecosystems have exceptional value in terms of biodiversity, with high coral cover, a high number of coral species and high resilience to climate change. Whale sharks are present throughout the year, especially around Sahamalaza, Iranja, and Nosy Be. A high diversity of sharks (23 species identified) and abundant populations of coastal dolphins (7 species identified), blue whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, beaked whales, and the Omura’s whale also live in this seascape, which makes this region a cetacean biodiversity hotspot. Nosy Be, particularly Nosy Iranja, is the most important nesting site for green turtles and hawksbill turtles in Madagascar, both included in IUCN Red List.

What are the challenges for sustainable management? • Consecutive years of severe drought have resulted in poor agricultural yields and a subsequent influx of people from inland communities to the bay looking for new means of livelihood. Most of these new arrivals have little to no fishing knowledge and use destructive fishing practices such as mosquito nets and beach seines. • Weak law enforcement, accessibility, and isolation of the zone increasing the management cost, a well-organized band of beach seiners and lack of notoriety of LMMAs are among

110

management challenges in Antongil Bay. The concept of “open access” to marine resource also makes the management of marine resource in the bay difficult. As most of fishers in the bay are also farmers, the effect of vanilla and clove crops impact on the management of fisheries. Overexploitation owing to increasing human population, reduction of productive agricultural land, destructive fishing practices, and lack of compliance with gear restrictions drive habitat degradation, loss of coral reefs, and declines in fish and invertebrate abundance. For mangroves, illegal cutting for construction is the key threat. • The northwest coast of Madagascar is a major seabird area in the West Indian Ocean with important sites for several species of gulls. The area is the last habitat of the endemic and critically endangered Madagascar fish eagle. The main threats to this exceptional marine biodiversity are unsustainable fishing practices, oil exploration and planned drilling, a growing tourism industry, incidental by-catch of coastal dolphins in artisanal fisheries, poaching of marine turtles around the MPAs, mangrove destruction mainly for charcoal- making, and climate change impacts. The degradation of marine and coastal environments, lack of sustainable livelihood alternatives, and limited ability of local people to cope with these changes are thus increasing their vulnerability. • The southwest seascape is located near Toliara where WCS site-based conservation focused in Soariake MPA (IUCN category VI) that WCS co-manages with local communities – Soairake Association. Soariake MPA is home to different cetaceans, Indo-pacific bottlenose, Indo-pacific humpback dolphins, as well as sea turtles and sharks. Decades of overexploitation, lack of management of marine resources in the southwest – which is among the poorest regions in Madagascar – has contributed to the collapse of the marine biodiversity. Moreover, isolation and poverty are among the challenges in the management of marine resource. WCS research has shown that the reefs of southwest Madagascar are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Traditional Vezo fishermen opportunistically hunt protected species such as endangered marine turtles for local consumption and sale of meat or turtle shell. • Strengthening the socio-organizational capacity of communities and fishermen for management transfers, strengthening the application of dina by the community, material and equipment support, training, networking managers and users of renewable natural resources.

What are the key threats? • Unsustainable exploitation of resources. • Failure to respect the opening period of fishing (shrimp); non-compliance with fishing regulations. • Presence of large fishing boats in traditional exploitation areas. • Marine turtle egg collection. • Dugong and sea turtles hunting. • Overexploitation of sea cucumbers. • Low living standard of the community that encourages them not to respect the existing community law (dina). • Habitat degradation, declining fishery yields, and increased competition for marine resources is driving a pattern of over-exploitation and ecosystem collapse, compromising marine resource availability for Vezo fishermen. • Coral reefs are subjected to anthropogenic and naturally driven degradation. In the most populated areas, the impacts on reefs are due to overfishing, destructive fishing, sedimentation, coral harvesting and pollution. Degradation due to natural disasters,

111

particularly cyclones, is also very important in addition to coral bleaching. For reefs already under severe stress, the damage done by bleaching is sometimes considered irreversible. Threats to mangroves are due to increasing exploitation for fuel wood, charcoal and timber, and clearance for crops, particularly in the regions of Mahajanga, Menabe and Melaky, and Diana. The other main threats to mangroves include migration of people to areas adjacent to mangrove forests due to drought. Sedimentation is also a major threat to mangroves. Soil erosion resulting from destruction of vegetation in river basins through poor catchment management practices (shifting agriculture), 40 to 50 million tonnes of sediment are carried downstream and deposited in mangrove areas each year, causing degradation of the ecosystem (Cox et al., 2009).

Information on biodiversity-natural resource valuation/forest products valuation? • GERP just start to collect information on the vegetation aquatic material that the community collect for making mats, baskets, etc. • Yes – especially on ecotourism and biodiversity since 1991 (MNP). • Wild pepper is very valuable (having national and international markets) and needs more attention so that local people have alternative sources of income. • The WAVES program (https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/madagascar) helped to develop four natural resources accounts: water, forest, mineral (ilmenite and cobalt), tourism. However, the process ended with the project in late 2016. Tests at local levels (protected areas, island such as Nosy Be) were conducted to value their ecosystems and services but the exercises have not gone very far in terms of financial accounting due to lack of appropriate methodology.

Do national, regional, and local institutions have the organizational capacity and political support to fulfill their mandates to improve forest management and biodiversity conservation?

Yes – from local authorities: There is good collaboration with the local authorities and stakeholders in the region, which is very valuable for conducting our activities, but we think that the local institutions do not have the capacity and political support to the purpose of improving forest management and biodiversity conservation (MBG).

Yes – but very little from regional or national organizations: • Technically, yes, but financially, no. You can only talk about conservation in Madagascar when you have partners that bring the money as it is not yet the priority of the government. Which is right since in a very poor country, the priority should be addressing the wellbeing of the citizens and not of nature. So, the government, through seeking collaboration with external actors, contributes to improving forest management and biodiversity conservation. • There are organizational and political supports but they are not enough, subject to permanent reinforcement. • State-supported institutions do not provide enough political support for marine resource management. Local institutions might gain some traction, but they are consistently prohibited by poor governance and corruption at the regional and national levels (BV). • Manombo used to be among the orphan sites and received a very little attention from donors, despite having high faunal and floral endemism (GERP).

112

How do the social, economic, and political contexts affect forest and biodiversity conservation? Social, economic, and political context • Social, economic, and political context play a major role in biodiversity conservation. Many communities that live near biodiversity hotspots have few social services and limited incomes, which hinder their ability to engage in natural resource management. • Insecurity and low-level education remain a big challenge for us to achieve our goals. • Economic prosperity of households around the PA reduces threat to the forest. • Poverty limits conservation success. • Political instability causes bushfire for many years in the special reserve of Manombo. • Burning is an important problem in forest and biodiversity conservation. It seems that when there is a lot of discontent owing to political, economic, and social considerations, people tend to burn the land more. The lowest levels of brush fires that I observed along RN4 were between 2003-2007, the “good years” of the Ravalomanana presidency. Since the Transition, the Tampoketsa, for example, is burned earlier and more often — at least twice during the brush fire season. Fires had already started from Ankobe to the border of the Betsiboka region when I returned in June. I don’t know if there is any data to uphold this observation, but I’ve been driving along that road since 1994. Before Ravalo, there were a lot of fires, the air was filled with smoke. You could actually see for long distances during the good years and now, brush fires are rampant again. • There is also an increase in the number of people. • The packaging of products still needs to be improved. Likewise, for their marketing. • The economic potential is poorly exploited. • Private investments are very thin. • The weak socio-organizational capacity of the population and the need to reconcile the conservation of natural resources with their sustainable use for their economic activities. • Politics: The established forest policy helps technicians to work and produce the legal tools for the conservation of biodiversity and forest management transfer, but politics often compromises the results. • Political dynamics sometimes prevent the willingness of technicians to carry out their tasks and the initiatives of local communities to take responsibility for managing forest conservation areas. • It is necessary to capitalize on achievements and formulate a coherent policy tied to the social reality of Madagascar and to have a good relationship with the international community since Madagascar shelters a great part of the planetary diversity. Political and social conflicts have a bad influence on local conservation efforts.

Poor governance • Poor governance and corruption continue to hinder progress in Madagascar. With the upcoming presidential election, it is unclear if things will improve in the short-term. There should be more investment in population, health, and environment programs that take a more holistic approach to conservation and development. In addition, people have limited access to credit, savings, and markets so that substantial economic gains are typically achieved by middlemen or foreigners, rather than local people. Investing in alternative livelihoods that can transform into main livelihoods is more ideal and needs closer collaboration with the private sector. However, with limited levels of formal education, it is

113

unrealistic to think that people will be able to take on more responsibilities with alternative livelihoods or governance because they aren’t able to read or write. Many coastal communities don’t even have a primary school (and aren’t close to a school), meaning that future generations will be less educated than their parents. This also feeds into growing safety concerns in Madagascar and increased banditry because youth don’t have any economic opportunities and very limited education. As a result, natural resource management and governance across sectors will struggle to improve if education is not addressed in the short and long term. • Forest and biodiversity conservation in Madagascar: mining activities are more intense during political crisis, exploitation is possible even within protected areas during those periods. • Illegal trafficking of endangered species is greater during crises (e.g. tortoises and other reptiles). Once again, you cannot talk about conservation in poor countries just because it is poor because there is no security, no peace. Peace doesn’t necessarily mean no war; it is also having food every day. • Lack of investment in alternative livelihoods, food insecurity, lack/poor of support and development initiatives drive rural communities to negative coping strategies (charcoal production). Poor agriculture techniques and access to seeds/markets (poor road infrastructure) all limit development of rural farming communities and keep market prices low. • Social context affects forest and biodiversity conservation with seasonal migration of people for work from other areas for rice cultivation or for timber exploitation. Traditional beliefs such as using specific types of trees to make canoes, for example, affect forest and biodiversity conservation. Lack of education makes people exploit natural resources unsustainably, which affects forest and biodiversity conservation. • The economic context affects forest and biodiversity conservation when people are poor, and they rely on natural resources for subsistence. • The political context affects forest and biodiversity conservation during political conflict. Laws and regulations are broken since people take advantage of the period when politicians are busy resolving the political conflicts. • Forest conservation and biodiversity protection is needed. The government needs to get involved before delegating anything. Local communities lack training and management in terms of capacity. • The fluctuation in price of some key products such as vanilla and cloves affects the use of land and the human activities surrounding the protected areas. • Periodic socio-political crises have caused anarchy in the use of natural resources. • Economic: Owing to the poverty of the population, biodiversity constitutes the major source of income and food. • Owing to the high population growth (for example in 20 years, the population in the southwest will double) there will be enormous pressures on resources). The demand in different sectors (energy, food, etc.) increase. So, the forests and biodiversity will be overexploited to meet these needs, and to serve as a security net. • Existence of market and emerging demands: recrudescence of tortoise traffic, charcoal from natural forests to supply towns, overfishing. • Politics and poor governance: The current legal status of PA does not afford long-term protection and does not allow for effective management, particularly law enforcement.

114

115

Special interest areas Theme YES NO 1 Water resources/issues 7 - 2 Climate change threats to Madagascar’s biodiversity (including 6 1 as an indirect threat/driver) 3 Agricultural expansion and food security 6 1 4 Security 6 1 5 Land and property rights 5 2 6 Conflict and biodiversity conservation 5 2 7 Wildlife trafficking (the Chinese remain a threat to biodiversity 5 2 owing to illegal collection) 8 Access and participation by special groups: youth, women and vulnerable/poor elderly, etc. 5 2 9 Health related environmental issues and linkages: Population growth, medical waste disposal, industrial sites 4 3 10 Industrial, other development including mining 3 4 11 Transboundary issues – including regional/local jurisdictions 0 7

Water resources/issues • There have been several years of drought and/or subsequent flooding that have compromised agricultural production in many parts of the country. Coupled with early and highly variable rains in some years, this has made water resource management for agriculture increasingly difficult for farmers. • The presence of water hyacinth in some lakes (for the moment, the lake on RN4 at Ankarafantsika is quite clean compared to a year ago) and in the irrigation systems is a problem that needs to be addressed. There is just so much of it that can be harvested for pork production. • The drinking water supply infrastructure does not meet the needs of the population. The rate of access to drinking water is very low. Rare are the fokontany who have wells to standard. The inhabitants take the water they need from the rivers, or from the ponds. In addition, open defecation also persists. Thus, the supply of drinking water and hygiene are major problems.

Climate change threats to Madagascar’s biodiversity (including as an indirect threat/driver) • Climate change is real in Madagascar. As an example, reptiles in the Tsaratanana mountain in the northern highland of Madagascar moved upward by more than 50 meters between 1993 and 2003 because of temperature increase in this area. Climate change is known to exacerbate existing threats: the migration of communities from the southern Madagascar is intensified by recurrent drought in this part of the island. People are moving northward targeting mainly resource rich areas with economic opportunities: Atsimo Andrefana, Menabe, Boeny and Diana. This movement lead to increased pressures on natural resources, sometimes creating conflicts between the residents and the Migrants. • Extension of the drought that lasts seven months (Apr-Dec) instead of six (May-Oct) before. • Delayed and early cessation of the rains. • Hurricanes are becoming rarer, but the force of the wind is increasing. • Rising sea level begins to overwhelm rice fields.

116

• A warming of the sea that drives fish elsewhere. • Threat to human health, agriculture, fisheries, and livestock leading to a decline in overall productivity.

Agricultural expansion and food security • Farmers are opening more marginal land and opening forest land adjacent to the parks (and even in the park) without any effort to install soil and water conservation measures. The sand accumulation on RN4 around Ankarafantsika is the result of increased maize production that has grown exponentially in the area over the last four years. • Since the start of the transition, there has been no coherent agricultural policy for land outside the High Plateau. Rural roads have not been improved since the transition. Excess agricultural production in difficult to reach areas has not been available to food deficit areas, leading to increased food insecurity and malnutrition. • The inadequacy of the staple diet is still a major concern because few are the fokontany who have a surplus of rice production. Total production fails to meet the needs of its population for staple foods. Security • Stealing of livestock is robbing farmers of their retirement income and a valuable source of organic matter for their fields. I’ve heard that in the mid-west, farmers are looking at fruit tree production to replace their usual cropping patterns of maize, upland rice, and groundnuts. In addition, farmers who still use oxen for traction are obliged to use younger, less strong animals, which means that they must change their equipment, which was produced for larger animals. It’s not just the loss of animals, but many people are being killed by robbers who are well armed — many say that their arms are rented from the gendarme, the military, and from the national police. • Two dinam-pokonolona (internal bylaw) “dinabe” and “Boeny miray dia” are applied to preserve public safety. These dina are recently approved. The gendarmerie brigade, the national police, four communal police, and mobile districts from each fokontany work with a certain synergy to ensure the security of property and people within the municipality. However, the populations residing outside the district must ensure their own security because of the remoteness of the post of the gendarmerie (located in chief town). In most cases, security is self-managed by the local population who have set up a system for transmitting information on stolen cattle. The members of the dina are present practically in all fokontany but a certain lack of cohesion and rigor is still felt. • Despite the existence of dina, cases of cattle theft persist, but the lack of material means does not allow local authorities to apprehend the perpetrators. • Cattle markets also see cases of fraud, violence, or attempted robbery.

Land and property rights • The low rate of land regularization was due to the remoteness of the land administration (Mahajanga), which increases registration costs and charges, but also due to lack of understanding of the interest and the procedures for this approach by the local population. • It is important to ensure the harmonization of conservation with the social dimension. • Land insecurity should be addressed through integration of environment management (PA, CBNRM, LMMA) into regional, communal land use planning.

117

Conflict and biodiversity conservation • On April 28, 2018, a young Durrell contractor named Emin was accidentally shot by a member of the WTO Boeny team at the Angonoky reintroduction site in Beaboaly. The conservation team went on strike to urge the referral of the WTO team to Mahajanga and replace it with local forces and the departure of all MNP and Durrell employees. • Strike caused by the dissatisfaction of a certain clan with the recruitment of a mechanic/driver on behalf of the Soalala Park Management in June 2018. • Strike organized by the FMTS Association requesting (through a letter addressed to the head of district, the mayor CU of Soalala, the director of MNP Soalala, and the coordinator of Durrell Soalala) the dismissal of a Durrell agent, an MNP officer, and a CLP to no longer work in the Angonoka Conservation and then leave Soalala within seven days.

Wildlife trafficking • The Chinese remain a threat to biodiversity through illegal collection of protected wildlife. • In recent years, the upsurge of angonoka (Astrochelys yniphora) trafficking has marred the conservation of the Baly Bay National Park. • Strict law enforcement is essential.

Access and participation by special groups: youth, women, and vulnerable/poor elderly, etc. • Non-declaration of births, especially in localities very far from the capital, aggravated by the illiteracy that blocks the population to cope with the administration, and the lack of monitoring of population movements, did not allow the technical team to have accurate figures on the evolution of the population size. • Fokontany leaders do not yet have reliable statistical data on this access and participation by groups (young, women, and vulnerable).

Health-related environmental issues and linkages • Population growth, medical waste disposal, industrial sites: I think that there is no control over any of the industries (cooking oil, soap, foam mattresses, cement) that are functioning in Mahajanga. I think that the mangroves are polluted by city waste. I won’t go swimming anymore at any of the Mahajanga beaches — and when I arrived here, I was at the beach every weekend. Mahajanga permits people to build in the lowlands that are flooded for five months of the year and even outside this period during high tide. • Sick communities from some remote fokontany cannot reach the health center during rainy periods owing to rising water levels and lack of emergency transport for complicated diseases. • Regular epidemics of fever and diarrhea become more frequent and more difficult to cure.

Industrial and other development including mining • Exploitation of mineral, oil, and gas reserves is one of Madagascar’s new economic drivers. Although large-scale mining and oil and gas generated 14 percent of the country’s fiscal income in 2013, there are potentially serious socio-economic and environmental impacts. For instance, a large portion of the Malagasy coastline along the Mozambique Channel Malagasy has been leased for oil exploration, within which are PAs, community fishing zones, mangroves, and coral reefs. With respect to WWF’s priority landscapes, small-scale mining, largely informal and unregulated, has led to incursions into PAs, destruction of

118

ecosystems and degradation of streams. Mining concessions cover large areas of WWF’s priority landscapes, including agricultural production zones and new PAs. • The rise in artisanal mining activity and rushes has coincided with a series of three major political crises, over the last two decades. These crises have enfeebled an already fragile state, with deteriorating economic conditions also contributing to the expansion of artisanal mining activity. Given Madagascar’s status as resource rich but economically poor, artisanal mining provides a rare opportunity for people to engage in entrepreneurial and independent income generation. Artisanal mining is most of time illegal and performed within protected areas. All WWF’s priority landscapes are affected to a varying degree. • There is no zoning for industry or any economic activity in Mahajanga. My workshop is on the outskirts of an industrial area but is surrounded by residences and small boutiques. Even if there were zoning, all you must do is pay someone and they’ll issue the necessary permits and authorizations. • The closing of the AQUAMAS (a large company specializing in shrimp farming for 13 years) activities in 2012 has led to the loss of nearly 600 direct jobs. • A company called WISCO, which has obtained an exploration permit, is now prospecting for iron ore in four localities of the municipality: in Kijomby (fokontany Bevivy), Ambohipaky-Be and Malainolo (fokontany Ambohipaky), and Antazoamatsoraky (fokontany Maroaboaly). However, the municipality claims not to have any information about this exploration project on its territory.

Cite success stories and experiences inside or outside your organization on cross- cutting biodiversity/forests • Our health projects with the visit of doctors to the villages and establishment of livelihoods and reforestation projects have given the opportunity to the community to receive direct benefits/cash, so the deforestation/slash-and-burn agriculture has been drastically reduced. • Dynamic agroforestry for income (cloves, vanilla, black pepper) reduces illegal trade of forest product and lemur hunting (178 families as beneficiaries). • Basketry for income generation for women of Mahabo Mananivo caused reduction of forest fire (118 families as beneficiaries). • Reforestation reduces dependence on timber from the forest. • The construction of two school rooms in Vilanandro, CR Andranomavo has increased the literacy rate for children. • Currently, two partner associations have managed to obtain funding from CEPF for mangrove restoration, socio-organizational and AGR support at the fokontany level of Anjiamaloto. They provide support to sensitize the local population and conduct cartography to help managers with zoning. • Many REDD+ carbon credit sales on the voluntary market have been concluded since December 2013. Revenues from these sales of are used to support and strengthen continued community engagement in sustainable resources use and co-management of Makira Natural Park, following a structured benefit sharing mechanism: ▪ 50 percent of net revenues are allocated to activities in support of community management of natural resources and socio-economic development of communities ▪ 20 percent of net revenues are used for conservation activities in the park’s core zone ▪ 20 percent are assigned to the government for the fight against deforestation ▪ 10 percent are used for monitoring, marketing, and verification costs

119

120

Annex 7: Bibliography Ackermann, K. (2003). The role of dry forests in Madagascar as a safety net in the rural livelihood system. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, 19-23 May 2003, Bonn, Germany.

ADER (Agence de Développement de L’Electrification Rurale). (2008). Statistique Officiel 2008. Agence de Développement de L’Electrification Rurale, Antananarivo.

Allnutt, T.F., McClanahan, T.R., Andrefouet, S., Baker, M., Lagabrielle, E., et al. (2012). Comparison of marine spatial planning methods in Madagascar demonstrates value of alternative approaches. PLoS ONE 7: e28969.

Allnutt, T.F., Asner, G.P., Golden, C.D. and Powell, G.V.N. (2013). Mapping recent deforestation and forest disturbance in northeastern Madagascar. Tropical Conservation Science, 6: 1–15.

AmphibiaWeb. (2018). https://amphibiaweb.org/search/index.html. Accessed 28.08.2018.

Andréfouët, S., Guillaume, M.M.M., Delval, A., Rasoamanendrika, F.M.A., Blanchot, J., and Bruggemann, J.H. (2013) Fifty years of changes in reef flat habitats of the Grand Récif of Toliara (SW Madagascar) and the impact of gleaning. Coral Reefs, 32: 757–768.

Andreone, F., Carpenter, A.I., Cox, N., du Preez, L., Freeman, K. et al. (2008). The challenge of conserving amphibian megadiversity in Madagascar. PLoS Biology, 6: e118.

Andriamalala, G. and Gardner, C.J. (2010). L’utilisation du dina comme outil de gouvernance des ressources naturelles: leçons tirés de Velondriake, sud-ouest de Madagascar. Tropical Conservation Science, 3: 447–472.

Asner, G.P., Clark, J.K., Mascaro, J., Vaudry, R., Chadwick, K.D. et al (2012). Human and environmental controls over aboveground carbon storage in Madagascar. Carbon Balance and Management, 7: 2.

Astuti, R. (1995). People of the Sea: Identity and Descent among the Vezo of Madagascar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ATLAS. (2016). Climate change risk profile: Madagascar. USAID: 5pp.

Bakoariniaina, L.N., Kusky, T. and Raharimahefa, T. (2006). Disappearing Lac Alaotra: Monitoring catastrophic erosion, waterway silting, and land degradation hazards in Madagascar using Landsat imagery. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 44: 241–252.

Bamford, A.J., Razafindrajao, F., Young, R.P. and Hilton, G.M. (2017). Profound and pervasive degradation of Madagascar’s freshwater wetlands and links with biodiversity. PLoS ONE, 12: e0182673.

Barnes, D.K.A. and Rawlinson, K.A. (2009). Traditional coastal invertebrate fisheries in southwestern Madagascar. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 89: 1589–1596.

Barnes-Mauthe, M., Olesen, K.L.L. and Zafindrasilivonona, B. (2013). The total economic value of small-scale fisheries with a characterization of post-landing trends: An application in Madagascar with global relevance. Fisheries Research, 147: 175–185.

121

Beech, E., Rivers, M., Oldfield, S. and Smith, P.P. (2017). GlobalTreeSearch – the first complete global database of tree species and country distributions. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 36: 454-489.

Bekessya, S.A., Runged, M.C., Kusmanoffa, A.M., Keith, D.A. and Wintle, B.A. (2018). Ask not what nature can do for you: A critique of ecosystem services as a communication strategy. Biological Conservation, 224: 71–74.

Benson, L., Glass, L., Jones, T.G., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L. and Rakotomahazo, C. (2017). Mangrove carbon stocks and ecosystem cover dynamics in southwest Madagascar and the implications for local management. Forests, 8: 190.

Benstead, J.P., De Rahm, P.H., Gattolliat, J.L., Gibon, F.M., Loiselle, P.V. et al. (2003). Conserving Madagascar’s freshwater biodiversity. BioScience, 53: 1101–1111.

Bertrand, A., Ramamonjisoa, B. and Montagne, P. (2010). Les filières péri-urbaines d’approvisionnement en bois énergie des grandes villes de Madagascar. In P. Montagne, S. Razafimahatratra, A. Rasamindisa and R. Crehay (Eds.) ARINA, le Charbon de Bois à Madagascar: Entre Demande Urbaine et Gestion Durable. CITE, Antananarivo, pp. 23–36.

Bertrand, A., Aubert, S., Montagne, P., Lohanivo, A.C. and Razafintsalama, M.H. (2014). Madagascar, politique forestière: bilan 1990–2013 et propositions. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 9: 20–30.

Bigot, S., Dumas, D., Brou, T. and Curt, T (2018). Les saisons des feux de végétation 2001 à 2017 à Madagascar déterminées grâce aux données MODIS. Colloque de Bilan et de Prospective du Programme National de Télédétection Spatiale (PNTS), Grenoble : poster.

Bletz, M.C., Rosa, G.M., Andreone, F., Courtois, E.A., Schmeller, D.S. et al (2015). Widespread presence of the pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in wild amphibian communities in Madagascar. Scientific Reports, 5: 8633.

Blue Ventures (2014). Madagascar’s bold blue vision puts communities at centre of marine protection. https://blueventures.org/bold-vision-puts-communities-centre-marine-protection/. Accessed 23.08.2018.

Bodin, O., Tengö, M., Norman, A., Lundberg, J. and Elmqvist, T. (2006). The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecological Applications, 16: 440–451.

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M. et al. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313: 58–61.

Bruggemann, J.H., Rodier, M., Guillaume, M.M.M., Andréfouët, S., Arfi, R. et al. (2012). Wicked social-ecological problems forcing unprecedented change on the latitudinal margins of coral reefs: The case of southwest Madagascar. Ecology and Society 17: 47.

Buerki, S., Devey, D.S., Callmander, M.W., Phillipson, P.B. and Forest, F. (2013). Spatio- temporal history of the endemic genera of Madagascar. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 171: 304–329.

122

Burgess, N., D’Amico Hales, J., Underwood, E., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Itoua, I., Schipper, J., Ricketts, T. and Newman, K. (2004). Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar. World Wildlife Fund (United States), Island Press, Washington DC: 501 pp.

Busch, J., Dave, R., Hannah, L., Cameron, A., Rasolohery, A. et al. (2012). Climate change and the cost of conserving species in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, 26: 408–419.

Callmander, M.W., Phillipson, P.B., Schatz, G.E., Andriambololonera, S., Rabarimanarivo, M. et al. (2011). The endemic and non-endemic vascular flora of Madagascar updated. Scripta Botanica Belgica, 50: 317–321.

Cardiff, S.G., Ratrimomanarivo, F.H., Rembert, G. and Goodman, S.M. (2009). Hunting, disturbance and roost persistence of bats in caves at Ankarana, northern Madagascar. African Journal of Ecology, 47: 640–649.

Carret, J.-C. and Loyer, D. (2003). Comment Financer Durablement le Réseau d’Aires Protégées Terrestres à Madagascar? Apport de l’Analyse Économique. World Bank presentation at Vth World Parks Congress, Durban.

Carret, J.C., Rajaonson, B., Feno, P.J. and Brand, J. (2010). L’Environnement à Madagascar: Un Atout à Préserver, des Enjeux à Maitriser. World Bank, Washington DC.

Castellano, C.M., Rhodin, A.G.J., Ogle, M., Mittermeier, R.A., Randriamahazo, H. et al. (2013). Turtles on the Brink in Madagascar: Proceedings of Two Workshops on the Status, Conservation and Biology of Malagasy Tortoises and Freshwater Tortoises. Chelonian Research Monographs, 6. 184 pp.

CEPF (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund) (2014). Ecosystem Profile: Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands. CEPF, Arlington: 290 pp.

Chaboud, C. (2006). Gérer et valoriser les ressources marines pour lutter contre la pauvreté. Etudes Rurales, 178 : 197–212.

Cheban, S.A., Rejo-Fienena, F. and Tostain, S. (2009). Etude ethnobotanique des ignames (Dioscorea spp.) dans la forêt Mikea et le couloir d’Antseva (sud-ouest de Madagascar). Malagasy Nature, 2: 111–126.

Christie, I.T. and Crompton, E.D. (2003). Republic of Madagascar: Tourism Sector Study. World Bank, Washington DC.

Conservation InternationaI and WWF. (2008). Assessing the impact of climate change on Madagascar’s biodiversity and livelihoods: a workshop report. Conservation International/World Wildlife Fund: 33 pp.

Cook, R. and Healy, T. (2012). Madagascar Case Study: Artisanal Mining Rushes in Protected Areas and a Response Toolkit. WWF and Estelle Levin, Ltd., Gland: 146 pp.

Cooke, A.J., Lutjeharms, J. and Vasseur, P. (2003). Marine and coastal ecosystems of Madagascar. In S. Goodman and J.P. Benstead (Eds.) The Natural History of Madagascar. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 179–208.

Corson, C.A. (2016). Corridors of Power: The Politics of Environmental Aid to Madagascar. Yale University Press, New Haven: 305 pp.

123

Cripps, G. and Gardner, C.J. (2016). Human migration and marine protected areas: Insights from Vezo fishers in Madagascar. Geoforum 74: 49–62.

Cripps, G., Harris, A., Humber, F., Harding, S. and Thomas, T. (2015). A Preliminary Value Chain Analysis of Shark Fisheries in Madagascar. Indian Ocean Commission, Ebene: 43 pp.

Desbureaux, S., Aubert, S., Brimont, L., Karsenty, A., Lohanivo, A.C. et al (2016). The Impact of Protected Areas on Deforestation: An Exploration of the Economic and political Channels for Madagascar’s Rainforests (2001-12). CERDI, Clermont Ferrand. 57 pp.

Diamant, S., Rohner, C.A., Kriszka, J.J., Guillemain d’Echon, A. Guillemain d’Echon, T. et al. (2018). Movements and habitat use of satellite-tagged whale sharks off western Madagascar. Endangered Species Research 36: 49–58.

Eklund, J., Blanchet, F.G., Nyman, J., Rocha, R., Virtanen, T. et al. (2016). Contrasting spatial and temporal trends of protected area effectiveness in mitigating deforestation in Madagascar. Biological Conservation, 203: 290–297.

Ferguson, B. (2010). Madagascar. In O. Springate-Baginski and E. Wollenberg (Eds.) REDD, Forest Governance and Rural Livelihoods: The Emerging Agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, pp. 135–171.

Fisher, B. (2018). Using big data to better understand conservation-human health connections. Unpublished presentation – Environmental Program/Gund Institute for Environment University of Vermont: 32 pp.

Freudenberger, K. (2010). Paradise Lost? Lessons from 25 Years of USAID Environment Programs in Madagascar. USAID, Washington, DC: 106 pp.

Garcia, G. and Goodman, S.M. (2003). Hunting of protected animals in the Parc National d’Ankarafantsika, north-western Madagascar. Oryx, 37: 115–118.

Gardner, C.J. (2016). Use of mangroves by lemurs. International Journal of Primatology, 37: 317–332.

Gardner, C.J., Ferguson, B., Rebara, F. and Ratsifandrihamanana, A.N. (2008). Integrating traditional values and management regimes into Madagascar’s expanded protected area system: the case of Ankodida. In J-M. Mallarach (Ed.), Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values, IUCN, GTZ and Obra Social de Caixa Catalunya. Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 92–103.

Gardner, C.J., Nicoll, M.E., Mbohoahy, T., Oleson, K.L.L., Ratsifandrihamanana, A.N. et al. (2013). Protected areas for conservation and poverty alleviation: Experiences from Madagascar. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50: 1289–1294.

Gardner, C.J., Gabriel, F.U.L., St John, F.A.V. and Davies, Z.G. (2015). Changing livelihoods and protected area management: A case study of charcoal production in southwest Madagascar. Oryx, 50: 495–505.

Gardner, C.J., Andriamahenina, Z., Carro, A., Jones, T.G. and Jasper, L.D. (2017a). Rapid assessments and local knowledge reveal high bird diversity in mangroves of north-west Madagascar. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 25: 45–58.

Gardner, C.J., Gough, C., Levrel, A., Singleton, R.L., Vincke, X. et al. (2017b). Value chain challenges in two community-managed fisheries in western Madagascar: Insights for the small-

124 scale fisheries guidelines. In S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragan-Palladines and N. Franz (Eds.) The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Global Implementation. Springer International Publishing, pp. 335–354.

Gardner, C.J., Nicoll, M.E., Birkinshaw, C., Harris, A., Lewis, R.E., Rakotomalala, D., and Ratsifandrihamanana, A.N. (2018) The rapid expansion of Madagascar’s protected area system. Biological Conservation 220: 29–36.

Gerety, R.M. (2018). In pursuit of the tortoise smugglers. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/02/in-pursuit-of-the-tortoise-smugglers- madagascar-trafficking-endangered-species. Accessed 28.08.2018.

Giri, C. and Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove forest distributions and dynamics in Madagascar. (1975–2005). Sensors, 8: 2104–2117.

Global Forest Watch (2018). Madagascar dashboard - https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/MDG. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Golden, C.D. (2009). Bushmeat hunting and use in the Makira Forest, north-eastern Madagascar: A conservation and livelihoods issue. Oryx, 43: 386–392.

Golden, D., Fernald, L.C.H, Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina, B.J.R. and Kremen, C. (2011a). Benefits of wildlife consumption to child nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108: 19653–19656.

Golden, C.D., Rasolofoniaina B.J., Anjaranirina, E.J., Nicolas, L., Ravaoliny, L. and Kremen, C. (2011b). Rainforest pharmacopeia in Madagascar provides high value for current local and prospective global uses. PLoS ONE, 7: e41221.

Golden, C.D., Bonds, M.H., Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina, B.J.R. and Kremen, C. (2014). Economic valuation of subsistence harvest of wildlife in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, 28: 234–243.

Goodman, S.M. (2006). Hunting of microchiroptera in southwestern Madagascar. Oryx, 40: 225–228.

Goodman, S.M. and Raselimanana, A. (2003). Hunting of wild animals by Sakalava of the Menabe region: A field report from Kirindy-Mite. Lemur News, 8: 4–6.

Goodman, S.M. and Raherilalao, M.-J. (2013). Atlas of Selected Land Vertebrates of Madagascar. Association Vahatra, Antananarivo.

Goodman, S.M. and Jungers, W.L. (2014). Extinct Madagascar: Picturing the Island’s Past. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 296 pp.

Gore, M.L., Ratsimbazafy, J. and Lute, M.L. (2013). Rethinking corruption in conservation crime: Insights from Madagascar. Conservation Letters, doi: 10.1111/conl. 12032: 1-9.

Grinand, C., Rakotomalala, F., Gond, V., Vaudry, R., Bernoux, M. et al. (2013). Estimating deforestation in tropical humid and dry forests in Madagascar from 2000 to 2010 using multi- date Landsat satellite images and the random forests classifier. Remote Sensing of the Environment, 139: 68–80.

125

Hannah, L., Dave, R., Lowry II, P.P., Andelman, A., Andrianarisata, M. et al. (2008). Climate change adaptation for conservation in Madagascar. Biology Letters, 4: 590–594.

Hansford, J., Wright, P.C., Rasoamiaramanana, A., Ventura R., Pérez, V.R., Godfrey, L.R., Errickson, D., Thompson, T. and Turvey S.T. (2018). Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar evidenced by exploitation of avian megafauna. Science Advances, 4: eaat6925 (6 pp).

Hantanirina, J.M.O. and Benbow, S. (2013) Diversity and coverage of seagrass ecosystems in southwest Madagascar. African Journal of Marine Science, 35: 291–297.

Harper, G.J., Steininger, M.K., Tucker, C.J., Juhn, D. and Hawkins, F. (2007). Fifty years of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 34: 325– 333.

Harris, A., Mohan, V., Flanagan, M. and Hill, R. (2012). Integrating family planning service provision into community-based marine conservation. Oryx, 46: 179–186.

Harvey, C.A., Rakotobe, Z.L., Rao, N.S., Dave, R., Razafimahatratra, H. et al. (2014). Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369: 20130089.

Herrera, D., Ellis, A., Fisher, B., Golden, C.D., Johnson, K. et al. (2017). Upstream watershed condition predicts rural children’s health across 35 developing countries. Nature Communications, 8: 811.

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

Humber, F., Godley, B.J., Nicolas T., Raynaud, O., Pichon, F, et al. (2017). Placing Madagascar’s marine turtle populations in a regional context using community-based monitoring. Oryx, 51: 542–553.

ICEM (International Centre for Environmental Management) (2014). Climate Change Impact and Adaptation Study for the Lower Mekong Basin – Non-Timber Forest Products and Crop Wild Relatives. USAID Mekong Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change (ARCC)/International Centre for Environmental Management (ICEM): 128pp.

Iida, T. (2005). The past and present of the coral reef fishing economy in Madagascar: Implications for self-determination in resource use. Senri Ethnological Studies, 67: 237–258.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2017). Republic of Madagascar: Selected Issues. IMF, Washington, DC: 49 pp.

IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C: Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 33 pp.

Irwin, M.T., Wright, P.C., Birkinshaw, C., Fisher, B., Gardner, C.J. et al. (2010). Patterns of species change in anthropogenically disturbed habitats of Madagascar. Biological Conservation, 142: 2351–2362.

IUCN (2018). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, http://www.iucnredlist.org/search. Accessed 28.08.2018.

126

Jasper, L. and Gardner, C.J. (2015). Life Amongst the Thorns: Biodiversity and Conservation of Madagascar’s Spiny Forest. John Beaufoy Publishing, London.

Jenkins, R.K.B., Rabearivelo, A., Chan, C.T., Andre, W.M., Randrianavelona, R. et al. (2009). The harvest of endemic amphibians for food in eastern Madagascar. Tropical Conservation Science, 2: 25–33.

Jenkins, R.K.B., Tognelli, M.F., Bowles, P., Cox, N., Brown, J.L. et al. (2014). Extinction risks and the conservation of Madagaascar’s reptiles. PLoS ONE, 9: e100173.

Jones, J.P.G., Andriahajaina, F.B., Ranambinintsoa, E.H., Hockley, N.J. and Ravoahangimalala, O. (2006). The economic importance of freshwater crayfish harvesting in Madagascar and the potential of community-based conservation to improve management. Oryx, 40: 168–175.

Jones, J.P.G., Rasamy, J.R., Harvey, A., Toon, A., Oidtmann, B. et al. (2009). The perfect invader: A parthenogenic crayfish poses a new threat to Madagascar’s freshwater biodiversity. Biological Invasions, 11: 1475–1482.

Jones, J.P.G., Mandimbiniaina, R., Kelly, R., Ranjatson, P., Rakotojoelina, B. et al. (2018). Human migration to the forest frontier: Implications for land use change and conservation management. GEO: Geography and Environment, 5: e00050.

Jones, T.G., Ratsimba, H.R., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G. and Bey, A. (2014). Ecological variability and carbon stock estimates of mangrove ecosystems in northwestern Madagascar. Forests, 5: 177–205.

Jones, T.G., Glass, L., Gandhi, S., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Carro, A. et al. (2016) Madagascar’s mangroves: Quantifying nation-wide and ecosystem specific dynamics, and contemporary mapping of distinct ecosystems. Remote Sensing, 8: 106.

Kaufmann, J.C. and Tsirahamba, S. (2006). Forests and thorns: Conditions of change affecting Mahafale pastoralists in southwestern Madagascar. Conservation and Society, 4: 231–261.

Ke, Z. and Zhi, Z. (2017). The trade of Malagasy rosewood and ebony in China. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 29: 22-32.

Kiszka, J., Muir, C., Poonian, C., Cox, T.M., Amir, O.A. et al. (2009). Marine mammal bycatch in the Southwest Indian Ocean: Review and need for a comprehensive status assessment. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Sciences, 7: 119–136.

Kossin, J.P. (2018). A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed. Nature 558: 104– 107.

Kramer, R.A., Richter, D.D., Pattanayak, S. and Sharma, N.P. (1997). Ecological and economic analysis of watershed protection in eastern Madagascar. Journal of Environmental Management 49: 277–295.

Lammers, P.L, Richter, T. Waeber, P.O. and Mantilla-Contreras, J. (2015). Lake Alaotra wetlands: how long can Madagascar’s most important rice and fish production region withstand the anthropogenic pressure? Madagascar Conservation & Development, 10: 116–127.

Laroche, J., Baran, E. and Rasoanandrasana, N.B. (2017). Temporal patterns in a fish assemblage of a semiarid mangrove zone in Madagascar. Journal of Fish Biology, 51: 3–20.

127

Le Manach, F., Gough, C., Harris, A., Humber, F., Harper, S. et al. (2012). Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: The recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy, 36: 218–225.

Long, S. (2017). Short-term impacts and value of a periodic no take zone (NTZ) in a community- managed small-scale lobster fishery, Madagascar. PLoS ONE, 12: e0177858. Lu, G., Traoré, C., Meissner, P., Kouyaté, B. Kynast-Wolf, G. et al. (2015). Safety of insecticide-treated mosquito nets for infants and their mothers: randomized controlled community trial in Burkina Faso. Malaria Journal, 14: 527.

Lyon, L.M. and Hardesty, L.H. (2005). Traditional healing in the contemporary life of the Antanosy people of Madagascar. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 3: 287–294.

Maina, J., de Moel, H., Vermaaqt, J.E., Bruggemann, J.H., Guillaume, M.M.M. et al. (2012) Linking coral river runoff proxies with climate variability, variability, hydrology and land-use in Madagascar catchments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64: 2047–2059.

Marshall, B.M., Casewell, N.R., Vences, M., Glaw, F., Andreone, F. et al. (2018). Widespread vulnerability of Malagasy predators to the toxins of an introduced toad. Current Biology, 28: 654–P655.

McClanahan, T.R., Ateweberhan, M., Omukoto, J. and Pearson, L. (2009). Recent seawater temperature histories, status, and predictions for Madagascar’s coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 380: 117–128.

McConnell, W.J. and Kull, C.A. (2014). Deforestation in Madagascar: Debates over the island’s forest cover and challenges of measuring forest change. In I.R. Scales (Ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar. Routledge, London, pp. 105–104.

McKenna, S.A. and Allen, G.R. (Eds.) (2005). A Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of the Coral Reefs of Northwest Madagascar. Conservation International, Washington, DC: 128 pp.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.

Meyers, D., Ramamonjisoa, B., Sève, J., Rajafindramanga, M. and Burren, C. (2004). Etude sur la consommation et la production en produits forestier ligneux à Madagascar. USAID/JARIALA/IRG, Antananarivo.

MIHARI (2018). Advancing Madagascar’s bold blue vision for marine protection. https://mihari- network.org/news/advancing-madagascars-bold-blue-vision-for-marine-protection/. Accessed 23.08.2018.

Mittermeier, R.A., Robles-Gil, P. and Mittermeier, C.G. (1997). Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest Nations. CEMEX, Monterrey.

Mittermeier, R.A., Schwitzer, C., Johnson, S. and Ratsimbazafy, J. (2013). Introduction. In C. Schwitzer, R.A. Mittermeier, N. Davies, Johnson, S., Rasimbazafy et al. (Eds.) Lemurs of Madagascar: A Strategy for their Conservation 2013–2016. IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, pp. 6–11.

Moat, J. and Smith, P. (2007). Atlas of the Vegetation of Madagascar. Kew Publishing, Kew: 124 pp.

128

Mohan, V. and Shellard, T. (2014). Providing family planning services to remote communities in areas of high biodiversity through a Population-Health-Environment programme in Madagascar. Reproductive Health Matters, 22: 93–103.

Morisset, J. (2010). Madagascar: Vers un agenda de relance économique. The World Bank: http://www.banquemondiale.org/fr/news/feature/2010/06/18/world-bank-releases-policy-notes- for-economic-recovery-in-madagascar

Muttenzer, F. (2015). The social life of sea cucumbers in Madagascar: Migrant fishers’ household objects and display of a marine ethos. Etnofoor, 27: 101–121.

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

Neudert, R., Ganzhorn, J.U. and Wätzold, F. (2016). Global benefits and local costs – the dilemma of tropical forest conservation: A review of the situation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, doi: 10.1017/S0376892916000552.

Norscia, I. and Borbognini-Tarli, S.M. (2006). Ethnobotanical reputation of plant species from two forests of Madagascar: A preliminary investigation. South African Journal of Botany, 72: 656–660.

Novy, J.W. (1997). Medicinal plants of the eastern region of Madagascar. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 55: 119–126.

Obura, D. (2012). The diversity and biogeography of western Indian Ocean reef-building corals. PLoS ONE, 7: e45013.

Obura, D.O., Church, J.E. and Gabrie, C. (2012). Assessing Marine World Heritage from an Ecosystem Perspective: the Western Indian Ocean. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris: 124 pp.

OIM (Organisation internationale pour les migrations) (2018). Défis, enjeux et politiques: migration, environnement et changements climatiques à Madagascar. OIM/Magma: 172 pp.

Oldham, P., Barnes, C. and Hall, S. (2013). Biodiversity in the Patent System: Madagascar – A country study of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in the patent system of relevance to Madagascar. GIZ Contract number: 81156131 under the UNEP/GEF funded and GIZ executed project: “Supporting the development and implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing Policies in Africa”: 61 pp.

Olesen, K.L.L., Barnes, M., Brander, L.M., Oliver, T.A., van Beek, I. et al. (2015). Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecological Economics, 114: 104–116.

Oliver, T.A., Olesen, K.L.L., Ratsimbazafy, H., Raberinary, D., Benbow, S. et al. (2015). Positive catch and economic benefits of periodic octopus fishery closures: Do effective, narrowly targeted actions “catalyze” broader management? PLoS ONE, 10: e0129075.

ONE (Office National pour l’Environnement), DGF (Direction Générale des Forêts), FTM (Foiben-Taosarintanin’i Madagascar), MNP (Madagascar National Parks) and Conservation International. 2013. Evolution de la Couverture des Forêts Naturelles à Madagascar 2005-2010. Office National pour l’Environnement, Antananarivo.

129

Panagos, P., Bortelli, P. and Ballabio, C. (2017). Global rainfall erosivity assessment based on high-temporal resolution rainfall records. Science Reports, 7: article 4175.

Pedrono, M. and Clausen, A. (2018). Twilight of the Angonoka: Biology and Conservation of the World’s Rarest Tortoise. Natural History Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu: 184 pp.

Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L. and McMahon, M. (2007). Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11: 1633-1644.

Petersen, R., Sizer, N., Hansen, M., Potapov, R. and Thau, D. (2015). Satellites uncover 5 surprising hotspots for tree cover loss. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Pollini, J. and Lassoie, J.P. (2011). Trapping farmer communities within global environmental regimes: The case of the GELOSE legislation in Madagascar. Society and Natural Resources, 24: 814–830.

Pollini, J., Hockley, N., Muttenzer, F.D. and Ramamonjisoa, B.S. (2014). The transfer of natural resource management rights to local communities. In I.R. Scales (Ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar. Routledge, London, pp. 172–192.

Popova, E., Yool, A., Byfield, V., Cochrane, K., Coward, A.C. et al. (2016). From global to regional and back again: Common climate stressors of marine ecosystems relevant for adaptation across five ocean warming hotspots. Global Change Biology, 22: 2038–2053.

Rahelivao, M.P., Gruner, M., Andriamanamtoanina, H., Andriamihaja, B., Bauer, I. et al. (2015). Red algae (Rhodophyta) from the coast of Madagascar: Preliminary bioactivity studies and isolation of natural products. Marine Drugs, 2015: 4197–4216.

Rahelivao, M.P., Lubken, T., Gruner, M., Kataeva, O, Ralambondrahety, R. et al. (2017). Isolation and structure elucidation of netural products of three soft corals and a sponge from the coast of Madagascar. Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, 15: 2593–2608.

Rakotoarinivo, M., Dransfield, J., Bachman, S.P., Moat, J. and Baker, W.J. (2014). Comprehensive red list assessment reveals exceptionally high extinction risk to Madagascar palms. PLoS ONE, 9: e106619.

Rakotondravony, H.A. (2006). Communautés locales et gibiers dans la région de Daraina, extrême nord-est de Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 1: 19–21.

Rambinintsaotra, S. (2014). Accès aux ressources biologiques de Madagascar: ambiguïtés juridiques pour les détenteurs de connaissances traditionnelles. ELOHI - Peuples indigènes et environnement, 5-6: 117-149.

Ramsar (2017) Madagascar designates five new Ramsar sites. Available: https://www.ramsar.org/news/madagascar-designates-five-new-ramsar-sites. Accessed 27.08.2018.

Randriamalala, H. and Liu, Z. (2010). Rosewood of Madagascar: Between democracy and conservation. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 5: 11–22.

Randriamiharisoa, M.N., Kuhlman, A.R., Jeannoda, V., Rabarison, H., Rakotoarivelo, N. et al. (2015). Medicinal plants sold in the markets of Antananarivo, Madagascar. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11: 60.

130

Randrianandianina, B.N., Andriamahaly, L.R., Harisoa, F.M. and Nicoll, M.E. (2003). The role of protected areas in the management of the island’s biodiversity. In S.M. Goodman and J.P Benstead (Eds.), The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1423–1432.

Randrianandrianina, F.H., Racey, P.A. and Jenkins, R.K.B. (2010). Hunting and consumption of mammals and birds by people in urban areas of western Madagascar. Oryx, 44: 411–415.

Randrianarivelojosia, M., Rasidimanana, V.T., Rabarison, H., Cheplogoi, P.K., Ratsimbason et al. (2003). Plants traditionally prescribed to treat tazo (malaria) in the eastern region of Madagascar. Malaria Journal, 2: 25.

Rasolofo, M.V. (1997). Use of mangroves by traditional fishermen in Madagascar. Mangroves and Salt Marshes, 1: 243–253

Rasolofoson, R.A., Ferraro, P.J., Jenkins, C.N. and Jones, J.P.G. (2015). Effectiveness of Community Forest Management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. Biological Conservation, 184: 271–277.

Rasolofoson, R.A., Ferraro, P.J., Ruta, G., Rasamoelina, M.S., Randriankolona, P.L. et al. (2017). Impacts of community forest management on human economic well-being across Madagascar. Conservation Letters, 10: 346–353.

Razafimanahaka, J.H., Jenkins, R.K.B., Andriafidison, D., Randrianandrianina, F., Rakotomboavonjy, V. et al. (2012). Novel approach for quantifying illegal bushmeat consumption reveals high consumption of protected species in Madagascar. Oryx, 46: 584–592.

Reef Doctor (2018). Unpublished data and report on project activities in south-west Madagascar. Inforamtion provided by Emma Gibbons, July 2018.

Rejo-Fienena, F. (1995). Etude Phytosociologique de la Végétation de la Région de Tuléar (Madagascar) et Gestion des Ressources Végétales par les Populations Locales (Cas du P.K. 32). Ph.D. Thesis, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Reuter, K.E., Randell, H., Wills, A.R. and Sewall, B.J. (2016). The consumption of wild meat in Madagascar: Drivers, popularity and food security. Environmental Conservation, 43: 273–283.

Robinson, J.E., Fraser, I.M., St. John, F.A.V., Raandrianantoandro, J.C., Andriantsimanarilafy, R.R. et al. (2018). Wildlife supply chains in Madagascar from local collection to global export. Biological Conservation, 226: 144–152.

Rosenbaum, H.C. (2003). Marine mammals of Madagascar. In S. Goodman and J.P. Benstead (Eds.) The Natural History of Madagascar. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 217–221.

Safford, R.J. and Hawkins, A.F.A. (2013). The Birds of Africa. Volume VIII: The Malagasy Region. Christopher Helm, London.

Scales, I.R. (2014). The drivers of deforestation and the complexity of land use in Madagascar. In I.R. Scales (Ed.) Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 105–125.

Scales, I.R., Friess, D.A., Glass, L. and Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L. (2017). Rural livelihoods and mangrove degradation in southwest Madagascar: Lime production as an emerging threat. Oryx doi: 10.1017/S0030605316001630.

131

Schüßler, D., Radespiel, U., Ratsimbazafy, J.H. and Mantilla-Contreras, J. (2018). Lemurs in a dying forest: Factors influencing lemur diversity and distribution in forest remnants of northeastern Madagascar. Biological Conservation, 228: 17–26.

Schwitzer, C., Mittermeier, R.A., Johnson, S.E., Donati, G., Irwin, M. et al. (2014). Averting lemur extinctions amid Madagascar’s political crisis. Science, 343: 842–843.

Sheridan, C., Baele, J.M., Kushmaro, A., Frejaville, Y. and Eeckhaut, I. (2015). Terrestrial runoff influences white syndrome prevalence in SW Madagascar. Marine Environmental Research 101: 44–51.

Sparks, J.S. and Stiassny, M.L.J. (2003). Introduction to the freshwater fishes. In S.M. Goodman and J.P. Benstead (Eds.), The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 849–882.

Stiles, D. (1991). Tubers and tenrecs: The Mikea of southwestern Madagascar. Ethnology, 30: 251–263.

Tattersall, I. (2007). Madagascar’s lemurs: Cryptic diversity or taxonomic inflation? Evolutionary Anthropology, 16: 12–23.

Tengö, M., Johansson, K., Rakotondrasoa, F., Lundberg, J., Andriamaherilala, J.-A. et al. (2007). Taboos and forest governance: Informal protection of hot spot dry forest in southern Madagascar. Ambio, 36: 683–691.

The Reptile Database (2018). http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/advanced_search. Accessed 28.08.2018.

Tucker, B. (2001). The Behavioural Ecology and Economics of Variation, Risk, and Diversification among Mikea Forager-Farmers of Madagascar. Ph.D. Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

UNESCO (2018). Madagascar - http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/africa/madagascar/. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

UNICEF (2017) https://data.unicef.org/topic/water-and-sanitation/drinking-water/. Accessed 24.08.2018.

UNICEF (2018). https://www.unicef.org/english/infobycountry/madagascar_statistics.html. Accessed 24.08.2018.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) (2014). Madagascar Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment: Update. USAID, Washington, D.C.: 128 pp.

USAID (2016a). Marine biodiversity and fisheries in Madagascar a biodiversity and extractives political economy assessment. USAID/Integra: 41 pp.

USAID (2016b). Climate change risk profile: Madagascar. USAID/ATLAS: 4 pp.

USAID (2018). The role of wild-caught fisheries in African development. USAID/Biodiversity Results and Integrated Development Gains Enhanced (BRIDGE) project: 21 pp.

132

Vieites, D.R., Wollenberg, K.C., Andreone, F., Kohler, J., Glaw, F. et al. (2009). Vast underestimation of Madagascar’s biodiversity evidenced by an integrative amphibian inventory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106: 8267–8272.

Virah-Sawmy, M., Gardner, C.J. and Ratsifandrihamanana, A.N. (2014). The Durban Vision in practice: experiences in the participatory governance of Madagascar’s new protected areas. In I.R. Scales (Ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 216–251.

Waeber, P.O., Wilmé, L., Mercier, J.R., Camara, C. and Lowry II, P.P (2016). How effective have thirty years of internationally driven conservation and development efforts been in Madagascar. PLoS One, 11: e0161115.

Waeber, P.O., Schuurman, D. and Wilme, L. (2018). Madagascar’s rosewood (Dalbergia spp.) stocks as a political challenge. PeerJ preprints, available: https://peerj.com/preprints/27062/.

Weatherley-Singh, J. and Gupta, A. (2017). An ecological landscape approach to REDD+ in Madagascar: Promise and limitations? Forest Policy and Economics, 85: 1-9

Weis, J.S., Weis, P., MacDonald, J. and Pearson, L. (2009). Rapid changes in fish utilization of mangrove habitat in western Madagascar. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17: 345–354.

Westerman, K., Olesen, K.L.L. and Harris, A.R. (2012). Building socio-ecological resilience to climate change through community-based coastal conservation and development: Experiences in southern Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science, 11: 87–97.

Wilmé, L. and Waeber, P.O. (2017). Tartuffe’s Madagascar: Conservation hypocrisy. Madagascar Conservation and Development, 12: 3-6.

Wollenberg, K.C., Jenkins, R.K.B., Randrianavelona, R., Rampilamanana, R., Ralisata, M. et al. (2011). On the shoulders of lemurs: Pinpointing the ecotouristic potential of Madagascar’s unique herpetofauna. Journal of Ecotourism, 10: 101–117.

World Bank (1992). Madagascar Cotton Development Project: Project Completion Report. The World Bank: 51 pp.

World Bank (2013a). Madagascar Country Environment Analysis: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. World Bank: 139 pp.

World Bank (2013b). Doing Business 2014 Economy Profile: Madagascar. World Bank Group, Washington, DC: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18871 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.

World Factbook (2018). Madagascar - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/ma.html. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.factbook

WWF (2011). Treasure Island: New Biodiversity on Madagascar (1999-2010). WWF Madagascar & West Indian Ocean Programme Office, Antananarivo, 32 pp.

Yount, J.W., Tsiazonera and Tucker, B.T. (2001). Constructing Mikea identity: Past or present links to forest and foraging. Ethnohistory, 48: 257–291.

133

Annex 8: Case Studies and Site Visit Notes 1 – CSO Efforts to Combat Wildlife Trafficking Problems & Challenges In Madagascar, environmental matters have only rarely been successfully tackled by the justice system. For example, the 11 cases of tortoise trafficking recorded in the Court of First Instance of Mahajanga have all been dismissed. The offenders were either released or escaped from detention. According to Transparency International, Madagascar is among the most corrupt countries in the world (155 of 180) and the governance sectors (Justice, the Security Forces, and Decentralization) have been compromised over the past 10 years.

Civil Society is challenged to facilitate exemplary enforcement of wildlife trafficking laws and to confront corrupt officials and other criminals that have access to substantial financial resources. Approach In 2016, the environmental civil society platform – Malagasy AVG (Alliance Voahary Gasy) – was able to launch a project called ALARM (Application of the Law against Abuse on Natural Resources of Madagascar) through the technical and financial assistance of the network EAGLE (Eco-Activists for Governance and Law Enforcement). The following initiatives have been implemented:

• Tracking traffickers through the establishment of a committed and organized team (investigators, technicians and lawyers) using clear operating procedures codified in a manual, and a complete legal arsenal deployed in close cooperation with the judiciary, security forces, customs officers, and the Ministry of the Environment. • Establishing close relations and regular communication with diplomats and relevant authorities to capitalize on their assistance and minimize corruption and undue influence. • Systematizing regular media communications and continuous legal monitoring. Successes The following outcomes have been achieved:

• Arrest of seven gangs totaling 25 people (including a gendarme and a Chinese national) and seizure of 2,241 turtles in two years in Antananarivo and at the airport. • Laws (CITES N° 2005-018 or COAP N° 2015-005) applied within the norms: imprisonment of between 6 months and 5 years, with fines ranging from 10 to 100 million MGA. • Diplomats and high-level authorities respond positively and proactively to requests for assistance. • Methodology successfully adopted by other NGOs and even by the agents of the GOM. For example, the Toliara Network of Actors (BIANCO-DREEF-WWF-Justice- Gendarmerie) managed to thwart an attempt to export 10,000 tortoises in May 2018. • The experiment has been replicated and adapted by AVG to leverage other partnerships with IUCN, DWCT, and others, including with other species such as lemurs.

134

Shortcomings • The AVG/EAGLE partnership lapsed, and the project was interrupted for a time owing to a lack of mutual trust and different approaches. For example, the prosecutor and the gendarmerie warned AVG about the interference of an EAGLE consultant in the GOM’s administrative procedures. • The sanctions that are applied are still the least severe and, to date, no kingpins have been apprehended.

Lessons The following lessons can be drawn from what has been achieved to date:

• Review, adapt, and continuously improve the operations manual of the ALARM project. • Catalog, train, and maintain the network of virtuous collaborators across different sectors and geographies. • Conduct regular courtesy visits to support and encourage collaborators.

Photo 1: A gendarme of the canine brigade at the international airport apprehended for tortoise trafficking (Source: AVG)

135

2 – Civil Society Lobbying Activities Problems & Challenges For a variety of reasons, advocacy or lobbying by civil society groups rarely leads to the desired outcomes. In some cases, the failures are the result of poor presentation, weak evidence, disparate interventions, or politicization. Some CSOs are themselves politicized, and the authorities regard them as an arm of the opposition.

Malagasy civil society must improve the way it engages with the GOM to gain respect and to acheuive tangible results through advocacy.

Approach Civil society platforms must be formed and professionalized for specific areas of intervention. Some examples include:

• AVG (environmental governance) • Solidarité des Intervenants sur le Foncier (SIF)/Sehatra lombonana ho an’ny Fananantany (land tenure) • Tafo Mihaavo (fokonolona and Natural Resources Management) • MIHARI (governance of marine and coastal resources) • Mouvement National pour l’Éducation Pour Tous (MONEPT – education for all)

Occasional coalitions of civil society platforms are formed to advocate for urgent, strategic causes that influence the development or reform of public policies at the level of central government or parliament. The ROHY movement, the largest gathering of civil society today (with more than 120 platforms and organizations), was set up in 2015 to combine the efforts of all stakeholders in the fight to end chronic poverty and establish better governance in the management of the country’s affairs.

Successes Various regulations have been promulgated following the violent arrests of environmentalists representing civil society:

• Decree 2010-141 of March 14, 2010 prohibiting the cutting, transport and export of ebony and rosewood • Promulgation of the Ordinance 2011-001 of August 8, 2011 relating to regulation and repression of the infractions relating to rosewoods and ebony • The Diospyros and Dalbergia genera of Madagascar were listed in Appendix II of the CITES Convention in March 2013

Civil Society Organizations now have access to decision makers in the National Assembly (Commissions and Plenary) on various bills and their voices are being heard on several subjects including:

• Economic, Financial and Tax Delinquency

136

• Titled private properties • Presidential, legislative, and general elections

Shortcomings The laws being promulgated are not necessarily enforced. For example, the precious timber traffic has decreased but it has not stopped, and no kingpins have yet been apprehended.

The statements of parliamentarians during the work of committees are not always in accordance with the decisions taken by the plenary assembly.

Lessons Learned The way votes are conducted in the National Assembly and suspicions of vote corruption inhibit the expression of true individual opinions. Secret votes would be more effective.

There is a need for better communication and greater trust between parliamentarians and civil society.

Photo 2: Civil society organizations and platforms with the European Commissioner for Development in Madagascar (Source: AVG)

137

3 – The Angonoka: A Symbol of Madagascar’s Unique Fauna Under Threat of Extinction in the Wild The ploughshare tortoise (Astrochelys yniphora or angonoka in Malagasy) is one of the most endangered reptiles on earth. Its native range is very restricted, and the tortoise is highly threatened owing to habitat loss and poaching (Pedrono and Clausen, 2018).

Problems & Challenges The Baie de Baly National Park was created specifically to protect the angonoka but there are also rare and threatened species of lemur (Decken’s sifaka – Propithecus deckeni), turtles (big- headed turtle – Erymnochelys madagascariensis) and birds (Humblot’s heron – Ardea humboti, Madagascar sacred ibis – Threskionis bernieri, Madagascar fish eagle – Haliaeetus vociferoides, Madagascar teal – Anas bernieri, etc.). There are six sites within the Baie de Baly PA that used to be home to native populations. One site is now devoid of tortoises and the others are under extreme pressure. In 2016, the fokonolona decided to collect all the remaining tortoises and relocate them to the safest of the six sites – the most remote site – where they could be protected from poaching. Other locations are being checked monthly to see if there are any remaining animals.

Approach The forest adjacent to the small fishing village of Beaboaly is now the sole site in the angonoka’s native range that has tortoises, and even here they are occasionally poached. Today, there is a compound/sanctuary surrounded by a 2-meter high fence with razor wire on top and 24/7 armed guards that live and sleep at the location (four gendarmes at the Beoboaly site and eight others elsewhere in the PA). There are security cameras throughout the site. Images provided by the cameras indicate that poachers are not from the local communities. There are community patrols in other parts of the PA. The DWCT and MNP cover the cost of this military presence and pay the local guards. Poaching has decreased significantly since the guards were deployed. One poacher received a five-year prison sentence and was fined MGA 100,000,000 (about US$30,000).

There are 135 angonoka at the Beaboaly site – 46 of these are young that have hatched within the past two years. The location was originally a reintroduction site for tortoises that were captive bred at the Ampijora facility (run by DWCT) in the Ankarafantsika NP southeast of Mahajanga. There used to be a lot of wild tortoises at Beaboaly, but there was a major bush fire there several years ago and they all died. The reintroduction from Ampijora started in 1998. It has been a great success.

People are aware of the value of a ploughshare tortoise; they can sell one in Mahajanga for about MGA 2 million ($600) and they sell for at least $5,000 in Bangkok. There are patrols in the park and the military (gendarmes) are present around the clock, but the benefits of poaching a tortoise are too tempting. It is typically the poachers themselves or the middlemen that are caught, not the kingpins driving the trafficking.

Even the captive breeding center in Ankarafantsika (which lies outside the native range of the angonoka) has been subject to theft. In May 1996, 73 tortoises were stolen but none have been

138 lost since then. There are currently 525 tortoises at Ampijora (eight breeding females), and about 50 of these were hatched within the past 7 to 8 months. One hundred five of the tortoises bred at the site have been reintroduced to the wild (Beaboaly site).

Successes Ernest Bekarany, director of the DWCT breeding center, described recent attacks at the Ampijora site that resulted in the arrest and jailing of several people. The commandant of the gendarmerie has been implicated in several incidents – including attempted bribery of staff at the site – but he was never arrested. One women offered MGA 2 million for a tortoise. The conversation was taped, and she was arrested and sentenced to two years in prison. She was released after three months. Again, the commandant was implicated. Chinese people have visited the site and offered to pay MNP staff in US dollars to steal tortoises. In Soalala (the town nearest to the Baie de Baly NP), there is one well-known family that is still involved on poaching and trafficking of tortoises. At least one member of the family was arrested in Bangkok with angonoka in their possession.

The mayor of Soalala, Habiro Herimany Abdallah, noted that the biodiversity in the area is very rich and the community wants the sustained support of donor projects. Examples of benefits from the protected areas (or from biodiversity) include schools that have been built, local associations that have been created and supported, and the 1990 decree to establish the Baie de Baly PA (42,000 ha). DWCT has built schools, distributed fishing gear, and supported agriculture. Beekeeping has some potential since its success depends on a healthy forest, including mangroves. At Lake Kinkony (a Ramsar site), the NGO Asity has introduced apiculture. In 2008, DWCT provided training in handicrafts to women’s groups, but there are too few visitors to make an impact on livelihoods. The tourists all come by road, which means there are long periods when there are no visitors because the road is impassable during the rainy season.

Shortcomings The challenges include the minimal impact of “sensibilisation” efforts on reducing the threat to biodiversity. Local people do not understand the importance of the PA, and the management (Madagascar National Parks) is not transparent when reporting revenues from visitors. The transfer of a portion of the revenues is too little to benefit and encourage the communities, even when there are payments. There have been many meetings between MNP and the communities, but there are few answers to the questions the people are asking. The PA is zoned, allowing the community members to use some area, but there is no community access. The communities are aware of the importance of the conservation efforts – they do not poach the animals – but there must be collaboration between park management and the communities. Park staff do not engage in a supportive manner.

There are eight fokontany around the PA; there are 24,000 people in the Baly fokontany alone. The total population adjacent to the PA is about 63,000 people. There are about 100 visitors each year based on MNP data, and the entrance fees to the Baie de Baly and Tsingy de Namoroka NPs is about MGA 5,000 for residents and MGA 10,000 for foreigners. Even if all park revenues were shared with the surrounding communities, the additional income would be

139 less than US$ 0.05 per family per year. Visitors also support the local economy – staying in small hotels, eating at restaurants, and buying handicrafts – but tourism companies in Antananarivo and Mahajanga reap the lion’s share of the revenues.

Lessons Learned The main success of the Durrell/MNP initiative has been the high breeding success rate of the angonoka not only at the Ampijora breeding center but also at the Beaboaly facility. Jocelyn Bazara (director of the Baie de Baly and Tsingy de Namoroka National Parks) explained that the plan is now to increase the size of the enclosure, so that the tortoises can roam relatively freely rather than being in pens. Translating these successes into tangible benefits for the communities that are the stewards of the habitat upon which the angonoka depends will require improvements in governance, collaboration among multiple interests, and a concerted effort to catalyze investment in tourism and other initiatives that improve the livelihoods of local people.

Photo 3: Angonoka tortoise at Beaboaly in the Baie de Baly National Park

140

4 – Diversifying Livelihoods Opportunities in Fishing Communities of Southwest Madagascar The NGO Reef Doctor works north of Tulear from the Fiherenana River to near Manombo. While Reef Doctor focusses mainly on marine conservation, the team has adopted an integrated approach to improving local livelihoods and supporting a variety of conservation and development initiatives.

Problems and Challenges 2018 has already seen 80 percent crop loss inland, so many farmers are moving to the coast for alternative sources of food/income. A recent fisheries assessment for the Ranobe Bay area provided a catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 300g of fish (per fisher/day fishing) using gill-nets. Selective gear fisheries are higher: harpoon is about 400-500 g CPUE and boat seines are about 1 kg CPUE. One village has 400 active pirogues. Malnutrition-related stunting in this area is 43 percent.

About 1,000 trees/year are needed to build new fishing vessels (just for the Belalanda area). The forests are gone so there is no fuel wood or timber. The Fisheries Department is planting mangroves and wants Reef Doctor to help, but the NGO’s mangrove plan is with MEEF. This is not only a local issue – government jurisdiction over mangroves is disputed between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Marine Resources and Fisheries (MRHP).

Approach There are 660 ha of wetlands in the Belalanda area. Of these, 120 ha are mangroves and 100 ha are reed beds. Five villages are involved with Reef Doctor – from Belalanda to Ambotsibotsike.

Reef Doctor has helped reforest or regenerate 90 percent of the mangroves near Belalanda. Previously people replanted only Rhizophera because it propagates very easily. This created “monospecific” stands of trees that are not typical for Madagascar, where eight species of mangrove are represented; some mangroves have as many as seven species (as near Belalanda). 8 ha were lost in 2018, many to uncontrolled fires in adjacent reed beds rather than to deliberate burning. To date, many NGOs/projects have paid people to plant mangroves, and this has given rise to a mentality of only doing conservation work when there are “wages.”

Reef Doctor has supported seaweed and sea cucumber farming in several communities along the southwest coast. These efforts have been implemented in close partnership with private firms that provide technical support, inputs (such as juvenile sea cucumbers), and market access.

Reef Doctor has introduced aquaculture to the inland margins of the marshes. Tilapia are raised. The fingerlings come from Fianarantsoa and from the University of Tulear. The fish are sexed when they are moved to the adult ponds. There are some problems with theft of fish, but it is not yet a serious concern. Reef Doctor is testing different fish feed – using waste from coastal fisheries, spirulina pellets, etc. – with a grinder for making pellets. They have received a grant from the Indian Ocean Commission (to Reef Doctor and COUT) of €20,000 to support families that have land. They help these families dig ponds and buy pumps for oxygenation of 141 the pond water. Reef Doctor provides technical support. The fish are then sold in local markets and are in high demand. Reef Doctor’s goal is to build an association that will develop Village Savings and Loans initiatives to scale the aquaculture projects. One farmer has now transitioned out of agriculture and is 100 percent engaged in aquaculture. He has multiple pens/ponds that can be harvested throughout the year and so has no interruption in income.

Successes The overall impression is that there is no hope for marine fisheries in this area. The aquaculture projects are now self-sufficient, but Reef Doctor is still available when needed. Reef Doctor’s goal is to increase the revenue of fishers by US$1.00/day. This has been achieved for some fisher/farmers – notably for households farming sea cucumbers and also some seaweed farmers and those practicing tilapia aquaculture.

The west coast of Madagascar has massive seagrass beds, and there are still a lot of fish including predators such as sharks. Reef Doctor is trying to develop new fishing areas. Artificial reefs constructed with rebar cages (nested) provide safe areas for juvenile fish but they also increase the pressure on the remaining healthy reefs. Seaweed farms also provide shelter for fish. One innovative plan would be to license all the existing fishers in Ranobe (exclude all others) and then operate a large-scale sea cucumber fishery. IOT can produce juvenile sea cucumbers at scale, so the whole of Ranobe would be a production zone.

Shortcomings The seaweed projects have been hit with disease that has cut production by about 30 percent over the past two years. Incomes are now about MGA 25,000/month for the seaweed farmers. This is not enough to support a family. Food prices are increasing, and people need more money to survive. Reef Doctor’s Emma Gibbons believes that a food crisis is imminent in this area, possibly in the whole region. Food aid is needed but it needs to be provided in a totally different way.

Ambolimailaka Village near Ifaty has a large sea cucumber industry, but there are also 40 seine nets in the community (most made in part from mosquito nets). Tilapia and sea cucumber farming is being compromised by Chinese traders that come to the villages and buy the produce at prices higher than the price negotiated with the organizations that have been providing support and inputs (for example, IOT). The central government will not do anything about this. The minister recently came to the area but did not address the main issues: deforestation, fuelwood, or timber for building boats. Instead he gave away life-jackets. Fiberglass boats hold a lot of promise, and old pirogues can be renovated with fiberglass.

Reef Doctor has also tried to implement agroforestry projects in adjacent communities. The NGO targets areas that were cleared of forest, either for maize when there was a big market in Reunion or when the World Food Program decided to start buying maize locally, or for cotton when the World Bank started promoting that crop in the region. The farmers are planting maize, beans, manioc (cassava), onions, breds, zucchini, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, bananas, carrots, sugar cane (though the prices are low), and cucumbers. They are also planting coconut palms and fruit trees. But they received only three days rain since the beginning of the year, so all

142 these crops will fail except for some adjacent to the shallow wells that were dug for irrigation water.

Lessons Learned For Reef Doctor, education at the community level is a priority/necessity. People that cannot read, cannot learn easily. People that can read and write are typically “promoted” to represent the community and to manage projects. This destabilizes the community structure and organizational capacity.

Toliara Sands (the ilmenite mining company) should invest in education. There are no Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) programs currently. For example, there are trash trucks in the area but there are no mechanics to maintain them. For construction projects, all the builders are brought in from Antananarivo. Manombo (more likely Morombe?) used to have a vocational training school but it no longer operates. Someone should be teaching people how to work with fiberglass.

Photo 4: Sea cucumber pens (with guard tower) near Mangily. In the middle-ground, fishers are using mosquito nets to catch fish.

143

5 – Multiple Use Sanitation Facility and Ecosystem Services: The Pride of Ambinaninony The multiple use sanitation facility in Ambinaninony provides an example of ways in which rural villages can derive tangible benefits from ecosystem services and are encouraged to protect the environment. Under the auspices of a food security program, the international NGO CRS has supported a public-private partnership to establish a Gravity Flow Water Services System (GFWSS) that is managed jointly.

The communities, led by the natural resources management committee and the mayor, ensure the protection of the water source through reforestation efforts and supporting natural forest regeneration in the catchment area supplying springs. The GFWSS provides clean water and a sanitation facility for about 50 households. It includes a water point, toilets, showers, and a clothes-washing area. The facility is managed by Ms. Nicka. She understands the community’s need for clean water and opens the facility at 5:30 AM every day.

Photo 5: Images of WASH facilities and soil conservation initiatives in Ambinaninony.

The private manager and the community water committee are responsible for cleaning water filters and storage tanks, the chlorination of water, and averting an interruption of the water supply (except when equipment maintenance and cleaning are necessary). The system is operated based on a clear business plan developed by the private sector. The GFWSS has not only created employment for youth but has also instilled a deep sense of ownership within the community.

Now that the facility is operating, Ms. Nicka notes that “many people have already changed their behavior and no longer practice open defecation. They refuse to drink unreliable water.” People are very happy to have safe water and it costs less than paying someone to fetch water from the river. Mrs. Rasoa, a water committee member, says that “when we are visiting families in another place, we always ask them where the drinking water comes from, and we refuse to drink it if we don’t know that it’s coming from a reliable place.”

144

Annex 9: Analysis of Global Forest Watch Data for Madagascar 1 – Analysis and Results Using data published by Global Forest Watch for the period 2010 to 2017, the 118/119 team conducted a series of analyses to gauge geographical variations in deforestation rates across Madagascar and identify deforestation hotspots. For this analysis, we used data showing annual changes in areas of forest with a 50 percent tree-cover canopy density. Other analyses of change in tree cover in Madagascar have used 35 percent or 70 percent canopy density, but we selected 50 percent since it provides insight into wooded areas other than dense, humid forest but does not include more open, potentially degraded area. It should be noted that the Global Forest Watch definition of tree cover and canopy cover excludes most areas of spiny forest – the typical natural vegetation of the south and southwest of Madagascar. Hence the following analysis is most relevant for forested areas of the north and east of the country and parts of the west (dry forest) and the northwest.

Over the period 2010 to 2017, there was a decrease in areas with 50 percent canopy density of about 3 percent. It is striking that the rate of forest loss in protected areas (PAs) over this period was about 7 percent and the rate of loss in areas within 5 km of PAs (a 5 km-buffer around the PAs) was 18.5 percent. Therefore, not only is the national rate of loss of tree cover accelerating (Global Forest Watch, 2018), the rate of loss in PAs is even higher.

Figure 4: Year-on-year percentage tree canopy loss (50 percent canopy density) between 2010 and 2017 in all of Madagascar’s PAs compared with year-on-year percentage tree canopy loss in the 5 km “buffer” outside the PA boundaries over the same period.

To examine the potential reasons for this, we calculated the rate of forest loss (50 percent canopy density) for each of the 22 regions of the country. Between 2010 and 2017, 14 regions lost less than 10 percent of their tree cover (the lowest rate of loss was about 2 percent (in

145

Betsiboka and Androy). In general, however, these low rates of loss occurred in regions with low percentages of tree cover anyway – none of the 14 regions experiencing less than 10 percent loss of canopy cover has more than 10 percent total forest cover.

In the regions that lost more than 10 percent of the tree cover (areas with > or =50 percent canopy density), the rate of loss (2010-2017) suggests a strong correlation with the total percentage tree cover.

Figure 5: Relationship between percentage tree canopy cover (50 percent canopy density) in 2010 and percentage tree canopy loss over the period 2010 to 2017 for eight regions in Madagascar. The regions are numbered as follows: 1 – Diana; 2 – Sava; 3 – Atsimo-Atsinana; 4 – Vatovavy Fitovinany; 5 – Sofia; 6 – Alaotra-Mangoro; 7 – Analanjirofo; and 8 – Atsinanana. The line shows a general trend for forest loss to be higher in regions with the highest percentage forest cover.

In effect, deforestation rates (as measured by loss of canopy density of 50 percent or more) are highest in areas with significant forest cover. The national trend of accelerating forest loss is largely the result of deforestation of the remaining forested landscape. There are no administrative regions of Madagascar where large, forested landscapes are not under pressure. In general, the more forest cover, the higher the rate of deforestation.

To assess the influence of PAs on stemming the tide of deforestation, we calculated the rates of forest loss over the 2010-2017 period in each region, excluding the PAs. In 9 of the 14 regions with less than 10 percent total forest cover (50 percent canopy density), the loss of forest in areas outside PAs was less than in the region as a whole. In other words, forest loss in PAs is increasing the overall rate of deforestation in the region. The exceptions to this pattern are Haute Matsiatra, Melaky, Menabe, Androy, and Anosy where deforestation outside of PAs are the main contributor to the overall rate of deforestation. It should be noted, however, that in

146

Menabe, Androy, and Anosy, the influence of forest loss in PAs on the overall rate of deforestation is small. In contrast, in Haute Matsiatra, deforestation outside PAs is the main contributor to the overall rate of deforestation.

Of the eight regions that have more than 10 percent tree cover (with 50 percent canopy density), seven have higher rates of deforestation outside PAs than the rate for the whole region. In these regions (Diana, Sava, Atsimo-Atsinana, Vatovavy Fitovinany, Alaotra-Mangoro, Analajirofo, and Antsinanana), the PAs have had a dampening effect on regional rates of deforestation. The one exception is Sofia where the rate of deforestation for the whole region (10.15 percent from 2010-2017) is little changed (9.62 percent) when PAs are excluded. One characteristic of this region is that there is relatively little forest cover in PAs.

In summary, rates of forest loss in Madagascar vary significantly from region to region, but there are some common factors that influence variations in rates of deforestation and the impact of PAs on addressing deforestation. In general, administrative regions that have more than 10 percent forest cover had the highest rates of forest loss from 2010 to 2017. PAs in regions with less than 10 percent tree cover generally experienced rates of deforestation similar to the areas outside the PAs. In contrast, in regions with 10 percent or more forest cover, deforestation rates in the PAs was lower than in the areas outside the PAs.

The overall implications of these findings are that deforestation of Madagascar’s landscapes is not stopping at the boundaries of the country’s PAs. Unprotected forested landscapes are the primary target for deforestation, but once forest cover outside the PAs has been depleted, the process of deforestation advances into the PAs.

2 – Methodology The baseline forest cover data used is the Global 2010 Tree Cover (30 m) estimates from the University of Maryland’s Global Land Analysis & Discovery group (GLAD). To find year-on-year loss rates and to estimate 2017 tree cover (> or =50 percent canopy cover), Global Forest Change 2000-2017 “lossyear” data produced by GLAD is used to calculate estimated rates of loss at the national level and sub-national levels by sequentially subtracting yearly loss pixels from the Global 2010 Tree Cover baseline. “Lossyear” is categorized by year of loss and defined as “forest loss during the period 2000-2017, defined as a stand-replacement disturbance, or a change from a forest to non-forest state.” Loss rates and end-date canopy cover totals are then disaggregated by region and protected area to allow more granular comparison of canopy cover.

3 – Sources Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA: Global Forest Change 2000–2017 v1.5

Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342 (15 November): 850–53. Data available on-line from: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest.

147

Global tree cover data (treecover2010) are per pixel estimates of circa 2010 percent maximum (peak of growing season) tree canopy cover derived from cloud-free annual growing season composite Landsat 7 ETM+ data. Data available on-line from: https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/global-2010-tree-cover-30-m

148

Annex 10: Climate Change Projections USAID’s Climate Economic Analysis for Development, Investment and Resilience (CEADIR) project is in the process of conducting a climate risk assessment for USAID/Madagascar that will inform the Mission’s CDCS. Here we present some general background information based on desk research and feedback from organizations and individuals contacted during the 118/119 field visits.

Meteorological data for Madagascar already indicate that climate change is occurring (World Bank, 2011):

• Temperatures have increased by 0.2°C over northern Madagascar and by 0.1°C over southern Madagascar. • Between 1961 and 2005, statistically significant increases in daily minimum temperatures occurred across all seasons at most locations where data are available, and several locations indicated increased daily maximum temperature trends (except for winter temperatures). • The character of rainfall across Madagascar has changed significantly, although no obvious trend in rainfall can be surmised from the available records. However, since 1950, the relationship between temperature and rainfall has varied greatly across Madagascar, with increased temperatures and decreased rainfall in the north and the opposite in the south. • A reduction in winter and spring rainfall has been detected in most parts of the country. • In the central and east coastal regions, rainfall has seen a steady decline between 1961 and 2005, accompanied by increases in the length of dry spells.

The climate risk profile for Madagascar (ATLAS, 2016) provides a summary of anticipated climate change over the coming 80 years.20 Assuming current trends continue, warming of 2.5 to 3.0º C is projected with increased unpredictability of seasonal rains. Extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones, and floods are projected to become more intense or more frequent. Other assessments (Indian Ocean Commission, 2011; World Bank, 2011) suggest that cyclones will be less frequent but more intense, especially in the north of the country. Broadly, the ATLAS (2016) assessment indicates increasing biodiversity loss, reduced access to water resources, ocean warming and acidification, loss of coastal habitats, crop failures, and increased incidence of vector- and waterborne disease.

A more detailed assessment based on data from a range of climate models indicates a high degree of uncertainty in the projections and nuances that suggest considerable variability at a sub-national and local scale. For example, the impact of more severe rainfall events on soil erosion will likely be significantly greater in eastern and northern Madagascar because of the topography and soil characteristics in addition to the projected changes weather patterns (Panagos et al., 2017).

20 The risk profile includes a climate classification map of Madagascar previously published by Peel et al. (2007). It should be noted that the map data are misleading. Peel et al. (2007) note that the paucity of meteorological data for Madagascar (particularly at lower elevations) results in an overrepresentation of temperate climate types. In effect, any climate projections using this map as a temporal baseline are likely to be inaccurate.

149

A suite of Global Climate Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well meteorological data from 23 stations across the country available from the Climate Systems Analysis Group at the University of Cape Town and a regional climate model, provide the following assessment of climate change (World Bank, 2011):

• By 2065, temperatures are projected to increase between 1.1°C and 2.6°C, with the lowest increases along the northern coast and the highest increases in the south. • By 2065, rainfall in the south is projected to: o Increase during the summer months of January-April, and again in October- November, except for the extreme south, which may become drier in October. o Decrease during May, with greater decreases projected inland from June to September. • By 2065, projected changes in rainfall are less certain for the north, with some models suggesting drier and others suggesting wetter conditions. • By 2100, the frequency of cyclones is projected to decrease over the Indian Ocean, particularly between September and December. Cyclone intensity is projected to increase by 46 percent and shift northwards, with implications for agriculture, food security, and infrastructure.

The implications of these projected changes are as follows:

• Projected decreases in rainfall, coupled with projected increases in the length of the dry periods could pose additional stress on already vulnerable livelihoods in southern Madagascar. • Projected temperature increases could disrupt unique and critical micro-climates and lead to significant changes to local farming systems, with implications for food security.

These findings – published in 2011 – have been borne out over the past seven years, when droughts have prevailed in the south and severe weather associated with cyclonic events have led to catastrophic floods that damaged crops and infrastructure.

150

Annex 11: Donor and NGO-Funded Projects in Madagascar that Support Conservation of Forests and Biodiversity

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation Coordinating with The World Bank Projet de résilience et de The Commune The objectives of the Integrated Urban développement urbains intégrés Urbaine Development and Resilience Project for dans l’agglomération d’Antananarivo (CUA) Greater Antananarivo Project is to enhance d’Antananarivo and a selection of the urban living conditions and flood resilience in other 36 communes selected low-income neighborhoods of Greater Antananarivo, and to improve the recipient’s capacity to respond promptly and effectively to an eligible crisis or emergency. There are four components to the project, the first component being improving urban drainage, services, and resilience in targeted areas. Madagascar Pilot Program for GOM The objective of the program is to pilot and Climate Resilience Phase I demonstrate ways to integrate climate risk information and resilience into core development planning, while complementing other ongoing activities. Within the context of Madagascar, the government suggested several priority sectors in its expression of interest that was submitted to the CIF in March 2015. These sectors have been stated as priority actions in the Government of Madagascar’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions - Contribution Prevue Déterminée au niveau National, which was developed in preparation for COP21. The following sectors are particularly targeted: agriculture, fishing, livestock farming, forests, water, and environment. The high biodiversity of Madagascar plays a significant role in adaptation and some analytical work could explore the policy implications for conservation as well as the possibility of piloting ecosystem- based adaptation.

151

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation Projet d’Agriculture Durable par GEF The development objective of Sustainable une Approche Paysage (PADAP) Landscape Management Project for Madagascar is to increase access to improved irrigation services and agricultural inputs and strengthen the integrated management of natural resources in the selected landscapes by the local actors and, to provide immediate and effective response to an eligible crisis or emergency. Madagascar - Social Safety Net Fonds d’Intervention The objective of the Social Safety Net Project Drought Response Project pour le (SSNP) for Madagascar is to support the Développement (FID) Government in increasing the access of extremely poor households to safety net services and in laying the foundations for a social protection system. The project will scale up the existing SSNP through cash transfers and community nutrition services to address some of the urgent needs of the poorest population suffering from the severe drought in the south of Madagascar, exacerbated by El Niño. On September 26, 2016, the Government of Madagascar declared a humanitarian emergency for the region and requested support from the international community, including the World Bank, to provide a rapid and effective response for the most affected population. Agriculture Rural Growth and Land GOM The objective of the Agriculture Rural Growth Management Project for and Land Management Project for Madagascar Madagascar is “to improve rural land tenure security and access to markets of targeted farming households in selected agricultural value chains in the project areas, and to provide immediate and effective response to an eligible crisis or emergency.” There are five components to the project, the first component being agribusiness value chain development. This component consists of three main sub- components: i) improving the enabling environment; ii) knowledge and technology transfer; and iii) enhancing access to agriculture finance. The second component is the support to land policy and land rights registration. The third component is the support to marketing infrastructure development and maintenance.

152

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation Second Integrated Growth Poles GOM The objective of the Second Integrated Growth and Corridors Program Project for Poles and Corridors Program Project for Madagascar Madagascar is to contribute to increased economic opportunities and access to enabling infrastructure services, as measured by an increase in jobs and formal firms in targeted regions. The project has three components: 1) strengthening the enabling environment for entrepreneurship and investment component will accelerate the economic recovery process by strengthening economic governance and increasing investor and private sector confidence; 2) sector-based growth in the Atsimo-Andrefana, Anosy, and Diana regions component is composed of mutually reinforcing activities that are specific to each select region and that will promote in particular tourism and agribusiness development and improved service delivery to poor populations; and 3) project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, safeguards, impact evaluation component will finance the project implementation unit and allow it to implement the project, comply with fiduciary rules and safeguards, and fulfill monitoring and evaluation, and impact evaluation commitments. Scaling Renewable Energy Various Potential for co-finance the scaling of solar: Program, World Bank support for PES linked to clean energy. Agriculture Rural Growth and Land World Bank Improving rural tenure security, access to Management markets of households in selected agricultural value chains. Irrigation and Watershed Ministry of Agriculture Rural livelihoods and potential for integrating Management Project, World Bank PES into agricultural development activities. Coordinating with the European Union Programme d’Appui à GOM This program has the challenge of “feeding the l’Agrosylviculture autour capital” through a large area of intervention that d’Antananarivo, ASA covers 102 municipalities. It focuses on agricultural value chains (market gardening, fruit growing, poultry farming, milk and fish farming), wood energy sector (reforestation, improved carbonization technique and production of improved stoves), and includes a transversal component of land security.

153

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation INCA (Natural Capital Accounting) Various Natural capital accounting contributes to a globally consistent approach to account for ecosystems and their value. The EU contributes to the UN development of accounting standards that includes environmental reporting, which is still in an experimental phase and includes ecosystem accounting. This ensures that the EU continues to play a lead role in international environmental affairs through its support for effective measures, international standards, and accounting relating to natural capital. Management of Marine Indian Ocean The European Union is the leading technical Biodiversity Commission and financial partner of the Indian Ocean Commission and it has supported a large number regional programs for the development of the island States members of the commission. These programs seek to enhance the capacity of island nations for good governance of fisheries, management of the coastal zones, and the management of coastal, marine and island-specific biodiversity. The programs will help to address gaps in the legal, administrative, and institutional framework and hence strengthens enforcement of regulation and compliance to international and regional agreements such as the Nairobi Convention and its protocol and fisheries regulation to reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. Coordination with the UNDP PACARC / PACARC (Projet GOM PACARC (Adaptation and Resilience Capacity d’Amélioration des Capacités Building Project for Rural Municipalities faced d’Adaptation et de Résilience des by Climate Change), financed by the Global Communes Rurales face aux Environment Facility and UNDP, has been Changements Climatiques) implemented since June 2016 until June 2021 in eleven communes of the five regions. The objective is not only to promote appropriate national measures to enable Madagascar to cope with the impacts of climate change but also to benefit from the opportunities of this climate change. Finance pour la Biodiversité MEEF The Biodiversity Finance Initiative responds to “BIOFIN” Madagascar national needs for resource mobilization as it aims to support the country to better inform biodiversity management expenditure, to identify funding needs, and to present a comprehensive methodology for developing a resource mobilization strategy.

154

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation Coordination with USAID Hay Tao Pact Hay Tao, a five-year activity valued at $23 million, will be one of two major activities under a Conservation and Communities Project operated by USAID. Hay Tao will provide capacity building to enhance information services in support of policy reform as well as strengthening and empowering local communities to lead the way on managing nearby natural resources “from reefs to rainforests to regulators.” Mikajy Tetra Tech USAID’s Mikajy focuses on two regions rich in biodiversity and economic potential – Menabe in the west and an area in the northeast consisting of protected rainforest landscapes and seascapes, anchored by Makira and Masoala Parks and Antongil Bay. The project will provide environmental protection while simultaneously lifting the fortunes of local communities by giving those communities a bigger say in the management of their local resources and promoting sustainable community development and the creation of related jobs. Water for Africa through Ministry of Water, Rural WASH; building the evidence base for Leadership and Institutional Energy, & gauging the effectiveness of integrated Support, USAID (DAI) Hydrocarbons conservation and WASH programming. BRIDGE, USAID (DAI) CI, Smithsonian Integration of conservation with other sectors; PEA and assessment tools; innovative technologies for MRV; ecosystem valuation. East Africa Trade and Investment AmCham, National Coordination on the vanilla value chain. Hub, USAID (DAI) Cooperative Business Collaboration with the Africa Growth and Association, Opportunity Act Resource Center on training Cooperative League programs for the business community. of the USA, McCormick Southern Africa Trade and Various Potential collaboration on policy support and Investment Hub, USAID (DAI) private sector engagement on region trade. Mikolo, USAID (Management CRS, Action Socio- Gauging the effectiveness of integrated Sciences for Health) sanitaire, Ministry of conservation and community health Health programming as well as maternal and child health. Interagency agreement, U.S. Collaboration on improving PA operations and National Park Service revenue generation through restructuring visitor fees and concessions.

155

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation Fararano Title II Development CRS Linking conservation to agricultural production Food Assistance Programs, and marketing, NRM, non-agricultural income USAID generation, integrated health/family planning, nutrition, WASH, education, reintegration, and social safety nets. RANO-WASH, USAID CRS, CARE, Link conservation activities to WASH services. WaterAid Shared Resources, Joint IUCN Supporting sustainably managed landscapes Solutions-Madagascar, Various that provide ecosystem services to local communities and enhance broader economic development needs. Coordination with Various Donors Western Indian Ocean Large Various Total funding is estimated at $344.7 million. Marine Ecosystems Strategic The program ends in 2020. Action Program Policy Harmonization and Institutional Reforms (SAPPHIRE) Strategic Action program for the MacArthur Designed to protect marine areas from land- Protection of the Western Indian Foundation based activities and sources of pollution. Ocean, GEF Transforming Financial Systems AFD Multi-country initiative with total funding of for Climate, GCF $279.7 million. Agricultral Policy (Agriculture and Various Two separate projects with total financing of €6 Food Security), AFD million. Biosphere Protection Various One project with total financing of €7 million. (Environment and Natural Resrouces), AFD Environmental Policy Various One project with total financing of €3.5 million. (Environment and Natural Resources) Sanitation, AFD Various Three projects with total financing of €27.815 million. Climate Investor One, GCF FMO – Netherlands Multi-country initiative with total funding of $100 Development Finance million. Agency Programme d’Appui à la Gestion Symrise, Unilever, Collaboration on outreach to vanilla farmers de l’Environnement, GIZ Rio Tinto, Ministry of and the mining sector to protect the Energy environment and improve policy for natural resources. Inclusive and Dynamic Various Watershed management, forestry, agroforestry, Development, Japan International health, water, hygiene, sanitation. Cooperation Agency Miara-miasa ho Antoky sy Toe- SAHA NGO and Strengthening local governance and citizen karena Ifotony (Programme Action participation to public services for integrated MATOY), Swiss Cooperation Intercooperation development. Madagascar

156

Project and Donor Partners Potential Areas of Cooperation Projet d’Appui aux Politiques et Various Knowledge sharing on strategic agricultural Stratégies de développement development and forest conservation linked to Agricole and Programme economic development. Holistique de Conservation des Forêts, AFD International Research Center for Association Nationale Coordination with CIRAD, universities to Agricultural Development, CIRAD d´Actions manage biodiversity and develop upland rice Environnementales, cropping systems. Centre National de la Recherche Appliquée au Développement Rural, Centre National de Recherches sur l’Environnement, and others Food Security and Maternal/Child Fanoitra/SARAGNE/ Working in food security/health: gauging the Health in Western Madagascar, Comité Régional – impact of integrated conservation and Louvain Development Gestion intégrée de development. la zone côtière Promotion of solar cook stoves, MNP, Helvetas - Assessing the impact of the introduction of ADES Swiss cook stoves, solar panels, solar power for Intercooperation, communities on natural resource management. Tany Meva Foundation TSINJO HARENA: Pro-Poor Tandavanala Local NGO creating wealth to serve Carbon initiative, Multiple donors empowered communities: piloting new measurement, reporting, and verification tools. SWIOFish2, World Bank, GEF Indian Ocean Improve marine fisheries management. Commission SmartFish, Indian Ocean Indian Ocean Improve marine fisheries management. Commision Commission Gestion Durable des Zones Indian Ocean Improve marine fisheries management and Côtières Commission coast resoruce management. Althelia, Green Climate Fund Various Provide access to finance to mitigate climate change. Tany Meva, Various Various Funding for conservation activities, sustainable development and NRM. Fondation pour les Aires Various Funding for biodiversity conservation activities. Protégées et la Biodiversité de Madagascar, Various Appui au Financement de Various Support for the agriculture, fisheries, and l’Agriculture et aux Filières livestock sectors. Inclusive, European Union

157

Other donor organizations active in forest and biodiversity conservation in Madagascar: Association Européenne pour l’Étude et la Malagasy Institute for the Conservation of Conservation des Lémuriens Small Grants Tropical Ecosystems Agence Française de Développement IUCN SOS Lemurs Biodiversity Conservation Madagascar JRS Foundation BirdLife Lemur Conservation Foundation Blue Ventures Margot Marsh Foundation Bristol Zoological Society Missouri Botanical Garden California Academic of Sciences McArthur Foundation Conservation International National Geographic German Academic Exchange Service Norwegian Embassy (DAAD) Parc Zoologique de Paris Disney Foundation Primate Conservation Inc. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust Rain Forest Trust Fondation pour les Aires Protégées et la Rufford Small Grant Biodiversité de Madagascar The Mohamed bin Zayed Species Fondation Tany Meva Conservation Fund Global Environment Facility – Small Grant TRAFFIC Program U.K. Embassy German Embassy U.S. Embassy Global Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Conservation Society Hemsley Foundation Whitley Fund for Nature Houston Zoo World Wide Fund for Nature Institute for the Conservation of Tropical Environments – Stony Brook University and

158

Annex 12: Map Showing Madagascar’s Protected Area System

159